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.
