SomaliNet Forums

Bilis wrote:

RoobleAlWaliid wrote:You know when it comes to other continents they use a ancient term or a historic figure to name their continent after.

Sharaf, hmmmmm just doesn't sound right.

Maybe we should ask a European historian what to name this continent after. Since most continents have a ancient Greek etymology.

For what it's worth, there are old maps of the Horn where the northern Somali territories are identified as Sabthecha:



What or who was "Sabthecha"? According to Abrahamic tradition, he was one of the sons of Cush, who in turn was a son of Ham:



That right there should tell you that the ancients were already well aware that the area was by that time predominantly inhabited by peoples of Hamitic origin. So what samaalenoble has suggested is actually not all that strange. It, in fact, has historical precedents.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/board/1/general-board

Bilis wrote:

jalaaludin5 wrote:Sharaf. Sharaf. Doesn't quiet fit.

Sharaf. Naah. Doesn't sound right.

Saxiib, what do you make of the paternal haplogroup tree below?



Notice how 80% of Somalis from Somalia carry the V32 subclade of the E1b1b haplogroup (use the "+" and "Ctrl" symbols on your keyboard to make it larger). This subclade evolved out of the V12 subbranch of E1b1b, which as you can also see is today mainly found among Southern Egyptians.

Do you think this is perhaps a coincidence as well?

Sxb mucking about with all that genetic testing palaver is not my thing. Years ago we were fighting in schools and Colleges to be addressed as Somali. Well before we knew anything about all this habar haplogroup. A somalinimo not based on genetic testing website nor was it backed with "scientific evidence", yet it was set in stone.

For me its not gonna change anything because the only certainty in all this genetic testing is our essence, which transcend any genetic markers... And ultimately that's Islam.

wa bilahi tawfiq.
-
-
-

samaalenoble wrote:http://www.ramsondemand.com/attachments ... -jpg.4561/]

You sure like linking to that website; it seems it has had quite an effect on you.

By the way, Africa is a perfectly suitable name for the great continent:

"It has been held that the word Africa comes from friqi, farikia (the country of fruit). The best hypothesis would seem to be that maintained by Charles Tissot, who sees in the word Africa the name of the great Berber tribe, the Aourigha (whose name would have been pronounced Afarika), the modern Aouraghen now driven back into the Sahara, but in ancient times the principal indigenous element of the African empire of Carthage.

jalaaludin5 wrote: Sxb mucking about with all that genetic testing palaver is not my thing. Years ago we were fighting in schools and Colleges to be addressed as Somali. Well before we knew anything about all this habar haplogroup. A somalinimo not based on genetic testing website nor was it backed with "scientific evidence", yet it was set in stone.

For me its not gonna change anything because the only certainty in all this genetic testing is our essence, which transcend any genetic markers... And ultimately that's Islam.

wa bilahi tawfiq.

Yes, the Somalinimo is strong. And we indeed did not need any genetic testing to know that we are a distinct people. But have you asked yourself why?

It's because our people were historically part of something much larger than a simple reer miyi culture. If you look at every other Afro-Asiatic civilization, there is this reer miyi/reer magaal dichotomy. Ours is no different in that regard. The excavations in the northern Somali territories, which yielded the first actual artifacts from the ancient Land of Punt, have proven this.

By the way, I believe it was unfortunately our own ancestors that destroyed much of what was left of the Puntite kingdom, just as ISIS are doing today in the Levant with their own pre-Islamic heritage. It stems from the belief that these ancient artifacts, temples and structures are symbols of "idolatry". They indeed are to some degree, but they are also links to a great past. I think the best approach, then, is to find a balance between staying true to Islam and respecting one's own ancestral heritage.

Further excavations in the Horn will surely yield more ancient wonders. When that happens, it will be incumbent upon us to assume in full our rightful Puntite heritage, just as the modern Muslim and Coptic Egyptians do with the ancient Egyptian legacy in Masr.

Bilis wrote:

samaalenoble wrote:http://www.ramsondemand.com/attachments ... -jpg.4561/]

You sure like linking to that website; it seems it has had quite an effect on you.

By the way, Africa is a perfectly suitable name for the great continent:

"It has been held that the word Africa comes from friqi, farikia (the country of fruit). The best hypothesis would seem to be that maintained by Charles Tissot, who sees in the word Africa the name of the great Berber tribe, the Aourigha (whose name would have been pronounced Afarika), the modern Aouraghen now driven back into the Sahara, but in ancient times the principal indigenous element of the African empire of Carthage.

