R1 haplogroup an ancestral genetic signature of East Asia

  In addition to craniometric evidence we also have genetic evidence for the African origin of the Chinese.

      The genotype data provides clear evidence of the phylogenetic relationship of  Africans and East Asians. It is clear that African derived haplogroups R1b1, E, DE and R1b1b2 are found in East Asia. Y-haplogroup is found among many Chinese Muslims or Huis.

There is evidence of R1 in East Asia. Zhong et al (2011) reported a number of y-chromosome markers in East Asia including R1a1 (29.41%0, R1b* (3.2%), R1b1b2 (1.6%) and R2 (3.21%).

It is interesting to note that Zong et al (2011) tested for the M335 marker which was first discovered in Turkey and classified as R1b. The M335 marker is a brother clade to R1b1* (M343+V88-M73-M269). This is interesting because R1b1* pursuant to ISOGG is R1b1 or V88.

Reference:

Zhong H, Shi H, Qi XB, Duan ZY, Tan PP, Jin L, Su B, Ma RZ. Extended Y chromosome investigation suggests postglacial migrations of modern humans into East Asia via the northern route. Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Jan;28(1):717-27. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq247. Epub 2010 Sep 13. PMID: 20837606.

Anzick and Luzia People are related

 

Posth et al (2017) in their genetic study noted that “  Genome-wide analysis of 49 Central and South Americans up to  11,000 years old d Two previously unknown genetic exchanges between North and South America d Distinct link between a Clovis culture-associated genome and the oldest South Americans d Continent-wide replacement of Clovis-associated ancestry beginning at least 9,000 years ago “.

 

 

Some researchers have used this article to claim that the Paleoamericans, the most ancient Native Americans are related to contemporary mongoloid Indians. This view is false. Posth et al, in their study supported the view that Anzick child and Luzia culture folk were related.

Posth et al (2018), did not make this finding. The researchers reported that “The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (from the site of Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Cone individuals. In Belize, individuals from two sites dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP (Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul) do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America. In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1)”.. The authors added, “The distribution of this statistic f₄(Mbuti, Test; USR1, Anzick-1) confirms previous findings that Anzick-1 relatedness is greatest in Central and South Americans and lowest in North American groups” noted that “(Posth et al, 2018).

As a result, there was no continuity between Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans. Posth et al (2018)  noted that “ However, the fact that the great majority of ancestry of later South Americans lacks specific affinity to Anzick-1 rules out the hypothesis of a homogeneous founding population”.

Paleoamericans are related to Australians, Africans or Melanesian, in other words a cranial morphology of the Negro/Black people.

This view was supported by the Posth et al (2018) who noted that ”  Our finding of no excess allele sharing with non-Native American populations in the ancient samples is also striking as many of these individuals—including those at Lapa do Santo—have a “Paleoamerican” cranial morphology that has been suggested to be evidence of the spread of a substructured population of at least two different Native American source populations from Asia to the Americas”.

Although, some researchers claim that the Paleoamericans came from Asia, this finding is not supported by the genetic evidence that make it clear that the oldest inhabtants of East Asia are not related to the Paleoamericans. Posth et al (2018) wrote “Our failure to find significant evidence of Australasian or Paleolithic East Asian affinities in any of the ancient Central and South American individuals raises the question of what ancient populations could have contributed the Population Y signal in Surui and other Amazonian groups and increases the previously small chance that this signal—despite the strong statistical evidence for it—was a false-positive.”.

References:

Posth C, Nakatsuka N, Lazaridi I, et al. (2018) Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America. https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2818%2931380-1

Anzick DNA

 

Researchers often compare aDNA to modern groups. When DNAeXplained – Genetic Genealogy compared Anzick boy DNA to modern groups they found it was related to Y-hap R2. (https://dna-explained.com/2015/01/05/anzick-matching-update/  ) the current Anzick kit, F999919, and found at 5cM and below that there were 4 haplogroup M matches.

 

Note:

Haplogroup R2, or R-M479, is a Y-chromosome haplogroup characterized by genetic marker M479. It is one of two primary descendants of Haplogroup R (R-M207), the other being R1 (R-M173).

