Is there any truth to this myth of Oromos living in northern Somalia?

[Zuzu5]

I don't think you understand Apollo. Somalis DON"T have the marker, which IS found in Ethiopians. I bow to his expertise but note this:

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-109

U6a2

• "U6a2a: found in Ethiopia"

Subclade- location- date of origin

U6a2b Ethiopia 8600

U6a2a1a Ethiopia 8600

U6a5a West Africa 8600

U6a5b Sub-Saharan Africa 7200

U6a3f Sub-Saharan Africa 6500

U6a2a1b Ethiopia 5900

U6a2b1 Ethiopia 5200

------------------------------------------------

These are all specific subclades of U6a that do not relate to other areas. You are welcome to your opinion, but I think Apollo is on to something. At the very least, U6a2 distinguishes Somalis from Ethiopians. I do admit that the "Puntite" bit requires a reading of the archaeology of the Gash river basin, which you should look into..

Take up your fight with Apollo. I am not a good surrogate.

I can't talk to a guy that rejects all my sources.

"In 2013, a research unit led by Rabab Khairat of the University of Tübingen completed the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing techniques to gauge the ancestral lineage of an ancient Egyptian. The scientists extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies dating from the late Dynastic to Ptolemaic periods (806 BCE–124 CE). They found that one of the mummified individuals belonged to the I2 mtDNA haplogroup. This discovery is especially interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the I maternal clade is believed to have originated in West Asia, which implies early migrations from this area into Northeast Africa. Secondly, haplogroup I is today quite rare globally and exceeds 5% in few populations. The clade is by far most common among Cushitic speakers, and has been observed at frequencies as high as 23% among some remnant groups in the Great Lakes region. Thirdly, the basal or ancestral I* haplogroup has only been identified in three persons worldwide. Of these individuals, two are from Somalia and the other is from Iran (cf. Olivieri (2013)). Lastly, I2 (formerly known as N1e) is a subclade of N1, a maternal haplogroup that is also rare nowadays but likewise peaks in frequency among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn".


Now you and @Apollo can stop your BS.


@Factz

 

[Factz]

I can't talk to a guy that rejects all my sources.

"In 2013, a research unit led by Rabab Khairat of the University of Tübingen completed the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing techniques to gauge the ancestral lineage of an ancient Egyptian. The scientists extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies dating from the late Dynastic to Ptolemaic periods (806 BCE–124 CE). They found that one of the mummified individuals belonged to the I2 mtDNA haplogroup. This discovery is especially interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the I maternal clade is believed to have originated in West Asia, which implies early migrations from this area into Northeast Africa. Secondly, haplogroup I is today quite rare globally and exceeds 5% in few populations. The clade is by far most common among Cushitic speakers, and has been observed at frequencies as high as 23% among some remnant groups in the Great Lakes region. Thirdly, the basal or ancestral I* haplogroup has only been identified in three persons worldwide. Of these individuals, two are from Somalia and the other is from Iran (cf. Olivieri (2013)). Lastly, I2 (formerly known as N1e) is a subclade of N1, a maternal haplogroup that is also rare nowadays but likewise peaks in frequency among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn".


Now you and @Apollo can stop your BS.


@Factz

You've already debunked him. No need tag me.

 

[Grant]

I can't talk to a guy that rejects all my sources.

"In 2013, a research unit led by Rabab Khairat of the University of Tübingen completed the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing techniques to gauge the ancestral lineage of an ancient Egyptian. The scientists extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies dating from the late Dynastic to Ptolemaic periods (806 BCE–124 CE). They found that one of the mummified individuals belonged to the I2 mtDNA haplogroup. This discovery is especially interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the I maternal clade is believed to have originated in West Asia, which implies early migrations from this area into Northeast Africa. Secondly, haplogroup I is today quite rare globally and exceeds 5% in few populations. The clade is by far most common among Cushitic speakers, and has been observed at frequencies as high as 23% among some remnant groups in the Great Lakes region. Thirdly, the basal or ancestral I* haplogroup has only been identified in three persons worldwide. Of these individuals, two are from Somalia and the other is from Iran (cf. Olivieri (2013)). Lastly, I2 (formerly known as N1e) is a subclade of N1, a maternal haplogroup that is also rare nowadays but likewise peaks in frequency among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn".


