Who exactly were the indigenous African ancestors of modern day Northeast Africans? They weren't Bantus since those guys originated from west-central Africa so were they some proto Nilotic group then? How related were they to Mota?
Who exactly were the indigenous African ancestors of modern day Northeast Africans?
Rick James?
Semitic speakers are 50%+ western eurasian while cushitic speakerd have 30-45%+ , the rest is a mixture of mota (east african hunter gatherer) and dinka (nilotic).
>Mota
Explain that codename
Remains of a 4000+yrs old native eastern african hunter gatherer that was discovered in a place called Mota in etiopia, the guy didnt have any eurasian ancestry .
which group have the most native african ancestry? Which has the least?
For the Horn, of the major groups, Borana Oromo and Wolayta have the most SSA while Eritreans and Tigrayans have the least. In terms of Mota ancestry, Ari are the closest to those HGs while Somalis have the least of it
Aaris, gumuz,anyauk,.... have much less ssa than boranas and wolyatas , wolaytas are actually upto 30% western Eurasian due to recent mixing with ethiosemites.
I don't really know the exact amount of SSA/Eurasian ancestry in minority groups but for major groups it goes like this
Eritreans/Tigrayans = 50-55% Eurasian
Amhara/Afars = 48% Eurasian
Oromos = 35-45% Eurasian
Somalis = 40-42% Eurasian
Wolayta = 30% Eurasian
Eritreans and Tigrayans have a ton of Arabian dna, Amhara aren't too far behind, Afars absorbed a bunch of Ethio-Semites, Oromos are genetically all over the place, Somalis are the most genetically homogenous, and Wolayta have the most Mota
Kinda outdated (actually flawed research ), amharas are officially around 50%eurasian and tigrayans 51% in the research u are most likely referring to/from.
later research and genetic coordination has proven that both groups have a higher percentage aswell as all semitic speakers basically being genetically pretty much the same, the afar % was a mistake in the research they sampled xamir agew but mistakenly assigned it for afar , afars are still close to ethiosemites but not this close , another mistake in the research is that they over represented shewa oromos who are basically recently assimilated ethiosemites ,the oromo average should be lower.
>around 50%eurasian
Well 48% is pretty much around 50%
> proven that both groups have a higher percentage aswell
The highest averages I ever read are 55%. Anything beyond that would be stepping into Maghrebi territory and Horners cluster pretty closely with each other
>the oromo average should be lower.
What should it be?
> The highest averages I ever read are 55%. Anything beyond that would be stepping into Maghrebi territory and Horners cluster pretty closely with each other
About that amount plus the occasional heavily semitic individuals that were noted in another paper by nature journal.
>What should it be?
The missing link is primarily the hararghe oromos, gujis..., i cant easily put a number but considering the haraghe have a larger population something a bit like the somali average(which is like 35%- 42% ,i have read one which said 38%) coupled with a lesser sidamo like (35%) average.
Imo, ite probably 35-40% just to be on the conservative side
>something a bit like the somali average(which is like 35%- 42%
That isn't really the Somali average tho. Not even kenyan somalis reach below 38%
The one research that confused the afar fir xamir put it at 38% for all somalis
In terms of MENA ancestry Somalis are 44-45% (42% Natufian + 1-2% Barcin/Iranian farmer). However since Natufians already have SSA ancestry imbedded in them, the true Eurasian ancestry comes at 40%
Arent ethiosemites supposed to have at the very least 15% bronze age semitic ancestry more than Somalis this coupled with the 1.5-3% taforalt they have , this would put ethiosemites in the 60s on average, a bit too much unless they have a decrease in natufian which would be a shaky claim considering the agews have high natufian.
>Arent ethiosemites supposed to have at the very least 15% bronze age semitic ancestry
Around that yeah but it doesn't add enough to make their own cluster
Have you heard of anthromadness?
>Have you heard of anthromadness?
Alot of pseudo science involved in the blogs if u ask me
Nah he cites actual peer reviewed articles and makes sensible conjectures. Some of it is outdated however. His blog is what got me into HoA genetics lol
Its filled to the brim with assumptions not backed by solid evidence and invalid interpretation of older researchs , it's more of a "go with the vibes" thing than actual genetics the numbers themselves dont add up and they sort of admit that by giving random numbers, this is why i prefer lager scientific journals that all point out that the story is not as simple, i would guess that we would need a few samples from gash group,early damat, early /mid axumite and late zagwe/early solomonic Ethiopia before we could attempt to paint a picture with any certainty.
That is mostly the case with his non-Horn stuff since it isn't his area of expertise but the Ethiopia/Somalia stuff is solid if not slightly shaky due to new evidence
Reference
I have seen this one
>Well 48% is pretty much around 50%
Just trying to be more accurate to point out how close the amharas are to the tigrayans.
> The most
An ethnic group called aari, only about 8-12% different from mota.
> the least
Depends if u consider dinkas(nilotic) native to north-east africa or not, an argument could be made saying that "only mota is native to the region and tha dinkas are late comers", in which case somalis who have very little mota ancestry and some nilotic groups would be the least native , but if you consider dinkas native to this region then ethiosemitic speakers would be very far off we are talking about more than 50% non african afterall( in almost all the ethio semitic groups).
Coptic Egyptian priest on the right: 100% West Eurasian + 0% Sub-Saharan Black person dna.
Orthodox Ethiopian priest on the left: only 50% West Eurasian + 50% Sub-Saharan Black person dna
Who looks like Ancient Egyptians and who looks like the typical MENA West Eurasian quadroon mongrel?
>0% Sub-Saharan Black person dna
Wrong. Not only did the Natufians already have some SSA dna, but modern day Egyptians recieved additional amounts due to the slave trade
>Who looks like Ancient Egyptians and who looks like the typical MENA West Eurasian quadroon mongrel?
Neither looks Egyptians. Bedouins would look the closest to the ancient Egyptians
Op here:
I mean ancient Egyptians were more eurasian than modern ones and one might notices some Ethiopians have rather "sharp features" for only 50% eurasian compared to the copt , i am guessing this has something to do with the different environments these two people lived in the las thousands of years ,plus we should consider the fact that while both share natufian ancestry Ethiopians also have some late bronze age/early iron age semitic ancestry (why they speak semitic languages ) , the people who brought this ancestry were unusually fine featured as can be observed in the more isolated parts of highland yemen a surprising fact about these highlanders is the significant amount of light hair/eye color genes they have much higher% than their neighbors ,there could've been an environment that pushed them to choose for these features thousands of years ago is my conclusion.
A mixture of Mota and Nilotic people.
Dinkas
East Africans in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda are black but definitely not Bantu
Pure Basal Eurasian crypto-Black folks.