"Affecting" for me.

Yeah, the etymology for 'Africa' is all over the place but the one you've just stated is the one most widely acknowledged.

A new continent, a new day, a new stage.

Bilis wrote:

jalaaludin5 wrote: Sxb mucking about with all that genetic testing palaver is not my thing. Years ago we were fighting in schools and Colleges to be addressed as Somali. Well before we knew anything about all this habar haplogroup. A somalinimo not based on genetic testing website nor was it backed with "scientific evidence", yet it was set in stone.

For me its not gonna change anything because the only certainty in all this genetic testing is our essence, which transcend any genetic markers... And ultimately that's Islam.

wa bilahi tawfiq.

Yes, the Somalinimo is strong. And we indeed did not need any genetic testing to know that we are a distinct people. But have you asked yourself why?

It's because our people were historically part of something much larger than a simple reer miyi culture. If you look at every other Afro-Asiatic civilization, there is this reer miyi/reer magaal dichotomy. Ours is no different in that regard. The excavations in the northern Somali territories, which yielded the first actual artifacts from the ancient Land of Punt, have proven this.

By the way, I believe it was unfortunately our own ancestors that destroyed much of what was left of the Puntite kingdom, just as ISIS are doing today in the Levant with their own pre-Islamic heritage. It stems from the belief that these ancient artifacts, temples and structures are symbols of "idolatry". They indeed are to some degree, but they are also links to a great past. I think the best approach, then, is to find a balance between staying true to Islam and respecting one's own ancestral heritage.

Further excavations in the Horn will surely yield more ancient wonders. When that happens, it will be incumbent upon us to assume in full our rightful Puntite heritage, just as the modern Muslim and Coptic Egyptians do with the ancient Egyptian legacy in Masr.

I welcome anyone learning about their historical past no matter the controversies Surrounding the ancestral roots of Somali clans depending on what mythical Houdini Arab they believe they descended from.

Personally, am more interested in our recent history as Dad Soomaali ah who share the same language, religion, culture and land, and how did we get to where we are today as a failed nation (in term of the name Somali been associated with wild unruly people) and what are the remedies to this hereditary qabyaalad disease.

Whenever i think of this new obsession with our distant past particularly in regards to how we are related genetically, a feeling of foreboding hangs over me. It may prove to be an unhealthy curiosity and just another mindless way to divide people further.

Kids who do not know anything about their culture and dhaqan yet well versed in the haplogroup abtiris is quiet hilarious to say the least.

In a nutshell, I know nothing about kush and ham but I know inaan ahay nin soomaali ah oo beesha maha direed ee reer sheikh isaxaaq ka soo jeeda.
-
-
-

jalaaludin5 wrote: I welcome anyone learning about their historical past no matter the controversies Surrounding the ancestral roots of Somali clans depending on what mythical Houdini Arab they believe they descended from.

Personally, am more interested in our recent history as Dad Soomaali ah who share the same language, religion, culture and land, and how did we get to where we are today as a failed nation (in term of the name Somali been associated with wild unruly people) and what are the remedies to this hereditary qabyaalad disease.

Whenever i think of this new obsession with our distant past particularly in regards to how we are related genetically, a feeling of foreboding hangs over me. It may prove to be an unhealthy curiosity and just another mindless way to divide people further.

Kids who do not know anything about their culture and dhaqan yet well versed in the haplogroup abtiris is quiet hilarious to say the least.

In a nutshell, I know nothing about kush and ham but I know inaan ahay nin soomaali ah oo beesha maha direed ee reer sheikh isaxaaq ka soo jeeda.

Recent history is all well and good. However, it alone tells us little about the actual origins of a given population. Only the much richer and more interesting precolonial history does. I for one am not afraid of what that ancient past holds, in part because I'm already quite familiar with it as well.

That said, I have a book recommendation for you walaal: The Mystery of the Land of Punt Unravelled. It is by the gentleman who led the recent archaeological excavations in the Somali territories, during which the first actual artifacts from the ancient Land of Punt were unearthed. He indicates therein (and I certainly agree with him) that a multidisciplinary approach involving history, linguistics, anthropology, genetics and archaeology is necessary to better understand not only our own Puntite ancestry, but also possibly that of the Afro-Asiatic family as a whole.

