Talk:Tikar people

Who are the Tikar?

There seems to be a confusion between the proper Tikar from the Center province and the different ethnic groups of the Bamenda area often called "Tikar" as their dynasties are said to be of Tikar origin. Ethonologue as well as the other link are talking about the first ones. On the other hand, the second ones are in fact "a group of related ethnic groups" who "live primarily in the northwestern part of the country, near the Nigerian border", but they are much more than 25'000. Many other wikipedia articles (Demographics of Cameroon, Bafut, etc.) who talk about the Tikar are referring to the peoples of the North West rather than proper Tikar. Togui 09:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's something to think about. Then again, as Jan Vansina points out, the linguistic/ethnic identities are fluid in Africa. Whatever you think should be added, go ahead and do so if you are knowledgeable on the subject. I became interest in the Tikar after seeing the recent Henry Louis Gates program. I don't know whether the Tikar Quincy Jones may apparently be related to are the "real" Tikar or the Tikar imprinted by the "real" Tikar. Badagnani 09:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do, please, please cite sources. All of mine describe the Tikar as a number of related fondoms in the NW Province. "Today, the Tikars live mostly in the Mbam region and the northern half of the Bamenda grassfields area, especially in Menchum, Mezam, Donga, and Mantung Divisions." (Neba 57) "Tikar is the general classification referring to the major ethnic groupings of the Bamenda highland." (DeLancey and DeLancey 258) "The term Tikar is therefore collective and applies to the related fondoms spread across from the Bamenda highlands to the Mbam and Ndjim rivers." (Fanso 34) I could find much more, but unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to write a full and proper Tikar article. — BrianSmithson 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll hold off on adding a "sofixit" tag but just say that I started the article because it needed to exist, but I've reached the limit of my knowledge on the subject, so hope you with expertise will add to the article as you see fit. I do note that between Togui and BrianSmithson there are differences between who the "real" Tikar are. Badagnani 12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to disparage your work; I've no beef with the article except that I'd like to see it longer! It is quite possible that there is a specific Tikar ethnic group that calls themselves Tikar and not something more specific, but I'm not sure. In this case, I would suggest referring to them as the Tikar proper. I've done this at, for example, Duala peoples. — BrianSmithson 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Togui and Ethnologue says the Tikar proper live in Centre Province, while you and your sources say they're from Bamenda in the Northwest. So that's a confusion over which of the two the Tikar proper are, because Centre Province is two provinces over from Bamenda. Badagnani 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the intervening peoples are also, technically, Tikar. These peoples are the Bamileke and the Bamun. Before the colonial period, these groups, though related, all had very specific tribal identities. The colonizers wished to group them more conveniently for administrative purposes, so the Bamileke were lumped together, the Bamun were distinguished due to their Islam, and the Northwest fondoms were lumped together. I'm not sure what caused the Centre and Adamawa Tikars to be separated, but my guess would be that it was for some German of French administrative reason. It is definitely something to address when and if the article gets expanded. — BrianSmithson 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article I've just added presents another theory, that the Tikar of the Tikar plain (in central Cameroon?) are the original ones, linguistically and culturally, and that the ones in Bamenda aren't that linguistically close to the original Tikar though they claim descent, political or otherwise, from the Tikar, for whatever reason. They're closer to the neighboring Mbem? Badagnani 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent link! I have only skimmed it, but it will be a wonderful source for whomever expands the article. My gut is to still call the grassfields self-styled Tikar Tikar (which my Cameroon sources largely do) and the original Tikar (whom the Ethnologue link is discussing) something like Tikar proper or original Tikar. There's also a lot of overlap with Semi-Bantu or Grassfields Bantu, which describes many of the same peoples. — BrianSmithson 12:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Grassfields Tikar and Tikar ProperTogui 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bamileke and Bamum (who are closely related to the people of Bamenda area, both culturally and linguistically) also claim descent from the Tikar, although the Tikar language is very different. An hypothesis I once read is that it was the Bamum current dynasty which came from the Tikar and conquer their current country adopting the local language (a bit like Germanic-speaking Franks once conquered and gave their name to what is now France, while adopting the local latin language).

I guess that the "Northwest Tikar" took this name as they saw their Tikar origin as their main common point.

I confirm that I have also often seen in many different sources the name "Tikar" for both groups Togui 14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Population inaccurate

You're population is not accurate JoBean906 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sabotage Paragraph??

