|
Post by djehuti on Sept 10, 2024 3:34:30 GMT -5
^ Obviously because there was some sort of genetic continuity from the Nile Valley down to that area which seems to confirm the Egyptians folk traditions that their ancestors (and those of Ta-Seti) came from Pwnt which is located in modern Eritrea and northern Ethiopia. Not only is Ethiopia geographically closer to Egypt than Somalia, but recall the ES thread 'A-Group Nubians Caucasoid?'. I pointed out how even Y haplogroup A-M13 which was found to be the predominant (I think only) paternal clade found in A-Group skeletal remains also happens to have a high concentration in Ethiopia as well. By the way, the Ethiopian sample that Irish and Mukherjee used were from northern Ethiopia and southern Eritrea and comprised of Amhara, Tigre, and Danakil (Afar) peoples. So it was an ethnically heterogeneous sample. Archaeologically the connection between all these cultures is the Sudanese Neolithic, and although the exact site of Pwnt has yet to be verified, a good candidate would be the Gash Culture. The Neolithic cultures ancestral to Somalians are the Doian and Hargeisan Cultures which fell outside of the sphere of the Sudanese Neolithic though there were were likely trade relations. The archaeological, skeletal, and genetic evidence suggests then that Somalis and other East Cushitic speakers represent a later wave of Afroasiatic speakers more divergent from Nubians and Egyptians. The autosomal data show Somalis to possess significant Levant Neolithic influence as well as some Caucasus Neolithic. The assumption is that such ancestries came from proto-Afroasiatic ancestors from further north in the Nile Valley-Eastern Desert area, yet this latest study shows their lack of Naqada marker. What's more is that cave paintings of the Laas Geel caves of the Hargeisa Culture bear a distinctive 'Ethiopian-Arabian' style dated to 1000 to 3000 BCE which is also found in southern Arabia. This suggests to me that the Eurasian genetic influence in Somalis could very have come from Arabia rather than from the Nile.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 10, 2024 12:37:54 GMT -5
What's more is that cave paintings of the Laas Geel caves of the Hargeisa Culture bear a distinctive 'Ethiopian-Arabian' style dated to 1000 to 3000 BCE which is also found in southern Arabia. This suggests to me that the Eurasian genetic influence in Somalis could very have come from Arabia rather than from the Nile. Makes sense to me too. I think a lot of the genuine Eurasian influence in Horners is from Arabia since that's just across the Red Sea. Incidentally, have you heard of a Tihama cultural complex possibly originating in the Horn and spreading to Arabia in the 2nd millennium BC? This paper mentions it briefly. It could be that bidirectional migrations between the Horn and Arabia have been a thing for many millennia.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 11, 2024 0:24:56 GMT -5
^ Yeah! I've brought up the Tihama Culture before in ES multiple times as well as Tukuler and the moderator Yom. The Tihama Culture in southern Arabia has precursors in the Ethiopia-Eritrea region. What's also interesting is that Dana Marniche also points out that the cave paintings bear a striking resemblance to those found in the Horn showing tall, black, skinny figures with oval shaped heads armed with the same style spears and shields as people in the Horn as described by Anati. Also, linguists like Alexander Militarev, Belova et ales., and more recently Václav Blažek point out a Cushitic substratum in the Modern South Arabian languages and remember the Sabeaean stela that cites multiple languages including an unknown language with Nilo-Saharan traits?! All of this along with the Bible supports the theory of Arabian Cushites who were the original inhabitants of that region. This is why it's still probable that the Neolithic Levant ancestry could very well just have originated in Africa. By the way, I would like to point out that in the previous page I mistakenly posted Irish's odontic graph as Mukherjee's cranial graph. Just to clear up any confusion from 2007 study: Irish odontic graphMukherjee cranial graphThe Irish study uses an Ethiopian sample comprised of ethnically heterogeneous skulls of Amhara, Tigre, and Danakil (Afar) from northern Ethiopia to Eritrea dating to the 19-20th centuries A.D., while the Mukjherjee study uses a sample of Tigrean skulls from northern Ethiopia dating to the 19th century A.D. In fact, I believe Mujherjee's sample could very well be the same one that was the basis of physical anthropologist Sergio Sergi's book Crania Habessinica. S. Sergi is the son and successor of none other than anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi the founder of the 'Brown Mediterranean Race' concept. Unfortunately I have yet to find an English translation of Crania Habessinica which is in Italian and I have only found secondary sources that make references to it. The book is can be thought of a sequel to his father work The Mediterranean Race as well as a sequel to Samuel Morton's work Crania Aegyptiaca, with the latter being obvious due to the title. S. Sergi explains how Abyssinia (Ethiopia) specifically but the the Horn in general is the homeland of the 'Mediterranean race' including that of the Egyptians. He specifically uses a sample of Tigrean skulls to show a close affinities with predynastic and dynastic Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 11, 2024 14:39:13 GMT -5
^ Yeah! I've brought up the Tihama Culture before in ES multiple times as well as Tukuler and the moderator Yom. The Tihama Culture in southern Arabia has precursors in the Ethiopia-Eritrea region. What's also interesting is that Dana Marniche also points out that the cave paintings bear a striking resemblance to those found in the Horn showing tall, black, skinny figures with oval shaped heads armed with the same style spears and shields as people in the Horn as described by Anati. Also, linguists like Alexander Militarev, Belova et ales., and more recently Václav Blažek point out a Cushitic substratum in the Modern South Arabian languages and remember the Sabeaean stela that cites multiple languages including an unknown language with Nilo-Saharan traits?! All of this along with the Bible supports the theory of Arabian Cushites who were the original inhabitants of that region. This is why it's still probable that the Neolithic Levant ancestry could very well just have originated in Africa. I would love to learn more about this. I wish I had seen all those posts about the Tihama culture on ES before it went down.
