Were these mota people completely African or did they have Eurasian as well? If I'm not mistaken they were omotic like and omotic is afroasiatic by language and omotic speakers have some traces of Eurasian sometimes quite a lot like wolaytas
GENETICS This study shows that more than 50% of Somalis autosomal is Mota
- Thread starter Aurelian
- Start date
Step a side
VIP
I believe Mota was found to be closely related to the Ari, who are modern-day Ethiopian highlanders. Mota had no Eurasian ancestry from what I can remember but it seems like the Mesolithic samples from further up north like Taforalt and Natufisn had some ancient pre Mota like ancestry indicating that Mota like ancestry was widespread across North Africa. I could be wrong though as I haven’t been reading on this topic for a long time. I believe @Alchemist can touch up on this.
16 kya is around the time when the so-called Green Sahara period began using Heinrich event 1 as a proxy. Therefore I propose the name of 'Eastern Green Saharan'I found a surprising sentence that reaffirms what I have pointed out many times through a reference to the paper you linked:
Recent work using WGS data inferred that NS and AA lineages may have diverged ≈11–16 kya (11), though it is unclear the extent to which (e.g.) differential recent West Eurasian admixture among AA relative to NS speakers may affect this inference.
I checked the citation:
View attachment 274498
I've been writing repetedly that the divergence between the Nilo-Saharans and the Cushitic East African ancestry goes deep into the Paleolithic and surpasses temporally beyond the Nilo-Saharan language family's genesis time-depth, and this justifies my assertions. I'm not playing around. I don't want that Sudanese goof to mention me ever again with his Nilo-Saharan ideology (not Nilotic). I'll kick you in your face, ya zool.
Stop saying "proto-Nilotic," for that is categorically wrong labeling.
@Aurelian Thank you for linking that study, sxb. It was worthwhile, despite its apparent flaws.
Excuse the petty point-making and one-up-man-ship (rare moments use), but this is a big deal, guys, and it goes in line with exactly what I said, even the Epipaleolithic time depth (exactly my speculated time range - above the 11kya line, up to 15kya-ish), so I should drop the mentions: @Shimbiris @Reformed J @Step a side
Step a side
VIP
Interesting, so are you suggesting that the Proto Cushites and the Proto Nilo Saharan were living side by side for that long? How do we explain the Semitic-Berber-Cushitic linguistic node then?I found a surprising sentence that reaffirms what I have pointed out many times through a reference to the paper you linked:
Recent work using WGS data inferred that NS and AA lineages may have diverged ≈11–16 kya (11), though it is unclear the extent to which (e.g.) differential recent West Eurasian admixture among AA relative to NS speakers may affect this inference.
I checked the citation:
View attachment 274498
I've been writing repetedly that the divergence between the Nilo-Saharans and the Cushitic East African ancestry goes deep into the Paleolithic and surpasses temporally beyond the Nilo-Saharan language family's genesis time-depth, and this justifies my assertions. I'm not playing around. I don't want that Sudanese goof to mention me ever again with his Nilo-Saharan ideology (not Nilotic). I'll kick you in your face, ya zool.
Stop saying "proto-Nilotic," for that is categorically wrong labeling.
@Aurelian Thank you for linking that study, sxb. It was worthwhile, despite its apparent flaws.
Excuse the petty point-making and one-up-man-ship (rare moments use), but this is a big deal, guys, and it goes in line with exactly what I said, even the Epipaleolithic time depth (exactly my speculated time range - above the 11kya line, up to 15kya-ish), so I should drop the mentions: @Shimbiris @Reformed J @Step a side
Nilotic
VIP
Yeah, I don't fully understand this either
His point was the SSA component in Cushites has been distinct from Dinkas for a very long time, such that calling it 'proto-Nilotic' (and presumably attributing it to Nilotes) would be a disservice to how ancient and divergent it is.
Step a side
VIP
Ah I see. But I doubt that Nilo Saharan like ancestry found in Cushites is that old. If it really was then that ancestry would have spilled over into the AA communities further north. 16,000 years ago E-V12 and E-V22 found in Egyptians and Cushites alike weren’t even born yet so how did we mix with these ancient inhabitants 16,000 ago? I am confused.
I guess the Afroasiatic community that was in contact with these SSAs became the Cushites. Linguists place the upper bound of Proto-Afroasiatic at 17-18 kya. Afroasiatics probably had a lot of different E-M35 lineages, but bottlenecks and founder effects made some lineages more prominent and many others extinct.
