Who is the father who is the mother ?

[Username]

We’re basically Cushitic speaking Nilotes

No we are Cushites, if Somalis aren't Cushites, no ethnic group is, we are the closest to the ancient cushitic samples

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Step a side]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

You are right. There is some L lineages native to Mesolithic North Africans and Natufians from the early beginnings. Another bit was added in to our gene pool via the native Hunter gatherer from Somalia

 

[kaahin13]

No we are Cushites, if Somalis aren't Cushites, no ethnic group is, we are the closest to the ancient cushitic samples

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Depends on what you classify as "cushitic". If we're talking about the very first afro-asiatic people who spoke the ancestral version of our language and in which we derive our primary e1b1 haplogroup, then no we aren't we are a nilo-cushitic people by that definition.

If we're talking about when these natufian like people mixed with proto nilotes in Sudan, then yeah we are "cushites" and the purest ones at that since we derive 90% of our ancestry from there

 

[Nilo-Saharan]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Yes. Theres some slight hunter-gatherer admixture in Somali SSA, it's not all Proto-Nilotic. I don't know numbers but I've seen some people throw around 10-5%

 

[Nilo-Saharan]

One thing I’ve realised is that Somalis have high west Eurasian natufian farmers around 45-60% so if Somalis mix with some cadaan person the child Eurasian increase to 70-80% while SSA decreases to 30-20% hence why the children turns out to be more cadaan due to the Eurasian .


My question is
Is the Somali natufian farmers from the father and the SSA the mother ? Or it’s opposite

A similar effect with a lot of Caribbean and African diaspora who already have European admixture. When they inter-marry with white people, the child usually appears more white than they appear black. Most 23andme scores I've seen from mixed-race people from America, they're always far more European-shifted than they are African. It's usually a 35-45% distribution of West African up against the remainder which is European.

Edit: But I wouldn't just limit this to Somalis having Eurasian admixture. Nilo-Saharans that are almost entirely SSA have what the user seems to be described as "weak genes". I've noticed that even with barely any Eurasian component, phenotype can be drastically affected by intermixing, even among Africa's blackest people. The existence of Nilo-Saharans with minor West African (20%) or minor Cushitic (20%) yet they still seem to look a lot closer to the people where their minor portion originates from is evidence for that. It's interesting how some Dinkas look indistinguishable from some West Africans (particularly Atlantic speakers) and some Masai and Nara look indistinguishable from Cushitic people and all of it is because of some slight admixture that is subservient to the remaining 80% Proto-Nilotic.

 

[kaahin13]

Yes. Theres some slight hunter-gatherer admixture in Somali SSA, it's not all Proto-Nilotic. I don't know numbers but I've seen some people throw around 10-5%

source: My ass? Whatever hunter gatherer dna we have is negligible (less than 2%). And even if somalis did mix with a unique hunter gatherer group only found in somalia in what world would it be slotted in with nilotic dna and not with actual east african hunter gatherers?

 

[Nilo-Saharan]

source: My ass? Whatever hunter gatherer dna we have is negligible (less than 2%). And even if somalis did mix with a unique hunter gatherer group only found in somalia in what world would it be slotted in with nilotic dna and not with actual east african hunter gatherers?

Ey don't come at me, I haven't referred to any studies on this. Im going off what I've heard being thrown around on here. People quite often claim around 5-10% HG.

I also didn't say HG would be "slotted in with nilotic DNA".

You on your period?

 

[kaahin13]

Ey don't come at me, I haven't referred to any studies on this. Im going off what I've heard being thrown around on here. People quite often claim around 5-10% HG.

I also didn't say HG would be "slotted in with nilotic DNA".

You on your period?

If we have 10% HG dna and it doesn’t show up as Mota then logically it would only show up as nilotic that's what you were implying... all i'm saying is that's wrong.

We principally derive from two sources: A Natufian like pop and a Mesolithic Nilo-Saharan pop which corresponds to about 90% of our ancestry atleast with the rest being arabian/native-east-african-hg

 

[Nilo-Saharan]

If we have 10% HG dna and it doesn’t show up as Mota then logically it would only show up as nilotic that's what you were implying... all i'm saying is that's wrong.

I find myself lost here, where in this thread did I make that implication? All I have said is that not all Somali SSA is Proto-Nilotic, there is a slight HG admixture regardless of how negligible it is. We agree on that yes?

We principally derive from two sources: A Natufian like pop and a Mesolithic Nilo-Saharan pop which corresponds to about 90% of our ancestry atleast with the rest being arabian/native-east-african-hg

Yes.