|
|
maverick5
Craftsperson
Posts: 10
Member is Online
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 11, 2024 18:21:49 GMT -5
Because Taforalt has different Eurasian ancestry from the Naqada sample. Taforalt can be modeled from a source best represented by Dzudzuana, which was more excessively Western Eurasia, WHG. The Naqada sample's Eurasian ancestry can be best modeled by Iranian Hunter Gatherers, who has the most Deep (Basal Eurasian) ancestry. This difference in Eurasian ancestry can create the discrepancies needed to make the IBMs divergent from predynastic Egyptians. I was just going through this again and wanted to ask if the two components were indeed different (as the graph I posted as well your explanation clearly seems to indicate) why then did Hodgson 2014 infer that the two Eurasian components were very similar among both populations (Horners and Maghrebi) He also suggest the population split into two branches and one went to the Horn and the other went to Northwest Africa to the Maghreb? Wouldn't this suggest the two Eurasian linages are exactly the same or WERE exactly the same?
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 12, 2024 4:07:35 GMT -5
^ Yes. Hodgeson saw this autosomal connection that Loosdrecht and Fregel later confirmed, though I think it was Lazaridis who identified it as Basal Eurasian. I am curious how this plays out once you factor in the Naqada marker. Hodge's implication from his autosomal study that Afroasiatic speakers were of Eurasian origin is funny considering that the uniparental clades both paternal (E-M215) and maternal (M1, L3, L2) in the Horn but especially in Somalia is predominantly African. Add to the fact that the all the subfamilies of Afroasiatic are spoken exclusively in Africa except for Semitic makes the Eurasian origins claim highly questionable. Iberomaurusian seems to be intermediate between Mota and Natufians as shown here and here.
|
|
maverick5
Craftsperson
Posts: 10
Member is Online
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 12, 2024 5:06:35 GMT -5
^ Yes. Hodgeson saw this autosomal connection that Loosdrecht and Fregel later confirmed, though I think it was Lazaridis who identified it as Basal Eurasian.This is the part that isn't making sense to me. I thought Iberomaurusians Non-African (Eurasian) ancestry mostly came from a Main Eurasian line Dzudzuana (Villabruna) and not Basal Eurasian that's why I'm confused by Hodgson's description of calling or implying it is the same between Horners and Maghrebis. I understand Basal Eurasian being more connected to Natufians and Northeast Africans than Iberomaurusians (Taforalt) which is why they cluster quite far away from each other in the data shown below. So why the implication from Hodgson they're the same?
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 12, 2024 13:02:09 GMT -5
^ Well it has to be Basal Eurasian because Somalis and other Horn Africans (for the most part) lack Dzudzuana ancestry. The predominant 'Eurasian' ancestry found in that region is Natufian, though Dzudzuana does show up every now and then in certain samples like the recent one. According to sources I've read (from Horn African researchers like Ethiohelix), the Dzudzuana ancestry is more recent and the result of historical immigrations from Arabia while the Natufian ancestry is associated with Proto-Cushitic speakers. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Dzudzuana ancestry is associated primarily with Neolithic Maghrebis not Mesolithic ones although I think Taforalt might have it. Also, cranial nonmetric data is more accurate at assessing genetic relations than metric data which just shows resemblance in features. By the way, if you recall the study from Loosdrecht, the Afar people are intermediate between Taforalt and Somalis whereas Taforalt intermediate between Afar and Yemenis.
|
|
maverick5
Craftsperson
Posts: 10
Member is Online
|
Post by maverick5 on Sept 12, 2024 13:12:38 GMT -5
^ Well it has to be Basal Eurasian because Somalis and other Horn Africans (for the most part) lack Dzudzuana ancestry. The predominant 'Eurasian' ancestry found in that region is Natufian, though Dzudzuana does show up every now and then in certain samples like the recent one. But again how can it be Basal Eurasian that's causing similarities (according to Hodgson) if Taforalt's Eurasian ancestry lacks Basal Eurasian?