Was this paragraph vetted by anyone? Looks like racism/smearing... unedited. No Cap or Period at end.

"there's no other groups call tikar and bamum people bafia people are scientifically and traditionally known to be tikar descendants but some African Americans try to change history sciences and facts to claim what they aren't based on nothing but lies "

I will remove...

Msjayhawk (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Haplogroup L1 Genetics

Information on Haplogroup L1 *was removed. The reason given was "The source on the Sudan doesn't and it doesn't state that Bantus or Tikar were in the Sudan." However, this wasn't at all stated in the content removed. The source states that Haplogroup L1 was found in an ancient Nubia cemetery in 70% of the specimens. As the Tikar are the only ethnic group with Haplogroup L1 observed at 100%, this genetic evidence is very relevant to their migrations. The source does not say the Tikar were in Sudan, but it concludes that their Haplogroup was (a fact that was previously thought to be false). I do not currently see the reason as to why these findings should not be mentioned. GuinanTheListener (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Not all the information on L1 was removed. The material/source stating that L1 ia common in the Tikar (and other Central Africans) was kept, because it was clearly relevant. The other source, on the Sudanese genetic study, never mentions the Tikar. Therefore including it is not supported according to Wikipedia policy. The reason you have given above for its relevance is your own personal opinion/own analysis. As mentioned, adding content based on your own reasoning is WP:OR (also see WP:SYNTH, a type of OR, i.e. combining two or more sources based on your own reasoning). There is nothing in either source that states (again, it must be explicit) that the Tikar have or must have a connection to the Sudan (and, not only is L1 found in many ethnic groups in Africa, but there are many branches of it - L1 is very ancient). The relevance to the topic/connection must be must be explicitly stated in the source, and it is not in this case. Skllagyook (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree that it violates the WP:SYNTH policy. I can see now how it does. GuinanTheListener (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

L3 Haplogroup

The L3 haplogroup originated in East Africa by Bantu peoples who migrated out of Africa to Asia and are believed to have returned 70,000 years ago. This is the common consensus in the field. This is also what the article states. The other source states that L3 is common amongst Africa Americans as well as in Tikar-Bamileke-Pygmies living in Central Africa today. This is what I stated in the genetics section along with the scholarly, reputable sources to back it up. Why was it deleted? GuinanTheListener (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Skllagyook (talk) GuinanTheListener (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) The source: Cabrera, V.M., Marrero, P., Abu-Amero, K.K. et al. Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago. BMC Evol Biol 18, 98 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4 concluded: These results are congruent with a model proposing an out-of-Africa migration into Asia, following a northern route, of early anatomically modern humans carrying pre-L3 mtDNA lineages around 125 kya, subsequent diversification of pre-L3 into the basal lineages of L3, a return to Africa of Eurasian fully modern humans around 70 kya carrying the basal L3 lineages GuinanTheListener (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

GuinanTheListener Please see the explanations in my edit summaries. As I wrote, the view that L3 originates from Asia from backmigrants (as Cabrera argues, and you quoted) is not the only view. Nor is it the consensus. It is one study. See the Haplogroup L3 article. Soares et al., Vai et al , and Lipson et al. (Studies from both before and after the Cabrera study) support the view that L3 originates in East Africa and later spread both within and outside Africa). Cabrera argues that the migrants from Africa did not yet have L3 but that L3 formed in Asia and then was brought back. This is different from the other studies/view, which argue that L3 developed in Africa and then spread both within Africa and out of africa (with the Out-of-Africa migration). There is more than one view. (Also, there was no such thing as Bantu 70,000 years ago. The Bantu languages originated in west central Africa, as just one branch of the much older Niger-Congo family, around 1,000-3,000 BC.)

As I also wrote, Also, I don't see how the ultimate origin of L3 is relevant to the Bamileke and thus this article, since wherever it ultimately originates, it is extremely ancient and widespread haplogroup in Africa (and elsewhere) and has many deeply diverged branches from many regions.

You wrote:

"The other source states that L3 is common amongst Africa Americans as well as in Tikar-Bamileke-Pygmies living in Central Africa today."