 

R-M479 has been concentrated geographically in South Asia and Central Asia since prehistory. It appears to reach its highest levels among the Burusho people in North Pakistan.[2] However, it also appears to be present at low levels in the Caucasus, Iran, Anatolia and Europe.[citation needed]

 

It has two primary branches: R2a (M124) and R2b (R-FGC21706).

Originally Chatters thought they were Europeans, since his research into Naia he has come around. 12kya the paleoamericans carried the D haplogroup, which in reality is really an M haplogroup, namely M1. This is obvious when we look at the extract profile of Anzick man.

• Anzick Provisional Extract, Es Haplogroup M
  M – discovered in prehistoric sites, China Lake, British Columbia – 2007 Malhi, Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M1a – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M1a1b – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes January 2015 – (1 M1a1b
  
  M1a1e – USA – Olivieri, many Eurasian in Genbank
  
  M1b1 – Anzick Pr ovisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M2a3 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes January 2015 – (1 M2a3)
  
  M23 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913, Madagascar – Recaut and Debut, Madagascar Motif
  
  M3 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M30c – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M30d1 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes January 2015 – (1 M30d1)
  
  M51 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M5b3e – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913
  
  M7b1’2 – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913, Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes January 2015 – (1 M7b1’2)
  
  M9a3a – Anzick Provisional Extract, Estes, September 2014, kits F999912 and F999913tes January 2015 – (7 D with no subgroup
  
  Haplogroup D and M1 are just about the same as shown by the Anzick extractions. See: http://dna-explained.com/2013/09/18/native-american-mitochondrial-haplogroups/

As laymen we assume that when geneticist extract DNA, they automatically determinw what haplogroup the ancient skeleton carried, but as you can see from these provisional extractions the results are varied.

A few years ago I made a blanket statement in an article that there were no M haplogroups in America. One of the peer reviewers commented that there were M haplogroups in the Americas, and this statement was false. I had not found any literature on M groups in the Americas , so I was surprised to hear this. Some propagandists are upset about the provisional Anzick data because it supports the discovery of M at China Lake in Canada. Claiming the Native Americans belong to the D clade, is just a way of denying the presence of haplogroup M in the Americas.

Archaeologist do not like to talk about the fact that M clades were carried by Native Americans, because then you are able to link the paleoamericans and later groups to Africa.

See: http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/05/anzick-matching-update/

The paleoamericans, c. 25-10kya were Khoisan. The Khoisan introduced the Solutrean culture into the Americas and Europe. The discovery of M haplogroups in the Americas is further support for my theory that the Khoisan spread L3(M,N) into Europe. See:

http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-380-389.pdf

http://bioresonline.org/archives/A130.pdf


Looking at the Anzick extractions can show you how geneticist make the decision on what group a population belongs too based on their own ideology.

. 

Munda cultures in India and Iran share features

 

Shinde and Narasimhan et al.: "An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers" https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30967-5

The Shinde and Narasimhan study is interesting because it maintains that based on human remains from Rakhigarhi support the view that the largest contributor to the ancestry among South Asians is Iranian ancestry. “But this new study shows that the lineage of Iranian-related ancestry in modern South Asians split from ancient Iranian farmers, herders, and hunter-gatherers before they separated from each other--that is, even before the invention of farming in the Fertile Crescent”.

 This finding indicates that farming did not spread into South India from the Middle East. "Ancestry like that in the IVC individuals is the primary ancestry source in South Asia today," says Reich. "This finding ties people in South Asia today directly to the Indus Valley Civilization."

This statement is false, because Rakhigarhi was not an Indus Valley Civilization. This was a Munda civilization, the IVC was founded by Dravidian speakers from the Nile Valley.

It  is not surprising that Southeast Asian hunterer-gatherers matched DNA from Iran and Turkmenistan because the Munda people or negrito people like the Annamese. The “little negroes”,  like the Anu people had spread from Africa into Eurasia after 10,000BC.

The Mehrgarh and Rakhigarhi cultures are different from the IVC civilization. These sites are in blue on the map. These cultures like the cemetery are near the Ghaggar -Hakra River. These sites are pre-IVC the date back to 6000BC, 3500 years older than the IVC sites. As a result, artifacts from the Mehrgarh (7000 BC), Bhirra (7500BC),   and Rakhigarhi (6000BC ) sites that are as much as 3500 years older than sites and the artifacts from the IVC.

 Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 B.C. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples.

Fairservis  makes it clear that early cultures of Baluchistan are analogous to Early Dynastic Sumerian, this movement eastward of the ancient Kushites led to the rise of the Indus cultures.The Sumerians, Mande and Dravidians formerly belonged to the Maa Culture                         The Dravidians in the IVC made different figurines and made seals. The Dravidians in the IVC mainly cultivated millet--not wheat.

The Sumerians probably called the Indus Valley Dilmun. Dilmun was a rich trade center that provided Sumer with many valuable trade items.

The Gondi were originally Munda speakers. The Gond community is widespread because the ancestors of the people living in 8 states recognized that IVC culture was superior to the original semi-farming culture the Gondi  had practiced since the Mehrgarh and Rakhigarhi cultures. The Tamil introduced to the Gondi an agro-pastoral culture and literacy. The Munda speakers today refused to abandon their original culture and adopt the new cultural elements introduced to the Indus Valley by the Tamil. The art from Mehrgarh and IVC show the connection between these people.

Mehgarh was a culture developed by the Munda people web page .In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Veddoid people, followed by the Negritos, Mongoloid, the Kushite-Dravidians and finally Aryan speakers.

The Negritos or Munda , Mongoloid and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The Munda or Australoid people are a mixed group that combines the classical Mongoloid and pygmy features. The speech of this Negrito group is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech. The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture.

The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus at Mehrgarh and Rakhigarhi in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals, namely wheat. Find out more about munda in the following article: http://ispub.com/IJBA/4/2/5591

Africans took the Solutrean culture to USA

 In my paper the: The  Paleoamericans came from Africa , I explained that Khoisan from Africa took the Solutrean culture to North America. 

Recent research makes it clear that here is continuity between the DNA carried by Paleoamericans and Africans.




My research is confirmed by the DNA.

In On the peopling of the Americas: molecular evidence for the Paleoamerican and the
Solutrean models", by Dejian Yuan and Shi Huang this research confirms my proposition that Africans introduced the Solutrean culture to North America. The authors wrote that.

 "Morphological analyses of early skeletons in the Americas have suggested that characteristics
of some Pleistocene and early Holocene skeletons are different from present-day Native
Americans and fall within the variation of present-day indigenous people in South Pacific
(Australians, Melanesians, Polynesians, and Negritos) and certain sub-Saharan African groups
(1-3). This is particularly so for the first South Americans, while the first North Americans seem
to be somewhere in between modern South Pacific and Europeans. No resemblance was noted
between the first Americans and either Northeast Asians or modern Native Americans. This has
led to the Paleoamerican hypothesis that the initial pioneer population in the Americas had
common ancestry with indigenous people in South Pacific which was largely replaced by
populations with Northeast Asian affinities in the early Holocene but may have persisted in
some locations in South America such as the extinct Pericúes and Fuego-Patagonians (4, 5).

We examined the Solutrean hypothesis by testing whether Anzick-1 may be specifically related
to the ~18720 year old El Miron from the Magdalenian culture in Spain (preceded by the
Solutrean) while the other two ancient Amerindians may not (35). In distance to EUR samples,
El Miron was the only ancient DNA among all examined that showed positive correlation only
with Anzick-1 but not with the other two ancient Amerindians Kennewick Man and Saqqaq (Fig.
4A). The correlation of other European aDNAs with Anzick-1 likely indicates a general European
element but not special ancestry relationship as they were also similarly correlated with the
other two ancient Amerindians. The ~7300 year old farmer CB13 from Spain was the most
correlated with Anzick-1 among European aDNAs, consistent with a special connection between
El Miron and Anzick-1 and local genetic continuity."

See: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/04/26/130989.full.pdf

.This new research supports the fact that foundational Black Americans are descendants of the first Americans.

Paleo-Egyptian-Black African Language

 

During the late pleistocene clay pottery or baskets were probably used by hunter/fisher/gather groups to collect grain, as evidenced by numerous millstones found on early Saharan sites.

