Yes Bantus kept few cows - that were small in stature - and could generally survive the tsetsefly.I saw those cows in most of Luhyaland.
As regard South Africa - the bantus first expanded - they tooks crops, fowls, few goats and sheeps. There was a 2nd wave that brought with them cattle...and those I think are linked proto-maasai/sudanse..pure nomadism/pastoralism was Sudanese invention.
After Bantus - in East Africa - the next wave of migration was proto-south-sudanase - who brought in pure pastoralism - with large herds of cattle.
This group include Luos (came last), maasai, turkanas and all those nilotes. Kalenjin came way earlier through Ethiopia - tagging along proto-southern Kushites.
While Bantus had brought iron tools - and found primitive aboriginal, agro-pastoral kalenjin and proto-cushites (somalis+ oromos and their remnants all the way down to Tanzania) - these new group came lots of cattle and fighting or violence not seen before.
They were dare-devils - led by Maasai - coming with Zebus - Asian cows that were large and hardy. Later Oromos from Ethiopia would bring in the Borana cows.
Down South - the Nguni (not to be confused with Zulu breakaway Ngoni) - a bantu group or maybe a breakaway like Tutsi took the cattle down southern African countries.
I think Tutsi, Iraqws - are probably eastern cushistic breakway - that were left - when main plank - retreated north to ethiopia and eastern towards somali at the arrival of Nilotes (san Kalenjin).
The most dramatic arrival was perhaps the maasai - but generally the sudanase including luos - were fine pedigree of humans (not very handsome but very huge & althetic) with unmatched fighting power - a new breed of a large herd of sturdy cattle - and quickly took territory. Maasai were a freek of nature althetic wise while the Luos were very huge...according to Kalenjin oral history..they were giants.
All this, of course, is linked to consuming animal protein after the discovery of pastoralism up north - consuming meat (animal proteins) will over time increase the height and size of humans - as compared to feeding on crops - which make you look like 5 feet weak asian or khoisan.
Yes, I think one factor that Bitmask ignores or doesn't know, is the major role of discovery iron-making in Bantu epic expansion. Once Bantus discovered(copied from Nigeria-Cameroon-Chad communities) how to fashion basic agricultural implements - they were unstoppable - with machetes - they could hack through forests. Amongst Kalenjin and even Somalis - the iron-making was Bantu imports - the Bantu knew the iron technology - and nobody else knew. But the Bantus were not really interested in fashioning spears or weapons - but mostly agricultural tools - hoes, machetes and etc.
I am aware of that.
Bantus expanded very quickly - because they were not really fighting with anyone over pasture - they were reclaiming forest lands - and only got into small conflict with aboriginals who lived in the forests - whom they easily overpowered. The war-like pastoralist basically controlled the plains - for cows pasture- and couldn't pass the tse-tsefly belt- down to past sub-Sahara desert - except for a few who somehow dared - and got lucky. Those I suspect include the Tutsi and many all the way down to Hereros of Namibia. The couldn't care less if you came - and fought with forest dwellers - the aboriginals - and start your own settlement there. The pastoralist only cared when you started rearing cattle - otherwise most bantus lived peaceful growing crops and keeping chicken, goats and sheeps - amongst the hunters and gathers - hunting and beekeeping - and nomads/pastorals.
In general true. Where they met established groups, the spread tended to be NOT displacement, but by soft power. "Migration" also happened by people adapting their culture and language. Which means the genome remained more or less the same. It is possible that these converted groups already shared this so called Bantu gene. I think many Bantu groups also kept cattle. In fact you could only marry among the Zulus if you had lobola which consists of cows.
In Kenya the Bantus obviously have something in them that Bantus in South Africa don't and vice versa. That is why a Kikuyu is more likely to resemble a Maasai or Ethiopian, a Luhya like Luo or Teso, Mogusii like a Kalenjin etc than a Zulu. Zulu, Sothos, Xhosa etc have substantial Khoisan input. They did not wipe them out, rather they(aboriginals) also became Bantu. I suspect Tutsi and their Banyamulenge analogues also "victims" of soft power.
Bantu violence is a relatively recent thing. Slave raids in the Congo. Mfecane in the South. Fleeing Ngoni displacing groups in Malawi and South Tanzania etc.
Before the arrival of Bantus in Kenya - Kenya was basically occupied by proto-Kalenjin and proto-eastern Cushitic and aboriginals. The main tools and weapons then were fashion from stones and sticks. Those tools changed with arrival of Bantu ironsmiths - and people started fashioning spears, arrows -etc.
Speaking of Kenya - Khoisan (includes pygmies, okieks) were the aboriginal people - these are hunter-gatherer people that were left over when the rest of humans advanced to agriculture and livestock keeping. Surprisingly the aboriginal of Africa - have the same genetic makeup with Asians and American aboriginal - indicate these remnants probably predate the world splitting into continents.
I agree generally. And I suspect the neighboring Bantu share these genes.
Why am I doubtful that Bantu went through Northern Congo forest into East Africa? The languages. I could be wrong, but scanning through grammar of the languages, those of Western DRC are more similar to those of Zambia, Uganda(western Kenya) than they are to those of Eastern DRC such as Kikongo. And in Central Africa and the neighboring area of DRC there are no Bantu. It suggests that at least one group went around the Congo Forest to get to the Kivus.
