The Afar People

[SOMALI GENERAL]

Somali skulls literally plot next to Ancient Egyptian skulls, yet Ancient and Modern Nubians don't lol.

Isn't this Craniology stuff simply Pseudo-science? I think we can all agree the average Horner exhibit both West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan facial features & look similar to mixed New World Blacks.

 

[Apollo]

Isn't this Craniology stuff simply Pseudo-science? I think we can all agree the average Horner exhibit both West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan facial features & look like mixed New World Blacks.

It's a bit outdated and it has become a taboo science, but Somalis are always consistently the least or one of the least Negroid Sub-Saharan populations when it comes to skull metrics.

The only thing that makes Somalis Negroid is skin color and to some degree lips, but definitely not skull/craniometrics.

 

[Som]

I've seen videos from Tigray/Northern Provinces and Eritrea and the average person looks like the Somali individual you posted irrespective of their skin tone[some were lighter but had the same features as the individual you posted].

The overwhelming majority of Horners look Black/Bi-racial. It's extremely rare to find people who look like the guy below in the Horn of Africa who are completely Caucasoid regardless of ethnic background:

I think they have more sharp features but maybe I'm influenced by the few habesha people I know here in the west, also I'm talking about somalis back home. I don't think individual somalis in general look more African than habeshas BUT i think you are more likely to find stereotypical African features among somalis .
For example a guy like Shaykh Sharif would probably never pass as habesha but he can fit in the somali spectrum.
Anyways at the end of the day it's not that much of a difference, I'd say it's kinda like the phenotype difference between arab egyptians and levantines. Most of the time they overlap but sometimes you may find arab Egyptians who have obvious african features that you would never find in syria or palestine. The sane applies to somalis-habesha

 

[Som]

It's a bit outdated and it has become a taboo science, but Somalis are always consistently the least or one of the least Negroid Sub-Saharan populations when it comes to skull metrics.

The only thing that makes Somalis Negroid is skin color and to some degree lips, but definitely not skull/craniometrics.

Well people don't see your skull. They see your face.
It's interesting anyway.
I'm surprised that the nasal index in somalia is lower than in ethiopia

 

[Som]

You are wrong on the various Afars samples in genetic studies not being Afar. They actually all are Afar and many newer studies confirmed that genetic pattern of Afars being similar to Amharas with simply less Omotic.

Secondly, that phenotype is not common at all in Somalis. Silly cherry picking. You can find that look in Afars and Oromos as well, but it is not common in either. Example here:

Spoiler

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

None of those looks are the standard for Afars either.

There is no evidence that ethnic Somalis are craniometrically more ''Negroid'' than other Horners. In fact, it is the opposite. In most of those craniometric studies I see Northern Somalis plot on the gracile end.

Nubians and Sudanese Arabs are also more ''Eurasian'' than Somalis, yet on all craniometric studies I have come across they are more Negroid than Somalis.

My argument was mainly on habeshas.
The pics you posted can fit the somali/afar/oromo spectrum but i think those people would never pass in Eritrea or northern ethiopia

 

[Som]

You are wrong on the various Afars samples in genetic studies not being Afar. They actually all are Afar and many newer studies confirmed that genetic pattern of Afars being similar to Amharas with simply less Omotic.

Secondly, that phenotype is not common at all in Somalis. Silly cherry picking. You can find that look in Afars and Oromos as well, but it is not common in either. Example here:

Spoiler

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

None of those looks are the standard for Afars either.

There is no evidence that ethnic Somalis are craniometrically more ''Negroid'' than other Horners. In fact, it is the opposite. In most of those craniometric studies I see Northern Somalis plot on the gracile end.

Nubians and Sudanese Arabs are also more ''Eurasian'' than Somalis, yet on all craniometric studies I have come across they are more Negroid than Somalis.

Anyway check this out.
It says afar samples are actually Agaws and not real Afars. These studies often use the same samples so the label "afar" stayed in many other studies. The table shows the population used by Pagani et al in his study which is cited over and over again by others with the same samples.
The afar samples comes from wag hemra zone in the Amhara region.
According to Wikipedia The three largest ethnic groups reported in Wag Hemra were the Kamyr Agaw (52.92%), the Amhara (45.45%), and the Tigrayan (1.39%); No afars live there basically.
The language of the sample is Xamtan also called Xamtanga which is actually an Agaw language.
Agaws are cushitic speakers heavily admixed with amharas

"Afar" samples from Autosomal DNA studies using Pagani samples are Xamtanga speaking Agaws

Well, this will be a short blog post that I plan to honestly just utilize as a reference to link people to because I've been in far too ma...

anthromadness.blogspot.com

 

[Apollo]

@Som

Those Afars in those genetic studies are real Afars. The error was the Xamtanga typo, not that they are not Afar. The Taforalt study had new Afar samples and there was a new 2019/2020 Ethiopia study[1] that had new Afars as well. They are basically the same as those earlier Afar samples. Afars cluster near Amharas but with less Omotic affinity.