Now you and @Apollo can stop your BS.


@Factz

So? We don't know the period. I2 could easily have gotten to Egypt/Sudan through Gaza and then through Kush into V32 and up the Nile and down the Dawa or Genale. Note the high percentages in the Great Lakes region, which was the big pastoral area at the head of the Nile migration route. I2 would not have to have gone through northern Ethiopia or the coastal strip.

"The scientists extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies dating from the late Dynastic to Ptolemaic periods (806 BCE–124 CE). They found that one of the mummified individuals belonged to the I2 mtDNA haplogroup. "

Check with Apollo. If you don't, I will. @Apollo

 

[Grant]

You've already debunked him. No need tag me.

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...yone-have-more-information-on-it.45990/page-2

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/why-islam-is-a-blessing-for-men.46027/page-9#post-1259488

 

[Zuzu5]

So? We don't know the period. I2 could easily have gotten to Egypt/Sudan through Gaza and then through Kush into V32 and up the Nile and down the Dawa or Genale. Note the high percentages in the Great Lakes region, which was the big pastoral area at the head of the Nile migration route. I2 would not have to have gone through northern Ethiopia or the coastal strip.

"The scientists extracted DNA from the heads of five Egyptian mummies dating from the late Dynastic to Ptolemaic periods (806 BCE–124 CE). They found that one of the mummified individuals belonged to the I2 mtDNA haplogroup. "

Check with Apollo. If you don't, I will. @Apollo

Umm.... I'm sure @Apollo is aware of our discussion. He chose to not engage.

A denialist tagging another denialist... not really surprised. Watch Apollo also deny this.

"researchers have observed a high frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele (Ala111Thr or rs1426654) among various Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking Afro-Asiatic populations in Ethiopia. This mutation is closely associated with lighter skin pigmentation, and is believed to have originated in or near West Asia. Almost 60% of Ethiopian Jews and ethnic Somalis from Somalia carry the variant. Tekola-Ayele et al. (2015) found a similarly high percentage of the allele among the Omotic-speaking Wolayta. By contrast, only 12% or so of the Ari ironworkers possess the Ala111Thr polymorphism. Since the Mota specimen does not carry the mutation, this suggests that the ancestors of the Afro-Asiatic groups in the Horn were responsible for having introduced the allele into the Ari gene pool. This, in turn, implies that these early Afro-Asiatic settlers were of a lighter complexion than the Ari’s Mota-like forebears."



Also this.

The anthropologist Carleton Coon observed this firsthand in his detailed examination of physical types in the Horn, “The Mediterranean Race in East Africa”, a chapter in his influential 1939 work The Races of Europe. By analyzing the Sidamos of southern Ethiopia in particular, who are the actual product of recent intermixture between Cushitic peoples and adjacent Nilotes, he was able to see what exact morphological changes such hybridization produces. Coon thus concluded that the local “Hamitic” populations were essentially “Caucasoid” and that “Negroid” influence, while also present, was on the whole minor. He was also able to identify an additional “non-Negroid” ancestral element, which was especially important among Somalis, Afars/Danakils, Agaus and other Cushitic groups. This swarthy “Veddoid” component, Coon postulated, may have arrived in antiquity from the Indus Valley by way of Southern Arabia along with the zebu cattle (Bos indicus): https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/tag/ancient-dna/

-A Hamitic Agau man (Coon (1939)).

This finding is consistent with the Coptic ancestral component that Dobon et al. (2015) observed to be the defining element among Egyptian Copts and other Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Nile Valley and Ethiopia, as well as among many present-day Nubians. Hodgson et al. (2014) found an analogous West Eurasian ancestral component among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn region, with a frequency peak among ethnic Somalis. Since it is unlikely that there was a population replacement among Nubians in the intervening centuries after the medieval Christian period, we can safely assume that the Coptic/Ethio-Somali ancestral component that defines modern Nubians is the same West Eurasian-affiliated ancestral component that defines the KulR17 specimen from Kulubnarti.

