Seems as if it is definitely the case; that east african cushitic like populations settled southern Africa and admixed with khoisans, before bantus and Europeans arrived.
@Adeba
Yep, also see this study and thread:
Science | AAAS
advances.sciencemag.org
GENETICS - Ancient genomes reveal complex patterns of population movement, interaction, and replacement in sub-Saharan Africa
Abstract Africa hosts the greatest human genetic diversity globally, but legacies of ancient population interactions and dispersals across the continent remain understudied. Here, we report genome-wide data from 20 ancient sub-Saharan African individuals, including the first reported ancient DNA...www.somalispot.com
Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?Somalis maxed out in the Cushitic cluster, lol.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
The modern Nama also not having Bantu admixture is shocking. Maybe it is only that specific Nama community they sampled:
![]()
Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?
I can make a guess to reconcile this and say that the paleo Somali and AEA might carry excessive ANA-like variety, messing with the calculator ascertainment values. This ANA split can be explained as an earlier split than the ANA we see in IBM groups in NW Africa, but later than Mota, who also carried 30% ANA in a model. Maybe another model is that there could be a basal population (ghost modern) from, who knows where with similar qualities which affected East Africa in ways that are seemingly confusing because of assumptions and lack of general information.
ANA is Ancient North Africa, yes. I specified more what I meant by ANA in our case by talking about the split time in comparison to other groups in the deep past. In regards to this, I only talked about our "SSA" side, not the Eurasian.By ANA, do you mean Ancient North African?
I thought the Somali Eurasian component was Neolithic Levantine.
ANA is Ancient North Africa, yes. I specified more what I meant by ANA in our case by talking about the split time in comparison to other groups in the deep past. In regards to this, I only talked about our "SSA" side, not the Eurasian.
The Eurasian, in my opinion, is a mix of local Northeast African and Levantine. I don't believe Egypt was empty when the Levantine agriculturalists came.
The ANA type thing: If we accept the [ANA+Eurasian= IBM] to be true, then I mean the nature of ANA (but only in how they split, not matching intrinsic signature necessarily), not Iberomarusian. And this component was only discussed within the SSA component/s.So like a Iberomaurasian type group (like this one) living in Egypt mixed with Levantines/Anatolian migrants and then proceeded to mix with archaic nilotes and indigenous horn hunter-gatherers to create Cushites?
Seems as if it is definitely the case; that east african cushitic like populations settled southern Africa and admixed with khoisans, before bantus and Europeans arrived.
Hm, entirely blue. Can we assume those other Ethiopians carry paleo-Somali ancestry, too, because there doesn't seem to be a particular dissimilarity excluding their respective additional admixtures? Or is this just a lazy take from these guys who assume we maximize the Cushitic component using shallow calculation methods? Maybe it's hard to distinguish the assumed Somali hunter-gatherer component from the AEA signature or something within it (a differentiation in that specific signature structure that conveniently eats it up)?
I can make a guess to reconcile this and say that the paleo Somali and AEA might carry excessive ANA-like variety, messing with the calculator ascertainment values. This ANA split can be explained as an earlier split than the ANA we see in IBM groups in NW Africa, but later than Mota, who also carried 30% ANA in a model. Maybe another model is that there could be a basal population (ghost modern) from, who knows where with similar qualities which affected East Africa in ways that are seemingly confusing because of assumptions and lack of general information.
no motherfucker, its the other way round. Khoisan lived closer to Ethiopia and then about 2000 years ago migranter southwards. proto-faraax didnt settle Cape Town lmao
Somalis maxed out in the Cushitic cluster, lol.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
The modern Nama also not having Bantu admixture is shocking. Maybe it is only that specific Nama community they sampled:
![]()
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.