 

[FarmingNomad]

I find myself lost here, where in this thread did I make that implication? All I have said is that not all Somali SSA is Proto-Nilotic, there is a slight HG admixture regardless of how negligible it is. We agree on that yes?


Yes.

Yes. Theres some slight hunter-gatherer admixture in Somali SSA, it's not all Proto-Nilotic. I don't know numbers but I've seen some people throw around 10-5%

We principally derive from two sources: A Natufian like pop and a Mesolithic Nilo-Saharan pop which corresponds to about 90% of our ancestry atleast with the rest being arabian/native-east-african-hg

Looks like he repeated what you said. No idea why he got disrespectful

 

[The alchemist]

If we have 10% HG dna and it doesn’t show up as Mota then logically it would only show up as nilotic that's what you were implying... all i'm saying is that's wrong.

We principally derive from two sources: A Natufian like pop and a Mesolithic Nilo-Saharan pop which corresponds to about 90% of our ancestry atleast with the rest being arabian/native-east-african-hg

Don't get overwhelmed. I'm leveraging your comment to put my long text with needed critical corrections in the first paragraphs.

You're making a wrong assumption. Somalis don't have "proto-Nilotic" ancestry. We have Ancestral East African. Nilotes have an Ancestral East Africa-like component in 70%, with the rest being some Basal West/Central African introduced in great time-depth. Cushites don't derive from the ancestors of Proto-Nilotes, lacking that latter signature composition -- the relationship between the proto-Nilotic and Ancestral East Africans must go deep into the Paleolithic, a time no nascent Nilo-Saharan speech existed.

The only reason Somalis need something extra found in Mota is Paleolithic Ethiopia shares a lot with Ancestral East Africa, not an indication of admixture, more like the Nilotic component is a wrong assumption and does not house our signature, only part of it. People made the rookie mistake of equating a somewhat useful proxy with a direct interpretation that does nothing but obscures the information-seeking process. The Nile Valley was more diverse in the Paleolithic -- Nilotes were the post-Plestocene survivors -- while our ancestors did not in un-mixed form.

One extra thing to follow up on, the Mota over-lap is AEA overlap, not an extended need for compensation. Because the fits don't change meaningfully if you remove Mota (unless it carries excess non-Somali ancestry) -- that tells you how much it is not an admixture. Because had it been a real geneflow of Horn of Africa migration with Paleolthics with our herder ancestors, the fit would be dependent, demonstrating a discrepancy in fit assortment, as the Mota inclusion would be valid.

Equating hypothetical genetic stand-ins as the representative composite backgrounds is some rookie shit. The models are, at best, proof of concepts in varied respects that describe our comprehensive ancestral makeup. It also leads to wasteful discussions where what is not Nilotic is extraneous.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if these small Iranian Neolithic or Anatolian Neolithic in those ancient samples are residues from some obscure correlated basal ancestry nested in the Natufian-like property base of Cushitics and that it is, for the most part (excluding the Arab-mix of moderns), just some strange statistical reading that can't fully delineate pre-historic Near Eastern DNA instead of being admixture (this, I mean in the anomaly in slight fluctuations with deep runs. Generally, and correctly so, we attribute the discrepancy to admixture with a backdrop to simple context and evidence). Equal to the phenomenon, the further back you go for a base lineage, the extant genetic distinctive classification doesn't neatly apply-- just because it is that far temporally upstream. One can assume there was an antique relationship between those lineages that might go beyond LGM. The case might be that what the Cushites genetically bear, primarily represented by Natufian samples, is older than the Mesolithic. It's mainly a sibling lineage to the non-ANA stuff of Taforalt that has stayed in the Nile Valley for up to 30,000 years.

I reject this Anatolian HG association of that DNA as a form of Asia Minor origin. IMO, the Near Eastern Dzudzuana qualities come from somewhere in southwest Asia originally -- whatever was found in that Georgian cave was a migrational extreme, similar to how it found itself at the edge of Maghreb. It had "Basal Eurasian" genetic anomalies not from Eurasian Paleolithic Europe but had to derive from an isolated place in southwest Asia. Perhaps Arabia, the southern Levant, or conceivably can have touched Northeast Africa.

 

[Libaax-Joore]

@Abdisamad half Ukrainian half somali

 

[Abdisamad]

@Abdisamad half Ukrainian half somali
View attachment 268183

The kids look like Indians or something

 

[Nilo-Saharan]

Don't get overwhelmed. I'm leveraging your comment to put my long text with needed critical corrections in the first paragraphs.