Additionally, this aDNA result is in keeping with the aforenoted osteological affinities of MXCH period skeletons from Sudan, as well as medieval iconography of Nubian royalty (see illustration on right). In future posts, we shall see that this finding is also in alignment with the linguistic affiliations of the earlier C-Group and Kerma Afro-Asiatic cultures, and possibly also that of the Meroitic civilization.-https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/tag/ancient-dna/

The 2nd 1 actually adds more validity to the claim @Apollo rejected, And its not surprising since dravidians and tamils are still on this earth.

@Grant Your misleading assertions are very full of contradictions and confounding to my inattentive utterance. That being said, you are extraneous to my time.

 

[Grant]

Umm.... I'm sure @Apollo is aware of our discussion. He chose to not engage.

A denialist tagging another denialist... not really surprised. Watch Apollo also deny this.

"researchers have observed a high frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele (Ala111Thr or rs1426654) among various Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking Afro-Asiatic populations in Ethiopia. This mutation is closely associated with lighter skin pigmentation, and is believed to have originated in or near West Asia. Almost 60% of Ethiopian Jews and ethnic Somalis from Somalia carry the variant. Tekola-Ayele et al. (2015) found a similarly high percentage of the allele among the Omotic-speaking Wolayta. By contrast, only 12% or so of the Ari ironworkers possess the Ala111Thr polymorphism. Since the Mota specimen does not carry the mutation, this suggests that the ancestors of the Afro-Asiatic groups in the Horn were responsible for having introduced the allele into the Ari gene pool. This, in turn, implies that these early Afro-Asiatic settlers were of a lighter complexion than the Ari’s Mota-like forebears."



Also this.

The anthropologist Carleton Coon observed this firsthand in his detailed examination of physical types in the Horn, “The Mediterranean Race in East Africa”, a chapter in his influential 1939 work The Races of Europe. By analyzing the Sidamos of southern Ethiopia in particular, who are the actual product of recent intermixture between Cushitic peoples and adjacent Nilotes, he was able to see what exact morphological changes such hybridization produces. Coon thus concluded that the local “Hamitic” populations were essentially “Caucasoid” and that “Negroid” influence, while also present, was on the whole minor. He was also able to identify an additional “non-Negroid” ancestral element, which was especially important among Somalis, Afars/Danakils, Agaus and other Cushitic groups. This swarthy “Veddoid” component, Coon postulated, may have arrived in antiquity from the Indus Valley by way of Southern Arabia along with the zebu cattle (Bos indicus): https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/tag/ancient-dna/


View attachment 52454
-A Hamitic Agau man (Coon (1939)).

This finding is consistent with the Coptic ancestral component that Dobon et al. (2015) observed to be the defining element among Egyptian Copts and other Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Nile Valley and Ethiopia, as well as among many present-day Nubians. Hodgson et al. (2014) found an analogous West Eurasian ancestral component among Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Horn region, with a frequency peak among ethnic Somalis. Since it is unlikely that there was a population replacement among Nubians in the intervening centuries after the medieval Christian period, we can safely assume that the Coptic/Ethio-Somali ancestral component that defines modern Nubians is the same West Eurasian-affiliated ancestral component that defines the KulR17 specimen from Kulubnarti.

Additionally, this aDNA result is in keeping with the aforenoted osteological affinities of MXCH period skeletons from Sudan, as well as medieval iconography of Nubian royalty (see illustration on right). In future posts, we shall see that this finding is also in alignment with the linguistic affiliations of the earlier C-Group and Kerma Afro-Asiatic cultures, and possibly also that of the Meroitic civilization.-https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/tag/ancient-dna/

View attachment 52457




The 2nd 1 actually adds more validity to the claim @Apollo rejected, And its not surprising since dravidians and tamils are still on this earth.