For example a guy like Shaykh Sharif would probably never pass as habesha but he can fit in the somali spectrum.

That guy is not a full blood Somali. He has Bantu admixture. He comes from the riverine areas with Bantu settlement.

Most of the time they overlap but sometimes you may find arab Egyptians who have obvious african features that you would never find in syria or palestine. The sane applies to somalis-habesha

It actually doesn't. More often than not, a Habesha has kinkier hair and a wider nose than a Somali. The only thing that makes them look more Semitic is the lighter skin and more hooked noses (the latter rarely).

My argument was mainly on habeshas.
The pics you posted can fit the somali/afar/oromo spectrum but i think those people would never pass in Eritrea or northern ethiopia

You seem to not have met many Habeshas. Moreover, Afars and Amharas are basically not that different in Eurasian-African %.

 

[Som]

@Som

Those Afars in those genetic studies are real Afars. The error was the Xamtanga typo, not that they are not Afar. The Taforalt study had new Afar samples and there was a new 2019/2020 Ethiopia study[1] that had new Afars as well. They are basically the same as those earlier Afar samples. Afars cluster near Amharas but with less Omotic affinity.



That guy is not a full blood Somali. He has Bantu admixture. He comes from the riverine areas with Bantu settlement.



It actually doesn't. More often than not, a Habesha has kinkier hair and a wider nose than a Somali. The only thing that makes them look more Semitic is the lighter skin and more prominent nose, but usually Habeshas have more Negroid hair and wider noses than Somalis.



You seem to not have met many Habeshas. Moreover, Afars and Amharas are basically not that different in Eurasian-African %.

It seems a bit weird though. They used samples from an agaw majority zone and wrote xamtanga as a language. Maybe the typo is Afar and not Xamtanga.
Anyway the study you linked shows affinity with "somalia" , isn't that table masking true west eurasian / african admixture in the samples?

 

[Apollo]

It seems a bit weird though. They used samples from an agaw majority zone and wrote xamtanga as a language. Maybe the typo is Afar and not Xamtanga.
Anyway the study you linked shows affinity with "somalia" , isn't that table masking true west eurasian / african admixture in the samples?

Somalis have been isolated in the Eastern Horn for about ~3,500 years. None of the Ethiopian Cushitic populations are close to Somalis. The only reason why Afars look a bit more like Somalis compared to all the other Ethiopians is climatic adaptation and not recent shared origin.

 

[Som]

@Som

Those Afars in those genetic studies are real Afars. The error was the Xamtanga typo, not that they are not Afar. The Taforalt study had new Afar samples and there was a new 2019/2020 Ethiopia study[1] that had new Afars as well. They are basically the same as those earlier Afar samples. Afars cluster near Amharas but with less Omotic affinity.



That guy is not a full blood Somali. He has Bantu admixture. He comes from the riverine areas with Bantu settlement.



It actually doesn't. More often than not, a Habesha has kinkier hair and a wider nose than a Somali. The only thing that makes them look more Semitic is the lighter skin and more hooked noses (the latter rarely).



You seem to not have met many Habeshas. Moreover, Afars and Amharas are basically not that different in Eurasian-African %.

Anyway come on
There are some african looking people even in Galgaduud, Mudug, Puntland, Somaliland were they have zero bantus except recent immigrants.
The point is that it only makes sense that the more african dna you have the more african you look. I known genotype and phenotype don't always overlap, but in the case of somalis is logical. More nilo-saharian dna = more african look

 

[Som]

Somalis have been isolated in the Eastern Horn for about ~3,500 years. None of the Ethiopian Cushitic populations are close to Somalis. The only reason why Afars look a bit more like Somalis compared to all the other Ethiopians is climatic adaptation and not recent shared origin.

What I'm saying is that your study doesn't give the full picture of the west eurasian vs african admixture of Afars so it doesn't disprove my claim.
I think it's likely that the whole afar results we have been seeing are the same agaw people tested by Pagani.
Anyway 3500 years isn't enough to make significant changes in phenotype due to adaptation. You can put any white european population in Africa for 3500 years and if they don't mix with others they will still be white after 3500 years with the same phenotype.

 

[Apollo]

Anyway come on
There are some african looking people even in Galgaduud, Mudug, Puntland, Somaliland were they have zero bantus except recent immigrants.
The point is that it only makes sense that the more african dna you have the more african you look. I known genotype and phenotype don't always overlap, but in the case of somalis is logical. More nilo-saharian dna = more african look

I live in Europe. I see Habesha fobs all the damn time. They don't look significantly more 'Caucasoid' than Somalis. Also stop using African as a euphemism for 'Negroid'. Africa is a massive continent. The Madow look is not the only look native to Africa. Somalis evovled 'Caucasoid' bone structure and looser hair natively independent of Eurasian admixture. Hence, why Habeshas who have more Eurasian do not exhibit greater 'Caucasoid' bone structure nor softer hair than Somalis, both of these facts are established in the anthropological record.