     These hunters early domesticated the dog. These dogs were used by hunters to catch their prey. The Egyptian term for dog is

0 uher #. This Egyptian term corresponds to many African, and Dravidian  terms for dog:

Egptian     uher                

Azer        wulle

Bozo        kongoro

Guro        bere

Vai         wuru, ulu

Bo(Bambara)  -ulu

Wassulunka   wulu

Konyanka     wulu

Malinke      wuli, wuru, wulu

Dravidian    ori

The above data indicates that there is contrast between Paleo-Afican l =/= r. The Egyptian 0 uher # , Azer 0 wulle # and Manding 0 wuru #  suggest that the r> l in Paleo-African. There is also vowel alternation in the terms for dog  o =/= u. The predominance of the vowel /u/ in the terms for dog, make it clear that o<u. This evidence suggest that there are two Paleo-African terms for dog: Paleo-African (PA) *uru and *oro.

     Although the Paleo-Africans may have had seasonal migration patterns their ceramic traditions and intensive exploitation of plant foods show a continuity of the technological and structural tradition in the Libyan Sahara, and in our opinion do not reflect a true nomadic herder tradition characterized by historic nomadic societies.(Winters 1986b) It is interesting to note that while cattle predominate the pictorial scenes in the Libyan Sahara, the faunal remains from Uan Muhuggiag and El Kaduda for example, indicate that most Paleo-Africans kept domesticated goat/sheep.

(Obenga 1988; Barich 1985; Winters 1985a,1986b)  Moreover the earliest animal engravings in the Fezzan were of rams and goats/

sheep. (Quellec 1985:367)

     The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundheaded blacks .(Jelinek 1985:273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and people of Nubia.(

Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985) The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 B.C. (Close 1988)

     These early Paleo-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu

by the Egyptians.(Behrens 1984:30) Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical features of black African people. (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72)

     These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of the Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that the Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they settled South India. A common origin for black Africans and Dravidians would explain the analogous cultural and linguistic features of these

two groups. (Anselin 1982; Winters 1980,1981,1981b,1985a, 1985c)

      The Proto-Mande speakers in the Saharan highlands were probably one of the numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area. If we accept this hypothesis the C-Group people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the Supersets we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the  Niger-Congo speakers Greenberg (1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Mande among the sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data indicating an early Mande domestication of cattle.

      In the Sahara pastoralism was the first form of food production. Augustin Holl (1989) a specialist on western Africa believes that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post-paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the eastern Sahara it would appear that ovicaprid husbandry preceded cattle domestication because cattle were maladaptive to rocky lands. This is in sharp contrast to the western Sahara where cattle was the mainstay domesticate for sedentary pastoral economies.

     Much of the evidence relating to this pastoral way of life comes from the discovery of cattle bones at excavated sites in the Sahara dated between 7000-2000 BC, and the rock drawings of cattle. (McIntosh &McIntosh 1981) In the western Sahara, sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 BP. The ovicaprid husbandry on the other hand began in this area between 5000 to 3000 BP. Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarichinkat between 5000 to 3500 BP.

      The term for cattle,cow in the various African languages

show much correspondence. Below we will compare the term for cow

from various African languages:

 

                          CATTLE/ COW

Egyptian         ng, nag

Wolof            nag

Peul/Fulfulde    nag

Angas            ning

Ankwe            ning

Susu             ninge

Nuer             yang

Baguirmi         m-ang, mang

Gbea             m-angu, mangu

Sar(a)           m-ang, mang

Serere           nak

Mande            nika

Burma            nak

Jarawa           i-nak

Kagoro           nyak

Kaje             nyak

Burak            nyek

Kagoma           nyak

Bobo             nyanga

Kono-Vai         nige

So.W. Mande      ninke

Sembla           nigi

Congo-Benue      *i-nak

Duala            nyaka

Mpongwe          nyare

 

Fang             nyar

Kwa              nare

Azer(Azayr)      na

Soninke          na

Gourmantche      nua, nue

Senufo           nu

Ewe              nyi

Niellim          nya

Boua (Bwa)       nya

Tarok            ina

Iregwe           nya

Dadiya           nee

Amo              na

Baya             nday

Bobofing         nya-nga

Gera              ndiya

Koro              indak

Hausa             nagge

Dravidian Languages

Tamil             naku

Tulu              naku

     The correspondence between African terms for cattle support the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of cattle in the Proto-Sahara. This view is supported by the similarity in the terms for cow/cattle by speakers of the Mande, Niger-Congo, Chadic, and Afro Asiatic Supersets.