@Grant Your misleading assertions are very full of contradictions and confounding to my inattentive utterance. That being said, you are extraneous to my time.

If I understand you correctly, and there is no guarantee of that because I find you confusing, you may find this of interest:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-a-lot-of-Ethiopians-Eritreans-look-like-South-Indians#

There are twelve answers, some with detailed genetic data. Being confounding as well as extraneous, I will leave you now.

 

[Zuzu5]

If I understand you correctly, and there is no guarantee of that because I find you confusing, you may find this of interest:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-a-lot-of-Ethiopians-Eritreans-look-like-South-Indians#

There are twelve answers, some with detailed genetic data. Being confounding as well as extraneous, I will leave you now.

this is from the link you gave me.


"Both groups also share maternal haplogroups M and N. So how much of the similarity between the two is due to genes? Maybe it’s because of environment since both live close to the equator. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that they look alike. We’ll never really know."

I wonder why?

"The popular theory emphasizes an Aryan invasion that took place in late ages, compared to the primitive times when the deeds of the Indian epics were, enacted. As late as the authoritative records of history, the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled over by non-Aryan princes. These were the Indi of the ancient records. This ruling race had produced the culture that passed down, and just as across all the wide belt of the equator the civilization of the ancient Cushite was appropriated--here it was not destroyed. So intermixed are all the classes of the Hindu today that all Brahmin, and Soudra have identically the same formation of skull, the old formation of Ethiopia. This later Brahmic type which has only ruled India in the Christian Era is Turanian in the same sense that the races of western Europe may be so called. These Turanians entering India were inferior in culture to the Indi. Today after continued conquest, we find great peoples using literary languages among the Dravidians who represent the primitive Cushite stock. Such are the Tamils, Telugu, Malayalam and Kanarese. Authorities dispute the claim that the black Rajputs were the same race as the invading Turanians. The ancient books read without prejudice reveal a deadly contest between Brahmins and the Kshattriyas, the original royal stock."

-Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire

 

[Grant]

this is from the link you gave me.


"Both groups also share maternal haplogroups M and N. So how much of the similarity between the two is due to genes? Maybe it’s because of environment since both live close to the equator. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that they look alike. We’ll never really know."

I wonder why?

"The popular theory emphasizes an Aryan invasion that took place in late ages, compared to the primitive times when the deeds of the Indian epics were, enacted. As late as the authoritative records of history, the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled over by non-Aryan princes. These were the Indi of the ancient records. This ruling race had produced the culture that passed down, and just as across all the wide belt of the equator the civilization of the ancient Cushite was appropriated--here it was not destroyed. So intermixed are all the classes of the Hindu today that all Brahmin, and Soudra have identically the same formation of skull, the old formation of Ethiopia. This later Brahmic type which has only ruled India in the Christian Era is Turanian in the same sense that the races of western Europe may be so called. These Turanians entering India were inferior in culture to the Indi. Today after continued conquest, we find great peoples using literary languages among the Dravidians who represent the primitive Cushite stock. Such are the Tamils, Telugu, Malayalam and Kanarese. Authorities dispute the claim that the black Rajputs were the same race as the invading Turanians. The ancient books read without prejudice reveal a deadly contest between Brahmins and the Kshattriyas, the original royal stock."

-Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire

Sorry to be confounding and extraneous again, but I would be careful here. The Wonderful Ethiopians was written in 1926 by a woman with limited library access and no available DNA. It is described as a "difficult sell" for historians.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/index.htm

'Houston wrote three volumes, of which only this one, the first, known as Wonderful Ethiopians, was published. She had no staff, and no formal training in academic procedures. Living in Oklahoma, her access to specialized libraries was limited. One can only wonder what she would have made of Google. Although Houston identifies many of her sources in the body of the text, there are few footnotes or other apparatus that such a bold theory would require for consideration. The writing is vigorous and popularized, which also makes it a difficult sell for historians. The received text of this book could have used a bit of proofing and editing (refer to errata), but given the circumstances under which it was published, this is understandable. The compelling part of this book is that it exists at all. While we debate her theories, one historical fact is fairly clear: Houston left her own mark as a pioneering advocate of the study of Black History.'