That makes somewhat more sense. But your edit of the article reads as referring to the African descendants in the Americas themselves as being termed "Tikar-Bamileke-Pygmies" which is different. Perhaps that statement in the genetics section should be written more as you have written it here. Skllagyook (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The article listed the Tikar/Bamileke/Pygmies as being a cluster that carries the L3 haplogroup in Cameroon. That is why it was important and relevant to list them all. And yes, this is the only consensus that experts in the field believe is valid. Outside of my own research, I even checked the wikipedia page of Haplogroup L3 to see if there were other theories that I possibly missed. It too says that L3 began in East Africa, where East Africans then migrated to Asia and then returned 70,000 years ago. It even has the map of the migration pattern and additional research that also concluded that L3 originated in East African, migrated to Asia and then returned. Also, East Africans are literally referred to as Bantu. If you check the Bantu peoples page, you will see that the highest populations of Bantu peoples are in East African and South-east African countries. GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll rewrite that part of the section for clarity. GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

GuinanTheListener Please see my last reply (perhaps you missed my additions to it). What Cabrera argues is different from what is argues by Soares or stated in Lipson, who do not posit a backmigration of basal L3 from Asia. (Also, the more common view is that, though there were older migrations, the out of Africa migration that lead to modern non-Americans occurred around 70-50,000 years ago, not 125,000 as Cabrera argues. And the 70-50kya migration is around when the other studies propose L3 left Africa.)

Regarding Bantus, Bantu is a linguistic family that originated in west central Africa and spread over central and southern Africa and parts of east Africa (and there are part of East Africa that do indeed now have large numbers of Bantu-speaking people). But the Bamtu family did not originate in east Africa and not all East African peoples are Bantu. There are still African non-Bantu linguistic groups in east Africa that predate the migration of Bantu there, including the speakers of Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic languages - in much of Sudan and the Horn of Africa for example - (along with smaller groups like the Hadza people and Sandawe people who speak language isolates likely also indigenous to the region).

Article on Bantu languages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages

And on their parent family Niger-Congo

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger%E2%80%93Congo_languages

Skllagyook (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you read the article by Lipson:

Lipson, Mark et al (2020). Ancient West African foragers in the context of African population history. Nature. 577. 10.1038/s41586-020-1929-1.

It says:

"The geography of the populations involved suggests the centre of this radiation was plausibly in East Africa (Fig. 4b), and estimated divergences of African and non-African populations place its date at about 80,000–60,000 (bp24,35). Such an expansion is also consistent with mtDNA phylogeography—specifically the diversification of haplogroup L3, which probably originated in East Africa about 70,000 (bp36,37)—and potentially with the origins of clade CT in the Y chromosome tree at a similar time depth (18,38)."

It goes on to say that these East Africans migrated out of Africa, and in Fig 4b, it has a map with the migration of L3 around Africa and has an arrow leading out of Africa to explain the divergences of L3 within non-African populations. They're saying the same thing GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the quote (accidentally put "bp" inside of the parentheses):

"The geography of the populations involved suggests the centre of this radiation was plausibly in East Africa (Fig. 4b), and estimated divergences of African and non-African populations place its date at about 80,000–60,000 bp (24,35). Such an expansion is also consistent with mtDNA phylogeography—specifically the diversification of haplogroup L3, which probably originated in East Africa about 70,000 bp (36,37)—and potentially with the origins of clade CT in the Y chromosome tree at a similar time depth (18,38)." GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not saying the same thing at all. Lipson is saying that L3 originated in east Africa around 70kya, and then some branches spread from there to other parts of Africa and with some other L3 branches (that became M and N) also leaving Africa (with the out of Africa migration that they say happened soon after or around that time). That is also what Soares argued. There is no mention in Lipson or Soares of the L3 that is in Africa having been introduced to Africa through an Asian backmigration. They do not say anywhere (like the Cabrera study does) that humans left Africa 125,000 years ago, with non-Africans splitting off then, and then with Eurasians later developing the L3 mutation in Asia, and later introducing L3 into Africa 70,000 years ago. They are completely different positions. Skllagyook (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

And if you read the other source:

Soares, P.; Alshamali, F.; Pereira, J. B.; Fernandes, V.; Silva, N. M.; Afonso, C.; Costa, M. D.; Musilova, E.; Macaulay, V. (2011-11-16). "The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 29

