Ero kamano ahinya.
I see it's pretty detailed. And it supports the idea of displacement(and assimilation to a lesser extent). I was wrong about the nature of their movement, in general. Though I still think on the margins(Kenya is a marginal Bantu territory) there was more assimilation than displacement. Maybe Luhyas(who they used in their study) are an exception.
They say Bantus are basically a West African tribe that spread relatively rapidly. Their models seem to favor what I had suggested earlier - that the East African Bantu did not go directly East, through the Central African Republic, but went South and then veered East towards Lake Tanganyika. My belief was informed by linguistics and the current ethnic makeup of Central Africa, but it appears the genetic evidence also supports it.
In East Africa they used Luhya and Pare people. Does that seem representative of the Bantu people in East Africa? I really don't think so. A good East African Bantu sample should include Kikuyus, Sukuma in Tz, Hutus, Baganda(or Luhyas) I think. But it's a start.
Ajolo in Ithi nade
They are better studies out there and they include all the tribes you mentioned, search David Reich' lab results.
How is Kenya a marginal Bantu country?
Yes, Bantus are a West African tribe.
Am good. The Bantu of Kenya are marginal because they are on the edges of the Bantu world compared to say Zambians or Zimbabweans etc. I think it was even more marginal in pre-colonial times when Maasai were relatively larger. It's Bantu majority, but you cannot miss the influence on the of the other groups, especially in Kenya. It's because Kenya happens to be a focal point where three major groups have established their presence(Nilotes, Cushites and Bantu).