Bilis wrote:

jalaaludin5 wrote: I welcome anyone learning about their historical past no matter the controversies Surrounding the ancestral roots of Somali clans depending on what mythical Houdini Arab they believe they descended from.

Personally, am more interested in our recent history as Dad Soomaali ah who share the same language, religion, culture and land, and how did we get to where we are today as a failed nation (in term of the name Somali been associated with wild unruly people) and what are the remedies to this hereditary qabyaalad disease.

Whenever i think of this new obsession with our distant past particularly in regards to how we are related genetically, a feeling of foreboding hangs over me. It may prove to be an unhealthy curiosity and just another mindless way to divide people further.

Kids who do not know anything about their culture and dhaqan yet well versed in the haplogroup abtiris is quiet hilarious to say the least.

In a nutshell, I know nothing about kush and ham but I know inaan ahay nin soomaali ah oo beesha maha direed ee reer sheikh isaxaaq ka soo jeeda.

Recent history is all well and good. However, it alone tells us little about the actual origins of a given population. Only the much richer and more interesting precolonial history does. I for one am not afraid of what that ancient past holds, in part because I'm already quite familiar with it as well.

That said, I have a book recommendation for you walaal: The Mystery of the Land of Punt Unravelled. It is by the gentleman who led the recent archaeological excavations in the Somali territories, during which the first actual artifacts from the ancient Land of Punt were unearthed. He indicates therein (and I certainly agree with him) that a multidisciplinary approach involving history, linguistics, anthropology, genetics and archaeology is necessary to better understand not only our own Puntite ancestry, but also possibly that of the Afro-Asiatic family as a whole.

When I said recent history I wasn't speaking in the colonial context. And it is not because one is afraid of what he might uncover. As I said before my Muslim identity is the only thing that can never come under question and if our historical river streams towards a great civilization or the untouchable of India, it will not change or effect in anyway that most crucial and unshakable belief....that is....

jalaaludin5 wrote:if our historical river streams towards a great civilization or the untouchable of India, it will not change or effect in anyway that most crucial and unshakable belief

If by this you are alluding to the paternal haplogroup T that many Somalis carry, I should point out that that clade's highest concentration today is found in the part of the Somali territories that was occupied by the medieval Adal Sultanate (i.e. Ogaden, Djibouti and Woqooyi). However, since the autosomal DNA of haplogroup T-carrying Somalis is essentially the same as that of haplogroup E1b1b-carrying Somalis, it appears that these haplogroup frequencies in the former Adal area were in the recent past artificially inflated through what is known as a population bottleneck. A population bottleneck is basically when a portion of a population dies or is killed off through natural disasters, war, or some other calamity. In this case, many E1b1b-carrying Somalis were killed during the Adal Sultanate's medieval Futuh al-Habash or conquest of Abyssinia. This left behind a proportionately higher number of haplogroup T carriers in this geographical area compared to the general Somali population, but their overall DNA remained the same.

By the way, I actually agree with you that DNA can be more of a hindrance than a useful tool if not properly understood. Haplogroups are pretty straightforward since they are ascertained through actual examination of DNA. It is the so-called biogeographical analysis or BGA testing/admixture testing that is speculative at best since it, by contrast, is entirely based on probability. That is, BGA testing estimates where or in which geographical area given stretches of DNA (known as SNPs) likely originated based on which reference populations today carry those SNPs at highest frequencies. This is problematic for a number of reasons, some quite obvious:

• BGA testing is entirely dependent on the quality of the modern reference populations that the SNPs are compared against. For example, if a modern reference population with multiple ancestries is included in the analysis (like, say, the Maasai, who are Nilotes with some Cushitic influence), the SNPs could theoretically be most closely associated with any of that mixed reference population's various ancestries (in this case, they could be associated with either the early Nilotes or the early Cushites).
• Where a reference population resides today is not necessarily where it resided in the past.
• Just because a reference population today has the highest frequencies of a particular SNP does not necessarily mean it always did. For one thing, many ancient populations have died off (early Cushitic populations in particular) or gone through population bottlenecks, and they easily could have had higher frequencies of that SNP than any modern reference population.
• Just because a reference population today has the highest frequencies of a particular SNP does not necessarily mean that that SNP actually originated with that reference population. This SNP could have been passed on to that reference population's ancestors by interbreeding with an unrelated, now extinct population. Through linguistics and haplogroup analysis, we know for a fact that such contacts happened many times in the past and over a wide area between now extinct Cushitic groups and early Nilotic/Bantu populations.
• Certain modern populations have high frequencies of private alleles, which are genetic variants that are only found today in that population. These are quite common among modern ethnic Somalis, who have among the most private alleles in Northeast Africa. In other words, many SNPs for Somali individuals cannot be matched to any modern reference population. They are therefore not factored into the biogeographical analysis, which in turn gives a misleading estimate as to where most of those Somali individuals' overall SNPs truly cluster.