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 13, 2024 0:03:32 GMT -5
^ What are you talking about?! Basal Eurasian is a constituent in Taforalt due to the fact tha Dzudzuana itself is comprised of Basal Eurasian admixture. I suggest you read the original Lazaridis paper here. Dzudzuana a.k.a. Caucasus Neolithic is already admixed with Basal Eurasian which is itself actually African in origin so all this talk of "Eurasian" admixture is a joke. Look, if you want to discuss more about Taforalt and Iberomaurusians and their relation to alleged Eurasians then I suggest we do so in another thread. I want to discuss the topic of the predynastic Egyptian genome and their relation to today's populations. ^ While the Somali sample lacks Naqada ancestry the ONE population in the Horn that does possess it is the Beni Amer tribe of the Beja. The other sample closest in resemblance to the Beni Amer is the Halfaween Nubian sample. Ironically the Halfaween happen to be the modern population closest to Kadruka. Beni-Amer in the 2017 study.
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Sept 13, 2024 20:18:23 GMT -5
Because Taforalt has different Eurasian ancestry from the Naqada sample. Taforalt can be modeled from a source best represented by Dzudzuana, which was more excessively Western Eurasia, WHG. The Naqada sample's Eurasian ancestry can be best modeled by Iranian Hunter Gatherers, who has the most Deep (Basal Eurasian) ancestry. This difference in Eurasian ancestry can create the discrepancies needed to make the IBMs divergent from predynastic Egyptians. I was just going through this again and wanted to ask if the two components were indeed different (as the graph I posted as well your explanation clearly seems to indicate) why then did Hodgson 2014 infer that the two Eurasian components were very similar among both populations (Horners and Maghrebi) He also suggest the population split into two branches and one went to the Horn and the other went to Northwest Africa to the Maghreb? Wouldn't this suggest the two Eurasian linages are exactly the same or WERE exactly the same? You're conflating something entirely different from the initial point I was trying to make, especially within the context of Revoiye's article. First of all, Hodgson's Ethio-Somali component and the Gebelein sample's modeled Eurasian ancestry are not the same. Second, Hodgson never inferred that his two components were the same. He stated that they were closely related, that's all. Their differences are demonstrated from their fst distances from one another, as well as their relationship: Third and I can't stress this enough, Hodgson's "Ethio-Somali" component wasn't entirely Eurasian nor was it real. It was a hybrid model using K=12 from an ADMIXTURE algorithm, nothing else. See these decades old blog posts about it: anthromadness.blogspot.com/2014/12/ethio-somali-is-farce.htmlforwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/06/ancient-inter-continental-admixture-in.htmlThe same kind of applies to his "Maghrebi" component in the sense that it wasn't purely Eurasian although it was more Eurasian-shifted than his Ethio-Somali component which can interpreted as the usual ~50/50 African/Eurasian admixture ratio we see within Horners. By and all, I wouldn't worry about these old studies and their models if I were you. Especially since Hodgson's component, Maghrebi, turned out to be more African-drifted per Taforalt than he initially proposed: The same thing applies to the ancestors of the early Nubians and the Egyptians per the osteological findings we now have.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon S. Pilcher on Sept 13, 2024 23:56:36 GMT -5
I would be interested in knowing how that Aegean Neolithic-related ancestry got into the Old Kingdom/First Intermediate Period Egyptian sample. Is it a proxy for European ancestry in general? Note from the phenotype calls linked to in the oP that this sample is one predicted to be "dark" but not quite "dark to black" unlike most of the other Egyptian samples.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 14, 2024 0:06:37 GMT -5
Thank you for the explanation Shadow. I've never read that particular Hodgson paper so I'm unfamiliar with its findings. I only read Loosdrecht and Fregel but what you point out makes sense. Also, unsurprisingly I've seen many Euronuts use the findings of that study to claim Horn Africans as 'Eurasian'. For example, in the Egyptsearch forum the troll Antalas posted the results of that same Hodgson paper. Yet the results don't at all match up with say the uniparental data. Wolayta are said to be 34% Eurasian but it doesn't show up in the lineages. proportion of mtDNA haplogroups^ They don't even add up to 10% let alone 34%, and the hunter-gatherer groups like Sandawe and Hadze show none at all. I would be interested in knowing how that Aegean Neolithic-related ancestry got into the Old Kingdom/First Intermediate Period Egyptian sample. Is it a proxy for European ancestry in general? Note from the phenotype calls linked to in the oP that this sample is one predicted to be "dark" but not quite "dark to black" unlike most of the other Egyptian samples. We know that the Egyptians had close commercial ties to the Aegean cultures to their north and there were a couple of threads on ES showing that there likely small communities of Aegean people settled along the coasts in the Delta since at least the great pyramid era.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Sept 15, 2024 15:17:19 GMT -5
Does anyone know the provenance of Late Period Unknown that has the highest in Naqada ancestry? The second and third highest samples both come from the Rifeh cemetery dated to the Middle Kingdom. For those who don't know Rifeh is a significant archaeological site for it is the site of the capital of Shas-hotep-- the 11th nome of Upper Egypt. The area was a major byway between Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt next to Beni Hassan and there are tombs of local governors and rock cut tombs including the Tomb of the Two Brothers. I'm thinking this area of Egypt-- northern Upper Egypt-- could very well be a relatively insulated area kept from Eurasian influence from the north and Sub-Saharan influence from the south.
|
|