Also there's some limitations with the Markovian Coalescent method they used that may produce a result that might not accurately represent reality. It assumes constant population sizes (no migration, no bottle necks, no expansion), random mating (no selection), sensitive to the mutation rate (dunno about it) and generation time (29 was used, seems accurate),
This study is wrong because it’s proven that Amhara and beta isreal ain’t Semitic group rather semetic speaking group . If that’s wrong then imagine others I guess
No that just means we were hugging the coast and didn’t interact with hunter gatherers as much as other horners. This also tells us the incorrect hypothesis of proto Somalis coming from southeastern Ethiopia is nonsensical
Wrong study.
The alchemist
VIP
Some papers are of higher quality than others. A lot of them have flaws, obviously.
Many of them have their own methodological approaches where there is a spectrum of strengths and weaknesses, given the objective, and often they pick a terrible choice for that, wrong interpretation, etc. There is also data quality, the important pre-requisite knowledge which is crucial, otherwise, you will end up with a silly result as a 50% Mota, 25% Dinka, and 25 Egyptian, total BS score for a Somali.
The alchemist
VIP
That post only addresses the non-Afro-Asiatic side of Cushites, the "SSA" portion.
Various distinct groups indeed lived along the Nile Valley. You had the Al Khiday, a fossil sample 14kyo found in Upper Nubia that broadly clustered with Nubian farmers, while you had African morphological distinct peoples found in Lower Nubia contemporaneously -- on top of various distinct Paleolithic cultures. There was a diversity in the Nile Valley that saw a reduction from 26 thousand years ago to 11 thousand years ago. We can go further back, but I don't think broadening the window would give us a resolution other than looking for basal, component-specific lineages.
These are proto-Afro-Asiatic time-depth, of course. So we're talking way before Cushitc was a thing.
Last edited:
The alchemist
VIP
It would be the equivalent of saying our Natufian-like DNA is "proto-Arabian." Genetically Somalis could use Mahra quite well instead of Natufian and get quite autosomally super-imposed proportional representation; look at the neat overlap:
But this is a wrong interpretation. Because similar to how Nilo-Saharans are deeply related to our East African Nile Valley-derived side, the Mahra share considerable DNA deeply with our Natufian-like side far back into the Paleolithic.
The alchemist
VIP
Correct. Proto-Afro-Asiatic is undoubtedly a Paleolithic speech tradition. As the vocabulary of the early speakers was within hunter-gatherer subsistence dependent with mixed wild-grain collectors, this is pre-farming. Furthermore, the comparative method within linguistics can only statistically go up to 10kyo for calculating age. Afro-Asiatic went beyond that, so linguists claim it can be a 15kya old language family. There is a reason they claim it is the oldest language family in the world. It dwarfs Indo-European three times over.
It has limitations, like any other computational method. But it somehow puts strength behind it. It shows the delineation between the lineages enough to set a lower bound into the Paleolithic. From a range perspective, that is impressive.
Theoretically and method-wise, some level of awareness, imposing a set of discreet conditions upon a complex deep past can be an error-filled endeavor, like talking about all gene flow moments. So, for example, it creates a rough estimation and can be speculative in time and place. It looks to me, from how neat the reading is, based on my theoretical speculation (that I am assertive about with confidence), the divergence did not undergo conditions of later cross-geneflow but genetically sustained isolation from the bifurcation to the Afro-Asiatic mixing. The fact that we lack 30% old West African-like frequency of what current Nilo-Saharans have today is a testament to that and likely was a consistent condition that did go beyond the mixing of the East African Nile Valley signature carriers with the Afro-Asiatic speakers.
Last edited:
The alchemist
VIP
And also. It is not just a silly tomato-tomato thing. It creates wrong assumptions, so people ask the incorrectly placed questions (for example, the presupposition that we are a composite of Dinka-like plus minor Mota when that likely was just one component), which leads to stagnancy.
The DNA shared between a Dinka and our ancestors is still considerable. They are indeed different tribes that went to their separate geographies and did their own thing, and Nilo-Sahrans share the bulk of that association (the reason why we use them as a proxy to represent that). But you can acknowledge that apparent fact and still recognize how they are separate lineages that go back to common ancestors deep in pre-history.
No one has issues with saying, Natufian-proper diverged from our ancestors before the age of the sampling of the Levantine hunter-gatherers and Arabian ancestors. The same principle has to apply overall. That is why the "-like" part is a good practice.
So Somalis are mix between ancient arab and Bantu
Nilotic
VIP
No, your SSA ancestors were some sort of Nilo-Saharan population and they would have approximated to these phenotypes, minus the additional 20% Niger-Congo ancestry we acquired
You are to humble to be a Somali are you some dinkafied man/woman?
Trending
-
-
-
BREAKING NEWS US and China reach deal to transfer TikTok ownership, trade- Started by Sigmundd
- Replies: 38