You're making a wrong assumption. Somalis don't have "proto-Nilotic" ancestry. We have Ancestral East African. Nilotes have an Ancestral East Africa-like component in 70%, with the rest being some Basal West/Central African introduced in great time-depth. Cushites don't derive from the ancestors of Proto-Nilotes, lacking that latter signature composition -- the relationship between the proto-Nilotic and Ancestral East Africans must go deep into the Paleolithic, a time no nascent Nilo-Saharan speech existed.

I could be wrong here but from how I see it used in this forum and other forums, Proto-Nilotic is used interchangeably with AEA. Nobody actually uses Proto-Nilotic with how it was coined to be used, that being a name for a population ancestral to specifically modern Nilotic people. AEA ancestry is prevalent in Nilotes too so it makes sense why people have started adopting this term and sort of shaping it to be a provisional label for AEA. We definitely need to come up with a catchy name for AEA that isn't proto-Nilotic because that just causes confusion and AEA is a little too broad and doesn't allow us to distinguish between the overlooked different populations that make up AEA. But I'd like to ask, who do you imagine to be actual "Proto-Nilotes"? Ancient Nilo-Saharans or older than that, and which specific branch are we speaking about or are we including the whole language family? At what point in the Paleolithic do you imagine this divergence from AEA occurring?

 

[ZBR]

Don't get overwhelmed. I'm leveraging your comment to put my long text with needed critical corrections in the first paragraphs.

You're making a wrong assumption. Somalis don't have "proto-Nilotic" ancestry. We have Ancestral East African. Nilotes have an Ancestral East Africa-like component in 70%, with the rest being some Basal West/Central African introduced in great time-depth. Cushites don't derive from the ancestors of Proto-Nilotes, lacking that latter signature composition -- the relationship between the proto-Nilotic and Ancestral East Africans must go deep into the Paleolithic, a time no nascent Nilo-Saharan speech existed.

The only reason Somalis need something extra found in Mota is Paleolithic Ethiopia shares a lot with Ancestral East Africa, not an indication of admixture, more like the Nilotic component is a wrong assumption and does not house our signature, only part of it. People made the rookie mistake of equating a somewhat useful proxy with a direct interpretation that does nothing but obscures the information-seeking process. The Nile Valley was more diverse in the Paleolithic -- Nilotes were the post-Plestocene survivors -- while our ancestors did not in un-mixed form.

One extra thing to follow up on, the Mota over-lap is AEA overlap, not an extended need for compensation. Because the fits don't change meaningfully if you remove Mota (unless it carries excess non-Somali ancestry) -- that tells you how much it is not an admixture. Because had it been a real geneflow of Horn of Africa migration with Paleolthics with our herder ancestors, the fit would be dependent, demonstrating a discrepancy in fit assortment, as the Mota inclusion would be valid.

Equating hypothetical genetic stand-ins as the representative composite backgrounds is some rookie shit. The models are, at best, proof of concepts in varied respects that describe our comprehensive ancestral makeup. It also leads to wasteful discussions where what is not Nilotic is extraneous.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if these small Iranian Neolithic or Anatolian Neolithic in those ancient samples are residues from some obscure correlated basal ancestry nested in the Natufian-like property base of Cushitics and that it is, for the most part (excluding the Arab-mix of moderns), just some strange statistical reading that can't fully delineate pre-historic Near Eastern DNA instead of being admixture (this, I mean in the anomaly in slight fluctuations with deep runs. Generally, and correctly so, we attribute the discrepancy to admixture with a backdrop to simple context and evidence). Equal to the phenomenon, the further back you go for a base lineage, the extant genetic distinctive classification doesn't neatly apply-- just because it is that far temporally upstream. One can assume there was an antique relationship between those lineages that might go beyond LGM. The case might be that what the Cushites genetically bear, primarily represented by Natufian samples, is older than the Mesolithic. It's mainly a sibling lineage to the non-ANA stuff of Taforalt that has stayed in the Nile Valley for up to 30,000 years.

I reject this Anatolian HG association of that DNA as a form of Asia Minor origin. IMO, the Near Eastern Dzudzuana qualities come from somewhere in southwest Asia originally -- whatever was found in that Georgian cave was a migrational extreme, similar to how it found itself at the edge of Maghreb. It had "Basal Eurasian" genetic anomalies not from Eurasian Paleolithic Europe but had to derive from an isolated place in southwest Asia. Perhaps Arabia, the southern Levant, or conceivably can have touched Northeast Africa.

What percentage of our autosomal dna is from East African foragers / HG