So Somalis really wuz Kings from Pharonic Egypt or?? Ancient Egypt declined during Bronze age collapse so was this before that??
Somali E-Y18629 is a Bronze Age lineage from Egypt/Sudan
- Thread starter Al-Ma'mun
- Start date
The Non Nilotic component of Nubians is mostly North African and Levantine, not Arab.
The alchemist
VIP
I'm wondering about the missing spatiotemporal data on Nilotics if we received additional AEA classified ancestry that recent. Modern Nilo-Saharan speakers got West African shift compared to our non-Horn of African hunter-gatherer portion, so how do we reconcile this known information with the putative modelling presented here placing our ancestors in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and Sudan in the Bronze/Iron-Age transition? Up to this point, I had believed our pre-migration Sub-Saharan ancestry came from a limited time slice that was later disrupted by gene interaction with other Saharan peoples of the Western origin (the Sahelian belt received human migration at different points, which I think late-Epipaleolithic gave fertile ground for) that Cushitics in the Neolithic isolated themselves from experiencing.
One possible explanation is the endemic Somali hunter-gatherer can cover this if source components slightly lean towards Nilotics on a basal level on a shallow reading level, making the mixture-modelling tools such as G25 confuse a minor addition to be Nilotic-like (but this is wishful, lmao -- but bruh, I love these loopholes). Otherwise, we have to discuss the possible diversity of Nilotic-like people in Sudan within a 10,000-year time transect -- not something easy because of lacking data -- we are forced to resort to desperate inter-disciplinary archaeological contextualization (one should do it either way though, population genetics and paleogenomics do not describe the whole picture).
In an alternative manner, I thought perhaps some mystery Cushitics with highly Nilotic mixed composition (like you see in Iron Age Kenyan samples) came from the South in minor population form and influenced the proto-Somalis up in the northern areas, but this too does not address the Nilotic problem of its signature character, merely theoretical laziness because such impact would leave a clear imprint from recent Nilotic linguistics or ethnographic traits diverging from other Cushitic, which is not the case. And it is even more doubtful that the Nilotic incursion into Kenya was something that mirrored the AEA instead of the typical Dinka-type profile.
Or maybe we have to think outside the box. Going back to the early stages of Cushitic, we have two distinct populations mixing. Now, we have evidence that Early Pastoral Neolithic minus the Mota-like admixture would be highly Eurasian, possibly in the mid 70% in one of the samples. What if this is not the only disposition we should model ourselves from? The other Pastoral Neolithic in Southeast Africa shows something a bit more AEA. And then we have us closely by.. What if the AEA and Natufian-like peoples that mixed, produced several groups that had an unequal distribution of North-East African SSA and North-East African Neolithic WA portions differing from each other, yet coming from the exact same sociocultural cluster? Something like tribes of Cushitic that ranges from 75% Natufian-like to 60% proto-Nilotic-like, certainly this would mean that no extra admixture necessarily occurred from later culturally separate people to supplement increased Nilotic-like genetics, but also automatically entail our population retained their characteristics throughout, conceivably only mixing with similar people. That would certainly explain things, and why Somali DNA seems highly pristine Cushitic-wise without anything noticeably sticking out, outside more recent pulse from South Arabia.
It seems to me that this new Y-DNA information you posted, something that funnily apparent, has been under my nose for some strange reason, is undeniable. It coordinates us up north much later than I expected. Certainly, the technological know-how of metallurgy not being brought to the Horn is a head-scratcher, but again, there can be unknown aspects, with random ideas such as; our peoples belonged to a class or stratified position that did not deal with metallurgy at the time whatsoever, so they would not bring that skill with them. Or something happened to our ancestors that lead to loss of skill and knowledge outside crucially dependent subsistence strategies. We know for a fact that people can devolve. Look at the Bronze Age collapse -- people went from creating civilization to subsequent descendants not even being able to understand what their ancestors from past centuries wrote down (I believe these things happened many times in human history). History does not need to move in a progressive manner or in accumulation of things (adaptiveness also doesn't necessarily move in a straight line, maybe only does from a retrospective lens), as people in this day and age have an intuition for.