It says the exact same thing. It's even in the title "The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa". Soares's team even states in their research that the creation of L3 in East Africa followed by a migration out of Africa is the common consensus, but "controversy about the timing in particular remains." So they all agree it happened. There's just a disagreement about when with suggestions between 70,000 to 30,0000 years ago. In Figure 5, there is also a map showing the migration within Africa and then out of Africa. GuinanTheListener (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to be reading my replies. Or perhaps I made late edits after you had already written your reply. But as I wrote, one position argues that L3 formed in east Africa and the other argues that it formed in Eurasia. Soares and Lipson do not argue like Cabrera does that the L3 that is in Africa was brought there by Eurasian migrants. It is a big difference. They also differ on the date of the initial OOA migration (that non-Africans descend from) - another significant difference. Skllagyook (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Soares and Lipson argue that L3 formed in Africa and was brought from there both to other parts of Africa and outside Africa. Cabrera argues that the descendants of an older out of Africa migration (from before L3 had formed) developed L3 in Eurasia (not Africa) and that one branch stayed in Eurasia and another was brought from there to Africa. Do you see the difference? Skllagyook (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

All three argue that L3 was formed in the East Africa and then migrated to Asia. Cabrera's team, in their research, simply found divergences in present-day Central Africa that suggests a descent from an Asian divergence of the haplogroup L3. His theory is that "L3 exited from Africa as a pre-L3 lineage that evolved as basal L3 in inner Asia. From there, it expanded, returning to Africa as well as expanding to southeastern Asia, giving rise to the African L3 branches in eastern Africa and the M and N L3 Eurasian branches in southeastern Asia, respectively" has yet to be disputed from what I found. It was L3 before it left Africa; it just "matured in Eurasia and returned to Africa as basal L3 lineages around 70 kya" in his theory. GuinanTheListener (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

But either way, I'm not pressed for it to be in the article. GuinanTheListener (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Pre-L3 would be different from L3. Cabrera also differ from the other studies in that he posits that the "pre-L3" carriers left Africa in 125kya, while Soares and Lipson posit that (actual) L3 left Africa much later, Africa around 70kya, and spread both within Africa and out of Africa in roughly the same period (which doesnt allow much, or any, room for African L3 to have come from Eurasia - and their maps show the migration arrow coming from east Africa directly to the other parts of Africa that now have L3 - with no Eurasian backmigration in between). But if you are not pressed to include it in the article, then I suppose there is not much reason to continue discussing it now, and it seems that we agree on the current state of the article. Skllagyook (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The Tikar originated from the Mboum

The Tikar originated from the Mboum. Belaka Nya Sana was the first ruler of the Mboum. The name Tikar comes from "Tinkala Dje" in the Mboum language which means "Go out" or "Those who wonder".

It is unacceotably anachronistic to confuse Belaka Nya Sana of the Mboum with the first fons of Tikar. The former is the ancestor of the latter. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Tikar people share ancestry with the Mursi people

The relationship of the Tikari and Herero with other populations is complex. They could be modeled as having 23% ancestry related to an archaic population that diverged prior to the divergence of all modern human populations (possibly reflecting introgression from an archaic population into modern populations) and 77% ancestry from a population related to the Nilo-Saharan-speaking Mursi. A similar pattern was observed in the ADMIXTURE analyses at K = 7 to 11 but with much lower inferred Nilo-Saharan-related ancestries in the Tikari and Herero (Figure S2). The TreeMix analyses showed evidence of gene flow between the Mursi and the ancestors of the Tikari and Herero starting at 5 migration events (Figure S3F). The results indicating archaic introgression in a population ancestral to the Bantu-speaking lineage are consistent with previous studies based on ancient African samples which suggested that the West African Niger-Congo-speaking populations carry lineages ancestral to all modern human lineages. 11 However, time-resolved demographic history models inferred using alternate methods (described below) suggest that the ancestors of San and RHG may have been the first to split from other modern human lineages. 71.176.234.179 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This information should be added to the Wikipedia page regarding the history of the Tikar people 71.176.234.179 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

can someone please include a representative image on the infobox? @MiddleOfAfrica and @Skllagyook might have a good idea about this FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been on the hunt for some images of the Tikar people in the public domain, but most I've found have been copyright-protected. It does look like one has been added to Wikimedia Commons that I missed. I'll update the infobox and get feedback. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a look here, maybe it will help FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Warring

Hi @Skets33, it seems like there is edit warring going on here involving you and @MiddleOfAfrica. Please once your edit is reverted come here to talk and discuss it. If you think the discussion is not fruitful, then use the a third opinion through WP:3O. By any means, do not attempt to reinstate an edit that was reverted as it seems you do not have a clear grasp of Wikipeida polcies for reliable sources although it seems like you have a good understanding of the topic of the article. Remind yourself that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you need to listen to other editors and solve issues amicably. Hope this make sense, let me know if it does not. Take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)