In short, haplogroups are useful. Biogeographical analysis/BGA testing/admixture testing, on the other hand, is only reliable insofar as it can give us a rough idea what ancestral component possibly defines a given population, but not at what relative frequencies (see this for more). In our case, it suggests that ethnic Somalis and other Afro-Asiatic/Hamitic-Semitic populations in Northeast Africa are defined by some old ancestral component (called the “Ethio-Somali” component) that likely defined the ancient Puntites and their close relatives the ancient Egyptians as well. This can ultimately only be confirmed by extracting DNA from skeletons belonging to the early Cushites and other Afro-Asiatic peoples in the region, analyzing that ancient DNA, and then comparing it against that of their modern descendants and other populations.

jalaaludin5 wrote:my Muslim identity is the only thing that can never come under question

Sax walaal.

By the way, I know this is a bit late, but Eid Mubarak to you and yours.

Bilis wrote: If by this you are alluding to the paternal haplogroup T that many Somalis carry, I should point out that that clade's highest concentration today is found in the part of the Somali territories that was occupied by the medieval Adal Sultanate (i.e. Ogaden, Djibouti and Woqooyi). However, since the autosomal DNA of haplogroup T-carrying Somalis is essentially the same as that of haplogroup E1b1b-carrying Somalis, it appears that these haplogroup frequencies in the former Adal area were in the recent past artificially inflated through what is known as a population bottleneck. A population bottleneck is basically when a portion of a population dies or is killed off through natural disasters, war, or some other calamity. In this case, many E1b1b-carrying Somalis were killed during the Adal Sultanate's medieval Futuh al-Habash or conquest of Abyssinia. This left behind a proportionately higher number of haplogroup T carriers in this geographical area compared to the general Somali population, but their overall DNA remained the same.

By the way, I actually agree with you that DNA can be more of a hindrance than a useful tool if not properly understood. Haplogroups are pretty straightforward since they are ascertained through actual examination of DNA. It is the so-called biogeographical analysis or BGA testing/admixture testing that is speculative at best since it, by contrast, is entirely based on probability. That is, BGA testing estimates where or in which geographical area given stretches of DNA (known as SNPs) likely originated based on which reference populations today carry those SNPs at highest frequencies. This is problematic for a number of reasons, some quite obvious:

• BGA testing is entirely dependent on the quality of the modern reference populations that the SNPs are compared against. For example, if a modern reference population with multiple ancestries is included in the analysis (like, say, the Maasai, who are Nilotes with some Cushitic influence), the SNPs could theoretically be most closely associated with any of that mixed reference population's various ancestries (in this case, they could be associated with either the early Nilotes or the early Cushites).
• Where a reference population resides today is not necessarily where it resided in the past.
• Just because a reference population today has the highest frequencies of a particular SNP does not necessarily mean it always did. For one thing, many ancient populations have died off (early Cushitic populations in particular) or gone through population bottlenecks, and they easily could have had higher frequencies of that SNP than any modern reference population.
• Just because a reference population today has the highest frequencies of a particular SNP does not necessarily mean that that SNP actually originated with that reference population. This SNP could have been passed on to that reference population's ancestors by interbreeding with an unrelated, now extinct population. Through linguistics and haplogroup analysis, we know for a fact that such contacts happened many times in the past and over a wide area between now extinct Cushitic groups and early Nilotic/Bantu populations.
• Certain modern populations have high frequencies of private alleles, which are genetic variants that are only found today in that population. These are quite common among modern ethnic Somalis, who have among the most private alleles in Northeast Africa. In other words, many SNPs for Somali individuals cannot be matched to any modern reference population. They are therefore not factored into the biogeographical analysis, which in turn gives a misleading estimate as to where most of those Somali individuals' overall SNPs truly cluster.