You also missed the "LT" portion of the genetic analysis in the link I gave you:

"Genetically speaking Ethiopians and Indians significantly share one paternal haplogroup; halpogroup LT. This haplogroup developed in the Sind Valley, a Himalayan sub-valley in present day Kashmir.

The paternal lineage LT makes up:

• 15% of the paternal lineage of Indians.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Bangladeshis.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Somalis.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Ethiopians.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Pakistanis.

http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/L...

Indians for the most part are R1 which mostly correlates with Indo-European speakers.

Ethiopians are mostly E1b1b and J, which correlates with Afro-Asiatic speakers."

 

[Zuzu5]

Sorry to be confounding and extraneous again, but I would be careful here. The Wonderful Ethiopians was written in 1926 by a woman with limited library access and no available DNA. It is described as a "difficult sell" for historians.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/index.htm

'Houston wrote three volumes, of which only this one, the first, known as Wonderful Ethiopians, was published. She had no staff, and no formal training in academic procedures. Living in Oklahoma, her access to specialized libraries was limited. One can only wonder what she would have made of Google. Although Houston identifies many of her sources in the body of the text, there are few footnotes or other apparatus that such a bold theory would require for consideration. The writing is vigorous and popularized, which also makes it a difficult sell for historians. The received text of this book could have used a bit of proofing and editing (refer to errata), but given the circumstances under which it was published, this is understandable. The compelling part of this book is that it exists at all. While we debate her theories, one historical fact is fairly clear: Houston left her own mark as a pioneering advocate of the study of Black History.'

You also missed the "LT" portion of the genetic analysis in the link I gave you:

"Genetically speaking Ethiopians and Indians significantly share one paternal haplogroup; halpogroup LT. This haplogroup developed in the Sind Valley, a Himalayan sub-valley in present day Kashmir.

The paternal lineage LT makes up:

• 15% of the paternal lineage of Indians.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Bangladeshis.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Somalis.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Ethiopians.
• 10% of the paternal lineage of Pakistanis.

http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/L...

Indians for the most part are R1 which mostly correlates with Indo-European speakers.

Ethiopians are mostly E1b1b and J, which correlates with Afro-Asiatic speakers."

South Indians pre-date the Indo-Aryan



"Dravidians came to India much before the Aryans did. Their origins are uncertain. According to Tamil legend, the Dravidians came to India from the lost island of Kumari Khandam". -wiki

Ancient India was once called Ethiopia. Herodotus believed that the Ethiopians came from India. That belief can only make sense if the Indians were black. There were three different groups of Black people in Ancient India: the Dravidians, the Veddoids, and the Negritos.

The Dravidians were Cushites and the whole peninsula of India was peopled by these Cushites before the influx of the Aryans. (Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization John G. Jackson pg 12)


Instead of arguing with me, why dont you ask a Dravidian yourself? They themselves agree they are from cush or Canaan. When my Dravidian said that, i was very confused. But, after some digging, I found out its true.

 

[Grant]

South Indians pre-date the Indo-Aryan



"Dravidians came to India much before the Aryans did. Their origins are uncertain. According to Tamil legend, the Dravidians came to India from the lost island of Kumari Khandam". -wiki

Ancient India was once called Ethiopia. Herodotus believed that the Ethiopians came from India. That belief can only make sense if the Indians were black. There were three different groups of Black people in Ancient India: the Dravidians, the Veddoids, and the Negritos.

The Dravidians were Cushites and the whole peninsula of India was peopled by these Cushites before the influx of the Aryans. (Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization John G. Jackson pg 12)


Instead of arguing with me, why dont you ask a Dravidian yourself? They themselves agree they are from cush or Canaan. When my Dravidian said that, i was very confused. But, after some digging, I found out its true.