 

     Ceramics spread from the  Central and Eastern Sahara into North Africa. These ceramics were of  Sudanese inspiration and date back to the 7th millennium B.C. This pottery was used from the Ennedi to Hoggar. The makers of this pottery were from the Sudan (Andah 1981).

    By the late stone age (LAS) Dravidans were well established in the Sahara (Winters 1985b). These Proto-Dravidans were members of the Saharo-Sudanese tradition (Camps 1974). They lived in the highlands.

      We call these people who live in the ancient Sahara: Proto-Saharans (Winters 1985). Most of the Proto-Saharans lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Paleo-Africans lived on the plains which featured lakes and marshes. During much of the neolithic/epipaleolithic period the Sahara resembled the Mediterranean region in climate and ecology.

     In the Sahelian zone there was a short wet phase during the Holocene (c. 7500-4400 B.C.), which led to the formation of large lakes and marshes in Mauritania, the Niger massifs and Chad.  The Inland Niger Delta was unoccupied. In other parts of the Niger area the wet phase existed in the eight/seventh and fourth/third millennia B.C. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1986:417)

     There were few habitable sites in West Africa during the Holocene wet phase. McIntosh and McIntosh (1986) have illustrated that the only human occupation of the Sahara during this period were the Saharan massifs along wadis. By the 8th millennium B.C.

Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air. (Roset 1983)  Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983b:230) Dotted wavy-line pottery

has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara. (Barich 1985)

     During the late Pleistocene clay pottery or baskets were probably used by hunter/fisher/gather groups to collect grain, as evidenced by numerous millstones found on early Saharan sites.

     These hunters early domesticated the dog. These dogs were used by hunters to catch their prey. The Egyptian term for dog is

0 uher #. This Egyptian term corresponds to many African, and Dravidian  terms for dog:

Egptian     uher                

Azer        wulle

Bozo        kongoro

Guro        bere

Vai         wuru, ulu

Bo(Bambara)  -ulu

Wassulunka   wulu

Konyanka     wulu

Malinke      wuli, wuru, wulu

Dravidian    ori

The above data indicates that there is contrast between Paleo-Dravido-Afican l =/= r. The Egyptian 0 uher # , Azer 0 wulle # and Dravidian 0 ori #  suggest that the r> l in Paleo-African. There is also vowel alternation in the terms for dog  o =/= u. The predominance of the vowel /u/ in the terms for dog, make it clear that o<u. This evidence suggest that there are two Paleo-Dravido-African terms for dog: Paleo-Dravido-African (PA) *uru and *oro.

 

     Although the Paleo-Dravido-Africans may have had seasonal migration patterns their ceramic traditions and intensive exploitation of plant foods show a continuity of the technological and structural tradition in the Libyan Sahara, and in our opinion do not reflect a true nomadic herder tradition characterized by historic nomadic societies (Winters 1986b). It is interesting to note that while cattle predominate the pictorial scenes in the Libyan Sahara, the faunal remains from Uan Muhuggiag and El Kaduda for example, indicate that most Paleo-Dravido-Africans kept domesticated goat/sheep (Obenga 1988 ; Barich 1985; Winters 1985a,1986b).  Moreover the earliest animal engravings in the Fezzan were of rams and goats/

sheep (Quellec 1985:367).

     The inhabitants of the Fezzan were roundheaded blacks (Jelinek 1985:273). The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and people of Nubia (

Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985). The C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 B.C. (Close 1988).

The C-Group people are believed to have founded the Kerma dynasty of Nubia.

     These early Paleo-Dravido-Africans of Libya were called the Temehu by the Egyptians (Behrens 1984:30). Ethnically the Temehu had the same physical features of black African people (Quellec 1985; Jelinek 1985; Diop 1984:72).