In short, haplogroups are useful. Biogeographical analysis/BGA testing/admixture testing, on the other hand, is only reliable insofar as it can give us a rough idea what ancestral component possibly defines a given population, but not at what relative frequencies (see this for more). In our case, it suggests that ethnic Somalis and other Afro-Asiatic/Hamitic-Semitic populations in Northeast Africa are defined by some old ancestral component (called the “Ethio-Somali” component) that likely defined the ancient Puntites and their close relatives the ancient Egyptians as well. This can ultimately only be confirmed by extracting DNA from skeletons belonging to the early Cushites and other Afro-Asiatic peoples in the region, analyzing that ancient DNA, and then comparing it against that of their modern descendants and other populations.

That's a terrible and devious explanation and example, of a population bottleneck event. A 14 year war don't cause a bottleneck event moron. The indigenous Somali populations that carry haplogroup T were simply drastically reduced.

At least you got the current SNP methodology problem correct.

Tell your buddy there not to damage any UNESCO world heritage sites in his lifetime. Eid Mubarak.

The high T1 in the Northwest is just random. No need to explain by ridiculous wars.

Also, the high E-V32 in Somalis is totally random. Both T and E-V32 are overinflated in Somalis through random process. Somali Y lineages used to be more similar to those of Ethiopians with more A3b, J1, and other types of E1b1b before T and E-V32 got so pumped in frequency.

Luckily the maternal lineages did not experience a founder effect and are similar to those of our neighbors.

Itrah wrote:The high T1 in the Northwest is just random. No need to explain by ridiculous wars.

Also, the high E-V32 in Somalis is totally random. Both T and E-V32 are overinflated in Somalis through random process. Somali Y lineages used to be more similar to those of Ethiopians with more A3b, J1, and other types of E1b1b before T and E-V32 got so pumped in frequency.

Luckily the maternal lineages did not experience a founder effect and are similar to those of our neighbors.

Random, random processes ... that's as vague as a jaad head's promises at 2 am. Thousands of years of genetic Y-DNA ancestry isn't random, it has reasons and answers.

"Somali Y lineages used to be more similar to those of Ethiopians with more A3b, J1, and other types of E1b1b before T and E-V32 got so pumped in frequency."

They are not Somalis. Get it?

Third, the Abyssinian–Adal war wasn't a ridiculous war, it set historical precedence for firearm warfare in that part of the horn (at least), if not, the entire Geeski Sharaf Leh.

samaalenoble wrote:Random, random processes ... that's as vague as a jaad head's promises at 2 am. Thousands of years of genetic Y-DNA ancestry isn't random, it has reasons and answers.

Y lineages can easily change rapidly in frequency in only a few thousand or a few hundred years. For example, before the bronze age (3200–600 BC) R1b was not in Europe at all, but is now 90% in Western Europe...

The Lemba tribe in South Africa is 99.9% Bantu, but has 50% Hebrew lineages which were acquired only a few hundred years ago. Things can change fast like that.

The Saho in Eritrea are 90% E-V22, but the Afar are 0% E-V22 even though they are ethnology-linguistically the same.

Maternal lineages are more reliable when it comes to race and origins of groups.

Itrah wrote:

samaalenoble wrote:Random, random processes ... that's as vague as a jaad head's promises at 2 am. Thousands of years of genetic Y-DNA ancestry isn't random, it has reasons and answers.

Y lineages can easily change rapidly in frequency in only a few thousand or a few hundred years. For example, before the bronze age (3200–600 BC) R1b was not in Europe at all, but is now 90% in Western Europe...

The Lemba tribe in South Africa is 99,9% Bantu, but has 50% Hebrew lineages which were acquired only a few hundred years ago. Things can change fast like that.

The Saho in Eritrea are 90% E-V22, but the Afar are 0% E-V22 even though they are ethnology-linguistically the same.

Maternal lineages are more reliable when it comes to race and origins of groups.

For your first example (R1b), that's not random, that's deliberate population movements and growth.

2nd and 3rd - dude, you're going to have to start being more specific. Last example, you gave me Ethiopian, now you me give Hebrews, Sahos, Afars.

"Maternal lineages are more reliable when it comes to race and origins of groups."

Stop sniffing the glue bro.

samaalenoble wrote:Stop sniffing the glue bro.

Why? Is it because you know it destroys your Hamitic theory?

Somalis are only close to Ethiopians. They are autosomally quite far removed from Berbers and Middle Easterners. But also most Sub-Saharan Africans, too.