This paper addresses your issues directly. Please read beyond the quote I am going to leave you with as the article covers more issues and is quite complex. Part of it follows migrations up the Nile and into both Somalia and the Chad basin.

http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2010/04/genetics-and-afro-dravidian-hypothesis.html

"Y-DNA haplotype T is most common in the pre-Aryan Dravidian area of India. For example, more than 22% of Telagu speaking men in India have this Y-DNA haplotype, and in some South Asian populations it exceeds 50%. This percentage is on the same order of magnitude as, but somewhat lower than, the genetic contribution of the formative Indo-Aryan population in parts of South Asia that were never Dravidian, as expected from a population that is believed to have arrived in India somewhat earlier.

Y-DNA haplotype T is also virtually absent from the areas associated with strong Indo-Aryan influences, so its presence in South Asia isn't likely to be a result of admixture of Sumerian and Harappan populations in connection with their long trade associations with each other by sea and possibly also by land. Matrilineally inherited mtDNA evidence also supports this conclusion:

West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups H, JT and W represent 6–7% of north and central tribes, which are located in the area where Indo-European languages are spoken. In contrast, these west Eurasian mtDNA types are virtually absent in south tribes, which are located where Dravidian languages are spoken. This might reflect different responses of local people to the Indo-European settlement of India. In the north and center, Indo-Europeans may have admixed with local people, concomitant with the spread of Indo-European languages. In contrast, in the southern part of India, local populations may have challenged the arrival of Indo-European newcomers, resulting in limited admixture, reduction of tribal population sizes and retention of their original languages, thus explaining why Dravidian languages survived the spread of Indo-European languages in south India.

Tibeto-Burman language speakers in South Asian tribes have strong East Asian genetic as well as linguistic affinities in both mtDNA and Y-DNA which are found nowhere else in South Asia, suggesting that "these populations remained relatively isolated."

The populations in South India where Y-DNA haplotype T is most prevalent coincide strongly with the linguistically inferred proto-Dravidian homeland within India. See also here."

 

[Zuzu5]

This paper addresses your issues directly. Please read beyond the quote I am going to leave you with as the article covers more issues and is quite complex. Part of it follows migrations up the Nile and into both Somalia and the Chad basin.

http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2010/04/genetics-and-afro-dravidian-hypothesis.html

"Y-DNA haplotype T is most common in the pre-Aryan Dravidian area of India. For example, more than 22% of Telagu speaking men in India have this Y-DNA haplotype, and in some South Asian populations it exceeds 50%. This percentage is on the same order of magnitude as, but somewhat lower than, the genetic contribution of the formative Indo-Aryan population in parts of South Asia that were never Dravidian, as expected from a population that is believed to have arrived in India somewhat earlier.

Y-DNA haplotype T is also virtually absent from the areas associated with strong Indo-Aryan influences, so its presence in South Asia isn't likely to be a result of admixture of Sumerian and Harappan populations in connection with their long trade associations with each other by sea and possibly also by land. Matrilineally inherited mtDNA evidence also supports this conclusion:

West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups H, JT and W represent 6–7% of north and central tribes, which are located in the area where Indo-European languages are spoken. In contrast, these west Eurasian mtDNA types are virtually absent in south tribes, which are located where Dravidian languages are spoken. This might reflect different responses of local people to the Indo-European settlement of India. In the north and center, Indo-Europeans may have admixed with local people, concomitant with the spread of Indo-European languages. In contrast, in the southern part of India, local populations may have challenged the arrival of Indo-European newcomers, resulting in limited admixture, reduction of tribal population sizes and retention of their original languages, thus explaining why Dravidian languages survived the spread of Indo-European languages in south India.

Tibeto-Burman language speakers in South Asian tribes have strong East Asian genetic as well as linguistic affinities in both mtDNA and Y-DNA which are found nowhere else in South Asia, suggesting that "these populations remained relatively isolated."

The populations in South India where Y-DNA haplotype T is most prevalent coincide strongly with the linguistically inferred proto-Dravidian homeland within India. See also here."

This will be my final reply to you, I can't keep replying to ignorance.

