Somali people origin

[Garaad Awal]

Terribly flawed and inaccurate video idk where to begin. This right here is a way more accurate ancient breakdown of Somalis
View attachment 295041

Terrible model. When using one of the less ANA Natufian samples Yemeni ancestry is enflated. I suggest sticking to ancients except for the Sudanese component

 

[Garaad Awal]

 

[The alchemist]

Their racism towards nilotics and omotics is barely brought up. This is what their former omotic mixed president had to go through
View attachment 295047

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mengistu_Haile_Mariam

The weird thing is that Mengistu did not look too different from the average Oromo from the southern highland. Probably genetically indistinguishable from them; him being of Konso origin. Although Konso can get very dark, I think if he faced discrimination it probably was because of his background rather than his looks.

 

[Garaad Awal]

The weird thing is that Mengistu did not look too different from the average Oromo from the southern highland. Probably genetically indistinguishable from them; him being of Konso origin. Although Konso can get very dark, I think if he faced discrimination it probably was because of his background rather than his looks.

Mengistu was Wolayta.

 

[NidarNidar]

Why do the modern reconstructions of a Natufian depict them as Middle-Eastern when they lacked the alleles for depigmentation? How did they even figure out the skin tone of a Natufian when you cannot derive that from a skeleton alone? For example if you took the skulls of a Swedish guy and a Somali guy, buried them 5 thousand years in the past right next to each-other, the modern researchers digging them up would be certain that both men belong to the same culture based on their skulls alone.

Dark skin Natufians would resemble modern Somalis, hence our features came from a much older base population that adapted and not through admixture.

They definitely had dark skin, since the Natufians barely had any neanderthal admixture, but over ANA and CHG mixed in increasing it and introducing light skin allele SLC24A5, they're not the only group of humans to develop it though, KhoeSan have separately developed due to living so far south, they originally inhabited regions all the way up to North East Africa.

You are right they would kinda of resemble somewhere in between dark Dravidan/Somali, I've seen similar-looking people in Yemen.

Genetics are weird, a close friend of mine has mixed-race children, his wife is from Lebanon while his mixed Ghanaian/white, child looked Somali.

 

[Garaad Awal]

Why do the modern reconstructions of a Natufian depict them as Middle-Eastern when they lacked the alleles for depigmentation? How did they even figure out the skin tone of a Natufian when you cannot derive that from a skeleton alone? For example if you took the skulls of a Swedish guy and a Somali guy, buried them 5 thousand years in the past right next to each-other, the modern researchers digging them up would be certain that both men belong to the same culture based on their skulls alone.

Dark skin Natufians would resemble modern Somalis, hence our features came from a much older base population that adapted and not through admixture.

Somalis & Ancient Cushitic Pastoralists carry the snps for depigmentation.Clearly the West Eurasian Neolithic ancestors of proto-Cushites were not dark-skin

 

[NidarNidar]

Prove it..Considering Proto-Cushitic existed 7k years while Proto-Nilotic only came into existence as of 0 BCE (Jesus time).

Would it be a ghost population that inhabited the area? cause illustrate DNA changed it to East African Pastoralist, they completely removed natufian.

 

[The alchemist]

Mengistu was Wolayta.

That might be true and probably is (Wikipedia claimed Konso with a strangely elaborate story, but they lie often). Wolayta makes sense and it would even ring more true how he would not look much different from a section of southern Oromos genetically. Phenotypically he fits right in.

 

[Garaad Awal]

Would it be a ghost population that inhabited the area? cause illustrate DNA changed it to East African Pastoralist, they completely removed natufian.

View attachment 295059

They are using 4000 yr old non-Cushitic Kenyan Pastoralists.You can find them in Davidski's sheet under Kenya_Early_Pastoral. We as Cushites have nothing to do with them and even the paper that discovered them essentially sees them as a dead-end population.

They arrived in the Horn/Kenya atleast 1000 years ahead of us.They were 50% Natufian-like 25% Horner-Gatherer, 25% Sudanese and carried the paternal haplogroup E2b

 

[The alchemist]

We have Proto nilotic blood. Not modern ones.

