"Sub-Saharan" African Labeling Correct or Incorrect ??

[AMICHAI]

Haplogroup E1B1A (considered by most non-African natives as "sub-saharan" marker) possible time of origin
approx 20,000-30,000 years ago

Origins...The discovery of two SNPs (V38 and V100) by Trombetta et al. (2011) significantly redefined the E1b1a phylogenetic tree. This led the authors to suggest that E1b1a may have originated in East Africa. V38 joins the West African-affiliated E1b1a1 and the northern East African-affiliated E1b1a2 with an earlier common ancestor who, like E1b1, may have also originated in East Africa.[2] It is possible that soon after the evolution of E-V38, trans-Saharan migrants carried the E-V38 marker to northern Central Africa and/or West Africa where the more common E-M2 marker later arose and became prolific within the last 20,000-30,000 years.[/B] However, the sheer diversity of E-V38 in West Africa supports the earlier held position that the lineage has origins there.[1]

The downstreams SNPs E-L576 and E-M180 both possibly originated on the moist south-central Saharan savannah/grassland of northern West Africa during the early Holocene period (10,000 b.c.). Much of the population that carried E-M2 retreated to southern West Africa with the drying of the Sahara. These later people migrated from Southeastern Nigeria and Cameroon ~8.0 kya to Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa causing or following the Bantu expansion.[According to Wood et al. (2005) and Rosa et al. (2007), such population movements from West Africa changed the pre-existing population Y chromosomal diversity in Western, Central, Southern and southern East Africa, replacing the previous haplogroups frequencies in these areas with the now dominant E1b1a1 lineages. Traces of earlier inhabitants, however, can be observed today in these regions via the presence of the Y DNA haplogroups A1a, A1b, A2, A3, and B-M60 that are common in certain populations, such as the Mbuti and Khoisan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1a_(Y-DNA)

Sahara Desert - The Sahara (Arabic: الصحراء الكبرى‎, Aṣ-Ṣaḥrā´ al-Kubrā, "The Great Desert") is the world's largest hot desert and second largest desert, after Antarctica. It covers most of Northern Africa, making it almost as large as China or the United States. The Sahara's boundaries are the Atlantic Ocean on the west, the Atlas Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea on the north, the Red Sea on the east, and the Sudan (region) and the valley of the Niger River on the south.

Countries that are covered by the Sahara partially or completely.
Algeria, Chad, Sudan, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, (these countries are covered partially by the dersert) Djibouti,
Egypt, Eritrea, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara.

Climate - The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[13] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[14] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[15]

Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara though, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon season is caused by heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July around 7000 BC.[16]

By around 4200 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[7] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[13] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_desert


The Sahara Pump Theory - The Sahara pump theory is a hypothesis that explains how flora and fauna migrated between Eurasia and Africa via a Levantine land bridge. The theory observes that extended periods of abundant rainfall lasting many thousands of years (pluvial periods) in Africa are associated with a "wet Sahara" phase, during which larger lakes and more rivers exist.[1] This causes changes in the type of animals found in the area.

During periods of a wet or "Green Sahara", the Sahara and Arabia become a savanna grassland and African flora and fauna become common. Following inter-pluvial arid periods, the Sahara area then reverts to desert conditions, usually as a result of the retreat of the West African Monsoon southwards. Evaporation exceeds precipitation, the level of water in lakes like Lake Chad falls, and rivers become dry wadis. Flora and fauna previously widespread as a result retreat northwards to the Atlas Mountains, southwards into West Africa, or eastwards into the Nile Valley and thence either south-east to the Ethiopian Highlands and Kenya or north-east across the Sinai into Asia.

Human migration - The Saharan pump has been used to date four waves of human migration from Africa, namely:[10]

Homo erectus (ssp. ergaster) into Southeast and East Asia
Homo heidelbergensis into the Middle East and Western Europe
Homo sapiens sapiens "Out of Africa theory"
The spread of Afro-Asiatic languages (Berber and Egyptian to North Africa and Semitic to the Arabian Peninsula and Middle East).
The formation of the modern Sahara, as a result of the 5.9 kiloyear event is also considered to be a part of the same mechanism in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory

The 5.9 kiloyear Event -
The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene. It occurred around 3900 BCE (5,900 years BP), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiated the most recent desiccation of the Sahara desert. Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BCE.[1] It is associated with the last round of the Sahara pump theory.

Effects - In the Middle East the 5.9 kiloyear event led to the abrupt end of the Ubaid period.[7]

Historically the period of the 5.9 kiloyear event is associated with the increased violence noticed in both Egypt and throughout the Middle East, leading eventually to the Early Dynastic Period in both the First Dynasty of Egypt and Sumer. James DeMeo and Steve Taylor suggest that this period is associated with the rise of patriarchy, institutionalised warfare, social stratification, abuse of children, the development of the human ego, separation from the body, the rise of anthropomorphic gods and the concept of linear historic time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

Question: If E1B1A originated 20-30KYA in East Africa (trombetta 2011), The Sahara desert covers most of north africa and 6 countries partially, the Sahara desert changes in size and aridity (dryness) according to the Saharan Pump Theory, and the "5.9 kilo year event" defines the most intense and current aridification of the desert (occuring 3,900 b.c.), how can people who are born in Algeria, Chad, Sudan, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, or have E1B1A dna (which is 20-30ky old) be properly defined as "Sub-Saharan" versus "Trans-Saharan" as if people with E1B1A were not the same people that occupied the sahara during periods of wetness or "Green Sahara"??? If you have proof that E1B1A's did not occupy the sahara lands during "green sahara" periods please provide it. Thanks!