     These C-Group people used a common black-and-red ware. B.B. Lal (1963) of the Indian Expedition in the Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia proved that the Dravidian people probably originally lived in middle Africa before they settled South India. A common origin for black Africans and Dravidians would explain the analogous cultural and linguistic features of these

two groups (Anselin 1982; Winters 1980,1981,1981b,1985a, 1985c).

      The Proto-Dravidian speakers settled in the Saharan highlands during the LSA were probably one of the numerous C-Group tribes settled in this area. If we accept this hypothesis the C-Group people would represent a collection of ethnic groups that later became the Supersets we now find in the fragmentation belt, such as the  Niger-Congo speakers Greenberg (1970) believes early domesticated ovicaprids. The origin of the Proto-Dravidian people among the sedentary pastoral C-Group ethnic groups supports the linguistic data indicating an early Dravidian term for cattle which is genetically related to terms for cattle in the Niger-Congo Superset of languages.

      In the Sahara pastoralism was the first form of food production. Augustin Holl (1989) a specialist on western Africa believes that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post-paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the eastern Sahara it would appear that ovicaprid husbandry preceded cattle domestication because cattle were maladaptive to rocky lands. This is in sharp contrast to the western Sahara where cattle was the mainstay domesticate for sedentary pastoral economies.

     Much of the evidence relating to this pastoral way of life comes from the discovery of cattle bones at excavated sites in the Sahara dated between 7000-2000 BC, and the rock drawings of cattle (McIntosh &McIntosh 1981).

    The research indicates and independent origin for the Sanga or Indian type cattle of Africa. Muzzolini (1983) has personally visited many sites in the Sahara and studied the Rock Art found there. He is sure that the zebu cattle of Indian are derived from the humped cattle found in the Rock Art of the Sahara Muzzolini (1983).

    In the western Sahara, sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 BP. The

ovicaprid husbandry on the other hand began in this area between

5000 to 3000 BP. Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarichinkat between 5000 to 3500 BP.

 

ANIMAL DOMESTICATION

     As early as 15,000 years ago cattle were domesticated in Kenya. In the Sahara-Nile complex, people domesticated many animals including the pack ass, and a small screw horned goat which was common from Algeria to Nubia.

   The zebu or humped cattle are found in many parts of Africa.The oldest faunal remains of the Bos Indicus come from Kenya, and date to the first millennium B.C.

    The recent evidence that Bos Indicus , humped cattle, may have originated in East Africa suggest that this type of cattle may have first been situated in Africa, and then taken to Asia by the Proto-Saharans. Testimony to the ancient humped cattle in Africa is supported by the depiction of this type of cattle in the rock art of the Sahara.This view is also supported by the fact that  the advent of the Bos Indicus, cattle in Egypt corresponds to the migration of the C-Group  people into the Nile Valley.

    The C-Group people came from the Fertile African Crescent. Augustin Holl (1989) has made it clear that pastoralism was the first form of food production developed by post Paleolithic groups in the Sahara.

    In the western Saharan sites such as Erg In-Sakane region, and the Taoudenni basin of northern Mali, attest to cattle husbandry between 6000 and 5000 B.P. (McIntosh & McIntosh, 1979,1981,1986,1988). Cattle pastoral people began to settle Dar Tichitt and Karkarchinkat between 5000 and 3500 B.P. (Holl, 1989).

      The term for cattle, cow in the various African languages

show much correspondence. Below we will compare the term for cow

from various African languages:

 

                          CATTLE/ COW

Egyptian         ng, nag

Wolof            nag

Fulani           nag

Hausa            nagge

Angas            ning

Ankwe            ning

Susu             ninge

Nuer             yang

Baguirmi         m-ang, mang

Gbea             m-angu, mangu

Sar(a)           m-ang, mang

Serere           nak

Mande            nika

Burma            nak

Tamil            n_ku

Malayalam       n_ku

Tulu            n_ku

Jarawa           i-nak

Kagoro           nyak

Kaje             nyak

Burak            nyek

Kagoma           nyak

Bobo             nyanga

Kono-Vai         nige

So.W. Mande      ninke

Sembla           nigi

Congo-Benue      *i-nak

Duala            nyaka

Mpongwe          nyare

Fang             nyar

Kwa              nare

Azer(Azayr)      na

Soninke          na

Gourmantche      nua, nue

Tamil            _, _n

Malayalam        _, _n

Konda            _.v

Kannda           _, _vu

Telugu           _vu

Senufo           nu

Ewe              nyi

Niellim          nya

Boua (Bwa)       nya

Tarok            ina

Iregwe           nya

Dadiya           nee

Amo              na

Baya             nday

Bobofing         nya-nga

Gera              ndiya

Koro              indak

Malinke           gu_ga, ko_go ‘zebu’