No. Proto-Nilotic is a linguistic term which is way younger than the genetic conversation we're talking about. But if you mean proto-Nilotic as the genetics of the proto-Nilo-Saharans, then that too is wrong.

Those groups share ancestral roots but even they were a separate lineage. We're not derived from them.

Let me show you a simplified picture that is discreet to illustrate how wrong people are when they say "proto-Nilote":

 

[BetterDaysAhead]

View attachment 295058

Which dna company do you believe gives you the most accurate G25 results when converting their raw data? I heard ancestry dna works better than 23andme since they use more SNP’s

 

[Garaad Awal]

Which dna company do you believe gives you the most accurate G25 results when converting their raw data? I heard ancestry dna works better than 23andme since they use more SNP’s

AncestryDNA & FamilyTreeDNA seem pretty good for Horners especially if you want a cheap test simply for raw data but some opt for the expensive whole genome sequence.My ftdna results were far more accurate than my 23&me kit which gave me wonky results

 

[BetterDaysAhead]

No. Proto-Nilotic is a linguistic term which is way younger than the genetic conversation we're talking about. But if you mean proto-Nilotic as the genetics of the proto-Nilo-Saharans, then that too is wrong.

Those groups share ancestral roots but even they were a separate lineage. We're not derived from them.

Let me show you a simplified picture that is discreet to illustrate how wrong people are when they say "proto-Nilote":
View attachment 295061

Which region do you believe is the urheimat of our ancient East African ancestors?

 

[BetterDaysAhead]

AncestryDNA & FamilyTreeDNA seem pretty good for Horners especially if you want a cheap test simply for raw data but some opt for the expensive whole genome sequence.My ftdna results were far more accurate than my 23&me kit which gave me wonky results

Do you have your own G25 coordinates from 23andme and ancestryDNA/FamilyTreeDNA? If so do you mind sharing the results comparison of the 2?

 

[Reformed J]

They are using 4000 yr old non-Cushitic Kenyan Pastoralists.You can find them in Davidski's sheet under Kenya_Early_Pastoral. We as Cushites have nothing to do with them and even the paper that discovered them essentially sees them as a dead-end population.

They arrived in the Horn/Kenya atleast 1000 years ahead of us.They were 50% Natufian-like 25% Horner-Gatherer, 25% Sudanese and carried the paternal haplogroup E2b

Spoiler

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

 

[The alchemist]

Which region do you believe is the urheimat of our ancient East African ancestors?

Nile Valley is where they have stayed for a very long time.

There is really no such thing as a definite geographic Urheimat for Ancestral East Africa because that lineage is supposedly tied to one of the oldest lineages we have. When we go back to 100 kya, I can't really say where people were exactly but we can say, that those people split from West Africans ~80 kya, and that they split from Eurasians ~70 kya, and so on. It's kind of strange how East Africans were the same trunk as non-Africans when they split from West Africans. It's fascinating.

ANA was probably a population that split from the lineage that was West African-East African-Eurasian, so maybe some 10s of thousands of years before we split from West Africans because I remember the Taforalt paper claimed the African DNA at the exclusion of the Near Eastern stuff was equidistant to the West Africans and East Africans. That to me is telling how it was just another deep African variation that went north and started to diverge. Why do I say that? Because Ust'Ishim, a lineage that split from Eurasians before the West and East Eurasian split was equally distant to both Eastern Eurasians and Western Eurasians. So ANA has to be some diverged group that split from us before we split from West Africans. It can also be a good reason why it shows strange Eurasian-like properties because maybe it enriched some variation of the African-sourced Eurasian-like diversity it had when going through the genetic drift (because this was, after all, a time when we were one diversity with non-Africans) -- remember that non-Africans are just a bottlenecked version of an African variation, after all.

But given ANA is in North Africa, Ancestral East African rich people are in Northeast Africa and West Africans are in the northern part of West Africa (just to give this consistent meaning), then I think the genesis could be anywhere in the modern Sahara, maybe central, maybe even eastern. The Saharan desert was a very different place back then with likely diverse forms of environmental variation. I don't think the group separated in southern Africa or anything like that.

 

[Emir of Zayla]

Prove it..Considering Proto-Cushitic existed 7k years while Proto-Nilotic only came into existence as of 0 BCE (Jesus time).