"The term Sub-Saharan means next to nothing and any one who tries to discover which countries located in the Sahara are considered Sub-Saharan will quickly come to the realization that the term makes no sense." anonymous

[AMICHAI]

Pictures of rockart that depicts life in the Sahara during its "green" periods drawn some 10kya.

[AMICHAI]

No replies = No answers???

[BerberWarrior]

I don't necessarily think "Sub-Saharan" is a that nice term but I guess it goes with it.

[AMICHAI]

I don't necessarily think "Sub-Saharan" is a nice term but I guess it goes with it.

Thanks for the reply...

Please define "Nice" in the subjective context that you used it in, and why dont you think Sub-Saharan is a "nice" term? Could you please attempt to explain how "It goes with it" ("Sub-saharan" labeling of E1B1A's) versus a term like "trans-saharan" considering the estimated time of origin of E1B1A's, and the saharan pump theory? Also, could you please provide evidence that proves E1B1A's were NOT the same "trans-saharan" people that occupied the sahara during it's "green periods"?

Thanks

[jibarodepr]

I prefer West African, Central African and South African

[ayigbe]

I don't see anything wrong with it

It's a geopolitical term similar to Western Europe, Middle East, South East Asia, Latin America, etc.

[beyoku]

I think the term is fine describing modern people in an certain area of describing what certain people look like. OTOH the further you go back in history and the more detailed you get in talking about populations, the word becomes kind of useless. People use Sub Saharan as a euphemism "Negroid". You run into the issues because Sub Saharans are not always "True Negroes" and "True Negroes" are not always Sub Saharans.

I think Brace makes a good point in his 1993 publication:

The category in the minds of the users of those various names is the same as the
“true Negro” of traditional “racial” anthropology (Morton, 1844; Seligman, 1930, 1957). We do not deny that such a configuration exists and is identifiable, and that people who illustrate it can be found in known areas of sub-Saharan Africa. The problem lies in the assumption that those separate elements are invariably linked together so that the presence of one can inevitably be taken to indicate the presence of the others.

Its unfortunate to read publications that assume every Sub Saharan looking skeleton they find outside of a boundary is a recent immigrant to they place where they have found it.

[AMICHAI]

I think the term is fine describing modern people in an certain area of describing what certain people look like. OTOH the further you go back in history and the more detailed you get in talking about populations, the word becomes kind of useless. People use Sub Saharan as a euphemism "Negroid". You run into the issues because Sub Saharans are not always "True Negroes" and "True Negroes" are not always Sub Saharans.

I think Brace makes a good point in his 1993 publication:



Its unfortunate to read publications that assume every Sub Saharan looking skeleton they find outside of a boundary is a recent immigrant to they place where they have found it.

Thanks for the reply beyoku.

The problem I have with the "sub-saharan" description of people with E1B1A is that,
E1B1A has existed since 20-30kya, and recent dna evidence suggest that it originates in north east africa via the discovery of V38 and V100 by Trombetta. It then goes on a westward/southern migration into other parts of Africa. When studying the sahara desert you find that it is not stagnate, it changes in size (expands and shrinks) throughout its history. There is a significant amount of saharan rock art that depicts Animals that do not live in the desert, and self depictions of "black" people living amongst them. "Much of the population that carried E-M2 retreated to southern West Africa with the drying of the Sahara. These later people migrated from Southeastern Nigeria and Cameroon ~8.0 kya (6000 b.c) to Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa causing or following the Bantu expansion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1a_(Y-DNA)
"Attempts to trace the exact route of the expansion, to correlate it with archaeological evidence, and more recently, with genetic evidence, have not been conclusive, and so many aspects of the expansion remain in doubt or are highly contested"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
Most mainstream genealogical resources like to attribute E1B1A as "Sub-Saharan" ancestry that can only trace its history to the "bantu expansion/migration" that occured at the earliest (im being liberal basing this date on inconclusive evidence mentioned above) between 6,000-1,000 b.c. That is a total of 22-17k years of untold African history that has been summarized by the "Bantu migration", and the term "Sub-Saharan" (a term that means south of the sahara). My question is, where is the evidence that discriminates E1B1A's from occupying the sahara during it's "green/wet" periods considering, it's date of origin (30-20yka), the 22-17k years of untold history about them, the sahara pump theory, and sahara rock art that depicts "black" africans?? If no evidence exist besides, the "bantu migration" and the term "sub-saharan" itself, then I conclude that the term is inaccurate and omits approximately
20k years of african history.

[beyoku]

What you have is a bunch of Lazy people writing about what they believe to be other folks history. They are fimiliar with the science but not the historical narrative of the region they study........and dont seem to care about it. Intellectual laziness is what it is. Many geneticists are guilty of it. Even if I stroll over to 23andme. If you search for Maternal lineage that they are too lazy to write about they just post this image of a slave port:





Edit - Another thing is what you are talking about requires a lot of reading and or research in order for it to be believed. Its one thing to say that the ancestors of E-M2 people have a more Northern Origin, its another thing for people to actually believe it because most people dont. E1b1a is a COMMON Sub Saharan lineage, it is not an exclusive Sub Saharan lineage, nor does it always indicate the recent migration of Sub Saharan. It will take a while for this idea to be come mainstream mainly because people are just plan dumb, but also because ideas like this are not pushed my mainstream geneticists. These lazy brains are still talking about "Sub Saharans" at a time when the Sahara does not exists. Keita and Kittles in their last publications on Y-Chromosomes of New World people had a very well put introduction into the background of Western Africa, the Social/Historical aspect was there and very well written. The scientific part on the other hand was surprisingly underwhelming and very low resolution.