Haplogroup T
-Ancestor JT
-Ancestors pre JT=R2'J2
-Ancestor R
-Ancestore N
-Ancestore L3


According to the Recent African origin of modern humans (Out-of-Africa) theory, the clade is believed to have arisen and dispersed from East Africa between 84,000 and 104,000 years ago.
-wikipedia

 

[Factz]

This is a return to the subject and not a change in it. At some point you will have to stop running away and deal with reality.


https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...yone-have-more-information-on-it.45990/page-2

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/why-islam-is-a-blessing-for-men.46027/page-9#post-1259488

Listen old man and stick to the topic. You're the one running away with facts and I didn't mean to disturb your debate with @Zuzu5 but you're not doing a good job keeping it professional since he's already proved all his claims and yet you're still being intellectually dishonset?

Here are the list I have debunked on.

1. I have proved to you that Somali origins are from the north and the oldest Somali bones have been found in the north so you shouldn't be speaking on that issue.

2. I have shown you multiple authentic sources including Ancient pyramidical structures, mausoleums, ruined cities and stone walls found in northern Somalia which is all believed to be dated back to the Punt civilization.

3. I have proved to you that the Somali ethnicity is more than three thousand years old and I have debunked your lies when you said Somali clans were formed in the 12th century when Somali clans in the north were establishing kingdoms and have records of their abtirsi in the 7th century and 9th/10 century.

4. You made another lie that Isaaq was called Simur by Harla when in fact, it was a name for Somalis and I showed you an Ethiopian document.

Don't bother replying because your baseless opinions are extraneous compared to my evidence. Have a nice day old man.

 

[Grant]

Listen old man and stick to the topic. You're the one running away with facts and I didn't mean to disturb your debate with @Zuzu5 but you're not doing a good job keeping it professional since he's already proved all his claims and yet you're still being intellectually dishonset?

Here are the list I have debunked on.

1. I have proved to you that Somali origins are from the north and the oldest Somali bones have been found in the north so you shouldn't be speaking on that issue.

2. I have shown you multiple authentic sources including Ancient pyramidical structures, mausoleums, ruined cities and stone walls found in northern Somalia which is all believed to be dated back to the Punt civilization.

3. I have proved to you that the Somali ethnicity is more than three thousand years old and I have debunked your lies when you said Somali clans were formed in the 12th century when Somali clans in the north were establishing kingdoms and have records of their abtirsi in the 7th century and 9th/10 century.

4. You made another lie that Isaaq was called Simur by Harla when in fact, it was a name for Somalis and I showed you an Ethiopian document.

Don't bother replying because your baseless opinions are extraneous compared to my evidence. Have a nice day old man.

Don't bother replying because you need space for your BS and have no more room to run?




https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...ten-streak-in-an-argument.47585/#post-1301554

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...yone-have-more-information-on-it.45990/page-2

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/why-islam-is-a-blessing-for-men.46027/page-9#post-1259488

 

[Grant]

This will be my final reply to you, I can't keep replying to ignorance.

Hallelujah!

For the rest of you:

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA.shtml

"Haplogroup T emerged from haplogroup K, the ancestor of most of the Eurasian haplogroups (L, N, O, P, Q, R and T), some time between 45,000 and 35,000 years ago. The vast majority of modern members of haplogroup T belong to the T1a branch, which developed during the late glacial period, between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago, possibily in the vicinity of the Iranian Plateau.

Although haplogroup T is more common today in East Africa than anywhere else, it almost certainly spread from the Fertile Crescent with the rise of agriculture. Indeed, the oldest subclades and the greatest diversity of T is found in the Middle East, especially around the Fertile Crescent. Lazaridis et al. (2016) identified one carrier of haplogroup T among the remains of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site in Jordan. A T1a sample was also found in the Early Neolithic Linear Pottery (LBK) culture in Germany by Mathieson et al. (2015). By the end of the last glacial period, 12,000 years ago, haplogroup T had already differentiated into subclades such as T1a1a, T1a2, T1a3a and T1a3b. Deeper subclades developed in the Near East during the Early Neolithic period for several millennia before early farmers started expanding beyond the Near East."