Actually? Damn that’s young, if the proto language is that young imagine how recent the modern ones are today.

 

[Nilotic]

Nile Valley is where they have stayed for a very long time.

There is really no such thing as a definite geographic Urheimat for Ancestral East Africa because that lineage is supposedly tied to one of the oldest lineages we have. When we go back to 100 kya, I can't really say where people were exactly but we can say, that those people split from West Africans ~80 kya, and that they split from Eurasians ~70 kya, and so on. It's kind of strange how East Africans were the same trunk as non-Africans when they split from West Africans. It's fascinating.

ANA was probably a population that split from the lineage that was West African-East African-Eurasian, so maybe some 10s of thousands of years before we split from West Africans because I remember the Taforalt paper claimed the African DNA at the exclusion of the Near Eastern stuff was equidistant to the West Africans and East Africans. That to me is telling how it was just another deep African variation that went north and started to diverge. Why do I say that? Because Ust'Ishim, a lineage that split from Eurasians before the West and East Eurasian split was equally distant to both Eastern Eurasians and Western Eurasians. So ANA has to be some diverged group that split from us before we split from West Africans. It can also be a good reason why it shows strange Eurasian-like properties because maybe it enriched some variation of the African-sourced Eurasian-like diversity it had when going through the genetic drift (because this was, after all, a time when we were one diversity with non-Africans) -- remember that non-Africans are just a bottlenecked version of an African variation, after all.

But given ANA is in North Africa, Ancestral East African rich people are in Northeast Africa and West Africans are in the northern part of West Africa (just to give this consistent meaning), then I think the genesis could be anywhere in the modern Sahara, maybe central, maybe even eastern. The Saharan desert was a very different place back then with likely diverse forms of environmental variation. I don't think the group separated in southern Africa or anything like that.

Thanks for that wealth of information

 

[BetterDaysAhead]

Nile Valley is where they have stayed for a very long time.

There is really no such thing as a definite geographic Urheimat for Ancestral East Africa because that lineage is supposedly tied to one of the oldest lineages we have. When we go back to 100 kya, I can't really say where people were exactly but we can say, that those people split from West Africans ~80 kya, and that they split from Eurasians ~70 kya, and so on. It's kind of strange how East Africans were the same trunk as non-Africans when they split from West Africans. It's fascinating.

ANA was probably a population that split from the lineage that was West African-East African-Eurasian, so maybe some 10s of thousands of years before we split from West Africans because I remember the Taforalt paper claimed the African DNA at the exclusion of the Near Eastern stuff was equidistant to the West Africans and East Africans. That to me is telling how it was just another deep African variation that went north and started to diverge. Why do I say that? Because Ust'Ishim, a lineage that split from Eurasians before the West and East Eurasian split was equally distant to both Eastern Eurasians and Western Eurasians. So ANA has to be some diverged group that split from us before we split from West Africans. It can also be a good reason why it shows strange Eurasian-like properties because maybe it enriched some variation of the African-sourced Eurasian-like diversity it had when going through the genetic drift (because this was, after all, a time when we were one diversity with non-Africans) -- remember that non-Africans are just a bottlenecked version of an African variation, after all.

But given ANA is in North Africa, Ancestral East African rich people are in Northeast Africa and West Africans are in the northern part of West Africa (just to give this consistent meaning), then I think the genesis could be anywhere in the modern Sahara, maybe central, maybe even eastern. The Saharan desert was a very different place back then with likely diverse forms of environmental variation. I don't think the group separated in southern Africa or anything like that.

Thanks for the great insight. Do you think we’ll ever get a fully ancestral East African sample?

 

[BetterDaysAhead]

No. Proto-Nilotic is a linguistic term which is way younger than the genetic conversation we're talking about. But if you mean proto-Nilotic as the genetics of the proto-Nilo-Saharans, then that too is wrong.

Those groups share ancestral roots but even they were a separate lineage. We're not derived from them.

Let me show you a simplified picture that is discreet to illustrate how wrong people are when they say "proto-Nilote":
View attachment 295061

How much ANA do you believe our ancestors have? I thought any ANA our AEA ancestors had came from an iberomaurusian related source