Songhay           dyu_go

Swahili           Ki-go_go

Kannada           g_nde

Kolami            k_nda, kanda

Gadaba            k_nde

Gondi             k_nda

     The correspondence between Dravidian and African terms for cattle support the archaeological evidence for the early domestication of cattle in the Proto-Sahara. This view is supported by the similarity in the terms for cow/cattle by speakers of the Dravidian, Mande, Niger-Congo, Chadic, and Afro Asiatic Supersets.

     The oldest written evidence from Africa comes from the Egyptian language. The Egyptian terms for cattle/ cow were ng and nag . In other African languages we find either the consonant  n-, before the consonant g/k , e.g., n/v______(v)g/k  ;or the nasal consonant n- , before the vowels  -i,-y , and -a  , e.g., n+i+a =

nia , or n+y+a = nya .

     This evidence of cognition in Dravidian, African terms for cattle/cow show considerable correspondence in consonants and vowels within roots.

Table 1.

                  Correspondence within Roots

Niger-Congo         Nilotic     Dravidian     Chadic    Egyptian

-g/-k                   g        -g/-k         -k         -g

  -s-                             --           -z-         s/z

-n-                   -n-         -n-          -m-          n-

Table 2.

                  Correspondence within Vowels

Niger-Congo        Nilotic     Dravidian   Chadic      Egyptian

-i/-y                           -e/-a     -i/-y          -y

a/u                   a           a/u      a/u            a

 

     The linguistic evidence supports the view that the Paleo-Dravido-African term for cattle/cow was *n'n , *n'g /n'k , and *nia . This data also makes it clear that /g/ and /k/ were interchangeable consonants long before the separation of the Proto-Saharans into distinct African cultural and linguistic groups.

     It is interesting to note that the Chadic terms for cow and cattle corresponds to the Mande terms. Mukarovsky (1987) provides numerous analogous Mande and Chadic terms for cow/cattle.

Mande                                Chadic

Bambara     misi                      Sha   nisi mu

Xassanke     nyinsi                    Gofa  mizzaa

Dyula        misi                      Welamo  mizzaa

Malinke      nisi, misi                Zala    mizzaa

                                       Basketo  mizaa

                                       Boro     miizaa

                                       Anfillo  mintso

       *misi                                        *mizaa

 

     This illustrates  an ancient alternation of the s =/= z consonants in Paleo-African. In terms of the term for cow and

cattle it would appear that the usual pattern was m/v__(v) s/z__.

 

Susu       ninge                       Anga       nin

Mende      nika                        Goemai     nin, nen

Malinke    ningi                        Kofyar    nen

Kono       ningi                        Sura      nin

Vai         nii                         Sha       nisi mu

Bande      nika-i                 Tamil   n_ku

Lomo       nik                Malayalam   n_ku

Kpelle     nina                    Tulu   n_ku

Bobo       nyanga

     *nig / *nik,  *nin                          *nin

 

    In the above Chadic and Mande  terms for cow/cattle we see the n/v_________(v) n. The pattern for Dravidian, Chadic and Mande pastoral words is n/v_________(v) k. The cognition between Chadic Dravidian and Mande terms for cattle/cow indicate that the speakers of these languages were in close proximity to one another during the neolithic.

     In summary, B.B. Lal (1963) has made it clear that the BRW of Nubia and Dravidian megakithic pottry are genetically related. This indicates that the Dravidian people may have originally lived in Middle Africa where this pottery style originated.

    It was in Middle Africa, where we find Rock Art, with humped cattle. Muzzolini (1983) believes that Indian cattle may have come from the ancient Sahara.

References:

Winters,C.(1998). Afrocentric historical and linguistic methods, The Western journal of Afro-American Studies 22(2): 73-83.

_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.

_______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.

_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.