 

[Som]

I live in Europe. I see Habesha fobs all the damn time. They don't look significantly more Caucasian than Somalis. Also stop using African as a euphemism for Negroid. Africa is a massive continent. The Madow look is not the only look native to Africa. Somalis evovled Caucasoid bone structure and loser hair indepedant of Eurasian admixture. Hence, why Habeshas who have more Eurasian do not exhibit greater Caucasoid bone structure nor softer hair than Somalis.

How ? I'm not sure evolution can do anything about facial bone structure in just 3000 years.
50% west eurasian vs 38 % is significant, I doubt it doesn't show on phenotype

 

[Som]

I live in Europe. I see Habesha fobs all the damn time. They don't look significantly more 'Caucasoid' than Somalis. Also stop using African as a euphemism for 'Negroid'. Africa is a massive continent. The Madow look is not the only look native to Africa. Somalis evovled 'Caucasoid' bone structure and looser hair natively independent of Eurasian admixture. Hence, why Habeshas who have more Eurasian do not exhibit greater 'Caucasoid' bone structure nor softer hair than Somalis, both of these facts are established in the anthropological record.

Habeshas also have that "arabian" vibe that is more rare among Somalis and interestingly they have more dna from the arabian peninsula than Somalis who have negligible amounts.

 

[Apollo]

Anyway 3500 years isn't enough to make significant changes in phenotype due to adaptation. You can put any white european population in Africa for 3500 years and if they don't mix with others they will still be white after 3500 years with the same phenotype.

4,000 years is more than enough time to self-select for certain looks. Especially as an isolated population. The ancient Somalis already possessed the Caucasoid genes.

Just a few thousand years ago, European hunter-gatherers looked like South Indians with blue eyes. A lot of evolution can happen in a few thousand years.

 

[Apollo]

Habeshas also have that "arabian" vibe that is more rare among Somalis and interestingly they have more dna from the arabian peninsula than Somalis who have negligible amounts.

I honestly don't think their look has anything to do with admixture anymore. Their Yemenite admixture happened nearly 3,000-2,000 years ago, more than enough time for them to adapt to local conditions.

Sudanese Arabs look more Arab to me than Habeshas do. Habeshas just look like their own thing.

 

[Som]

4,000 years is more than enough time to self-select for certain looks. Especially as an isolated population. The ancient Somalis already possessed the Caucasoid genes.

Just a few thousand years ago, European hunter-gatherers looked like South Indians with blue eyes. A lot of evolution can happen in a few thousand years.

The blue eyed dark skinned guy from prehistoric Britain was from 10K years ago which is much more than 3500 years ago.
I think people tend to dismiss subsaharan looking Somalis as bantus

I honestly don't think their look has anything to do with admixture anymore. Their Yemenite admixture happened nearly 2,000 years ago, more than enough time for them to adapt to local conditions.

Sudanese Arabs look more Arab to me than Habeshas do. Habeshas just look like their own thing.

Well that's cause sudanese arabs are actually arabs+african and their admixture happened recently.

 

[Apollo]

The blue eyed dark skinned guy from prehistoric Britain was from 10K years ago which is much more than 3500 years ago.

They existed in Europe as late as 3,000 BCE. Ironically, the whitest areas today in Europe like the Baltic have the most of their ancestry.

I think people tend to dismiss subsaharan looking Somalis as bantus

They are not the majority look. The normal look for a Somali is to well look Somali (slim features).

Well that's cause sudanese arabs are actually arabs+african and their admixture happened recently.

Arab admixture in Sudanese Arabs happened later, as late as the Middle Ages. To me, they look more Arab than Habeshas. Habeshas look really weird and unlike any Arabs.

 

[Som]

4,000 years is more than enough time to self-select for certain looks. Especially as an isolated population. The ancient Somalis already possessed the Caucasoid genes.

Just a few thousand years ago, European hunter-gatherers looked like South Indians with blue eyes. A lot of evolution can happen in a few thousand years.

The dark skinned British prehistoric guy was actually 10k years ago which is much more than 3500 years ago.
Honestly i think too many people are just coping(not talking about you) cause they refuse to be labeled as madow.
When it comes to major horner populations (amhara, oromo , afar, tigray and somalis) we are the most subsaharan African genetically by a lot.
It only makes sense that we also look more African.

 

[Apollo]

The dark skinned British prehistoric guy was actually 10k years ago which is much more than 3500 years ago.

European hunter-gatherers existed in pure form in Europe as late as 3,000 BCE. Especially in the Baltics.

When it comes to major horner populations (amhara, oromo , afar, tigray and somalis) we are the most subsaharan African genetically by a lot.
It only makes sense that we also look more African.

The only thing that makes us more African is the absorption of the Somalia specific hunter-gatherers who were adapted to the climatic conditions of Somalia (arid). We are more Somali than them, not more ''African'' (what a BS term) lol.