It can be that pastoralism is conducive to complexity of network centralization. Still, these structures do not have a long-term resiliency relative to sedentary-based framework-building. Or better put, pastoralist societies build complex systems in a centralized form, and when they collapse, they distribute and fragment, while a sedentary system of similar prominence will just change name and pick up where the last kingdom fell. Our historical subsistence strategy was possibly volatile, so it required considerable restructuring of societal order and greater energy to keep intact, while sedentism is a more stable foundation. Pastoralist powers often have to resort to power concentration of different functionalities and underlying principles that complement each body as other entity blocks got their level of independent management. Such a system is harder to recreate after it breaks down and returns to more egalitarian principles because you have to tailor specialized aspects of it to stabilize into a long-term system (requires organizational capacity demand that is hard to overcome without exceptional conditions and will), while sedentism can easily do it over again because the whole society is stratified, and concentration of power and unequalness is the basic premise.
One possible explanation is the endemic Somali hunter-gatherer can cover this if source components slightly lean towards Nilotics on a basal level on a shallow reading level, making the mixture-modelling tools such as G25 confuse a minor addition to be Nilotic-like (but this is wishful, lmao -- but bruh, I love these loopholes). Otherwise, we have to discuss the possible diversity of Nilotic-like people in Sudan within a 10,000-year time transect -- not something easy because of lacking data -- we are forced to resort to desperate inter-disciplinary archaeological contextualization (one should do it either way though, population genetics and paleogenomics do not describe the whole picture).
In an alternative manner, I thought perhaps some mystery Cushitics with highly Nilotic mixed composition (like you see in Iron Age Kenyan samples) came from the South in minor population form and influenced the proto-Somalis up in the northern areas, but this too does not address the Nilotic problem of its signature character, merely theoretical laziness because such impact would leave a clear imprint from recent Nilotic linguistics or ethnographic traits diverging from other Cushitic, which is not the case. And it is even more doubtful that the Nilotic incursion into Kenya was something that mirrored the AEA instead of the typical Dinka-type profile.
Or maybe we have to think outside the box. Going back to the early stages of Cushitic, we have two distinct populations mixing. Now, we have evidence that Early Pastoral Neolithic minus the Mota-like admixture would be highly Eurasian, possibly in the mid 70% in one of the samples. What if this is not the only disposition we should model ourselves from? The other Pastoral Neolithic in Southeast Africa shows something a bit more AEA. And then we have us closely by.. What if the AEA and Natufian-like peoples that mixed, produced several groups that had an unequal distribution of North-East African SSA and North-East African Neolithic WA portions differing from each other, yet coming from the exact same sociocultural cluster? Something like tribes of Cushitic that ranges from 75% Natufian-like to 60% proto-Nilotic-like, certainly this would mean that no extra admixture necessarily occurred from later culturally separate people to supplement increased Nilotic-like genetics, but also automatically entail our population retained their characteristics throughout, conceivably only mixing with similar people. That would certainly explain things, and why Somali DNA seems highly pristine Cushitic-wise without anything noticeably sticking out, outside more recent pulse from South Arabia.
It seems to me that this new Y-DNA information you posted, something that funnily apparent, has been under my nose for some strange reason, is undeniable. It coordinates us up north much later than I expected. Certainly, the technological know-how of metallurgy not being brought to the Horn is a head-scratcher, but again, there can be unknown aspects, with random ideas such as; our peoples belonged to a class or stratified position that did not deal with metallurgy at the time whatsoever, so they would not bring that skill with them. Or something happened to our ancestors that lead to loss of skill and knowledge outside crucially dependent subsistence strategies. We know for a fact that people can devolve. Look at the Bronze Age collapse -- people went from creating civilization to subsequent descendants not even being able to understand what their ancestors from past centuries wrote down (I believe these things happened many times in human history). History does not need to move in a progressive manner or in accumulation of things (adaptiveness also doesn't necessarily move in a straight line, maybe only does from a retrospective lens), as people in this day and age have an intuition for.
It can be that pastoralism is conducive to complexity of network centralization. Still, these structures do not have a long-term resiliency relative to sedentary-based framework-building. Or better put, pastoralist societies build complex systems in a centralized form, and when they collapse, they distribute and fragment, while a sedentary system of similar prominence will just change name and pick up where the last kingdom fell. Our historical subsistence strategy was possibly volatile, so it required considerable restructuring of societal order and greater energy to keep intact, while sedentism is a more stable foundation. Pastoralist powers often have to resort to power concentration of different functionalities and underlying principles that complement each body as other entity blocks got their level of independent management. Such a system is harder to recreate after it breaks down and returns to more egalitarian principles because you have to tailor specialized aspects of it to stabilize into a long-term system (requires organizational capacity demand that is hard to overcome without exceptional conditions and will), while sedentism can easily do it over again because the whole society is stratified, and concentration of power and unequalness is the basic premise.
Do you have a pastebin or something similar for the sources for this run?And I'm reminded of this model:
ZBR
سبحان اللهِ وبحمدِه Free Palestine
Something that I’ve been intent wondering about is why Cushitic people have never ventured west of the Nile and most of their present enclaves and inhabitants hug the easternmost parts of the red sea coast. Is there any cultural belief or substantial sublunary explanation for this consistency over thousands of yearsNot necessarily. Lower Nubia was seemingly a historically Cushitic stronghold alongside the Eastern Desert, Atbay and the eastern coastal plain. The A-Group, the C-Group, the X-Group, and the Blemmyes all seem to have been some sort of continuity from what I can tell. In fact, as recently as the 6 century CE the Blemmyes (Beja) were in control of much of Lower Nubia having settlements like Qasr Ibrim, Faras and Kalabsha under their control:
Here's a letter from a Blemmye King imparting how they drove Nobatians out of Talmis (Kalabasha; their capital) at one point until they were finally defeated by Silko later on and driven into the eastern desert:
In fact, what I find interesting is that despite how the narrative is that the NS speaking Nubians drove them out of Lower Nubia and into the eastern desert around the end of the classical era, when the Arabs describe the early medieval Beja Kingdoms it seems pretty apparent that Lower Nubia is still predominantly Beja:
Notice how it is the first Beja Kingdom that is where the frontier with non-Muslim lands begins and that it starts just below Aswan. Then notice how the Beja Kingdoms only begin to properly border NS speaking Nubian (Nuba) kingdoms like Alodia ('Alwa) by the third Beja Kingdom of Bazin while generally centering the NS speaking Nubians more south like Dongola. It's also pretty clear that the Beja of this time aren't simply desert dwelling pastoral nomads even though, like with their Cushitic kin to the south, that probably would have always been the majority of the populace's occupation:
So it's entirely possible E-Z813 was somewhere along the Nile Valley as well and made its way to Upper Egypt then Lower Egypt and the Levant from there. 2300 BCE isn't even that far back. Ancient Egyptian civilization was nearly a thousand years old by then and the Kingdom of Kerma already existed whilst the A-Group culture is more than a thousand years older. Kinda weird to think that our male line ancestor may very well have been among some of the earliest Medjay mentioned and that Agaw-East-South Cushites may have been in what have, in more recent history, been Beja lands.
I'm still skeptical cos it's confusing how the Horn only enters the metal and civilizational age (as far as I know) after 1000 BCE seemingly due to South-Arabian influences but man would it be a doozy if so. I always looked at Sudan/Nubia's history after 3000 BCE as "the history of our close relatives but not ours". Weird to think that at least until around 2000 BCE or so it still might have been "our" history too.
ZBR
سبحان اللهِ وبحمدِه Free Palestine
Bro have Saidi Egyptians been tested ? Seem as if they’re really ruralYou're reminding me of somethings I read about a decade ago like Stuart Munro-Hay's book on Aksum:
In fact, some old archaeologists, as you can see above, used to drive the time-frame for ancient Yemeni influences up to 2000 BCE because I guess they figured the agricultural and civilizational influences already present must have come from South-Arabia rather than the more obvious Sudan. Weirdly enough, that 2000 BCE time-frame aligns well with the TMRCA of 3600ybp (1600 BCE) with the Egyptian under E-Y17859 and the TMRCA with the Palestinian under E-Z813 of 4300ybp (2300 BCE).
And I'm reminded of this model:
The most telling thing about this model for me is how the Somalis completely favor the Ancient Egyptian samples while the Agaws have a bit more of the AE stuff than the Habeshas do (the only doozey are Beta-Israels). There might seriously be something to this, walaal. Let's be honest. The idea of an earlier "Caucasian/Mediterranean" (now known better as Iran-Chalcolithic and Jordan-Early-Bronze-Age elements) carrying migration isn't new and is something Lank and myself have been touting for over half a decade just based on things like ADMIXTURE runs:
Using Somalis as a proxy: The second attempt
Over a year ago I made a post where I essentially took Somalis and tried to run-down, based on data from Shriner et al. 2014 and Hodgson ...anthromadness.blogspot.com
Nice to see it possibly being vindicated now by Y-DNA. I'm focused on some other things nowadays but I'll try to do some digging on when the earliest evidence of things like copper, tin, arsenic and bronze are in Ethiopia. So far I mostly just see a lot of talk about the Iron-Age which seems to have clearly come with the ancient Yemenis.
