SomaliNet Forums

Can someone point out to me the Esteban Ciise STR sample? If true, then truly we (Ciise) are unique in the Horn when it comes to MCRA among T possessors.

Nah bro, it is more complex than KowJow makes it out to be. You can also contact Esteban on his Weejibook. Check your PM, all you need to know is there.

KowJow, I have seen your Facebook exchanges with him, BenAdam etc. in regard to this matter. Y'all are too quick in making generalisations.

For instance, ask him if any of the Ciise samples he is referring to are the ones in Iacovacci? If they are, how certain is he that they are all Ciise as the paper did not distinguish between Ciise and Samaroon? How many Ciise 111 samples did he use in the TMRCA calculator? How many Samaroon STR samples has he had access to?

I didn't ask indepth questions, that little exchange in the comment section was it. I assumed he used the Lacovacci study with the 24 Djibouti somali samples, he also said he had another Ciise STR he acquired online. I thinks it's safe to say the Lacovacci sample were most probably Ciise, if they weren't ciise but Samaroon it would mean the latter are a confederation of 2 separate T lineages, which makes things even more odd.

But you're right about the Samaroon STRs, i hope he didn't make an inference based upon Benny's STRS alone and generalise it to all Samaroons, as he could well be an outlier. But i'm confident he hasn't made that noob mistake. Also, you do realise that the Al-faraj connection wasn't based upon BIG-Y or specific SNP testing and that it was on STRs alone, as neither an Al-Faraj or Somali actually did BIG-Y. So if we reject Estebans methodology and discount STRs we are going to have to backtrack on the Al Faraj, which means we are back to where we began and all we know for sure now is that we are T-Y16897. I know this maybe an appeal to authority, but Esteban originally predicted we'd belong to T-Y16897 based upon STRs alone, and he was right. He might well be right on this one.

Come on man, none of these clans have considered one ancestrally closer than the other in times gone by. Lets keep it real Sxb.

I have never met an Isaaq who takes his abtiris to Dir, nor do Isaaqs view Samaroons and Ciises as belonging to the same Qabiil as them and they don't either, we see each other as totally distinct qabiils, namely Dir and Isaaq. The only Dir connections we claim is maternal (magaadle). The Bani Hashim tradition itself is quite old and the earliest documentation of an Isaaq claiming Bani Hashim descent is Sharmarke Saalax of Zeila in the mid 1800's, and i'm sure the tradition predates him by centuries. So its not something recent sxb.

it is more complex than KowJow makes it out to be

I'm just relaying what Haplogroup T expert Esteban concluded. In regards to HG-T you are a novice compared to him sxb. Dudes been studying this Haplogroup since back when it was called K2

Don't believe that rubbish.

I didn't ask indepth questions, that little exchange in the comment section was it. I assumed he used the Lacovacci study with the 24 Djibouti somali samples, he also said he had another Ciise STR he acquired online. I thinks it's safe to say the Lacovacci sample were most probably Ciise, if they weren't ciise but Samaroon it would mean the latter are a confederation of 2 separate T lineages, which makes things even more odd.

But you're right about the Samaroon STRs, i hope he didn't make an inference based upon Benny's STRS alone and generalise it to all Samaroons, as he could well be an outlier. But i'm confident he hasn't made that noob mistake. Also, you do realise that the Al-faraj connection wasn't based upon BIG-Y or specific SNP testing and that it was on STRs alone, as neither an Al-Faraj or Somali actually did BIG-Y. So if we reject Estebans methodology and discount STRs we are going to have to backtrack on the Al Faraj, which means we are back to where we began and all we know for sure now is that we are T-Y16897. I know this maybe an appeal to authority, but Esteban originally predicted we'd belong to T-Y16897 based upon STRs alone, and he was right. He might well be right on this one.

Have you had a look at Iacovacci supplementary data? They did not test 111 STR's. Even if they did, it would not gives us conclusive data into how closely related males of an old clan lineage are. I don't think Benny is necessarily an outlier, was playing the Devil's advocate. STR's are good at identifying what existing haplogroup/subclade individuals belong to but are limited when it comes to determining the relationship between males who are distantly related. You can have a significantly higher mutation rate in one male line. For instance, my 16-18 STR's are probably more distant to yours than the Ciise and Samaroon ones are. Hence, it is advised to use other advanced tests when exploring lineages that are older than 500 years old.



https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/gen ... teps/63776

I am mainly concerned with ascertaining the estimated TMRCA of the Somali Y16897 lineage that we all descend from and this can only be obtained via SNP testing. I am pretty certain that we are the result of a relatively recent founder effect but more us doing the Big-Y/Y-Full will settle matters once and for all.

The only thing that is confirmed in regard to our relationship to Al Faraj is that we both belong to Y16897, that information could have been gathered that from the FTDNA predicted subclade. All Esteban did was add us both to his Haplogroup Tree. You see the Suleiman dude from Kuwait is listed as AlFaraj in the Arab FTDNA T page hence 1+1=2. Nonetheless, I see no point in pursuing this connection with the Al Faraj clan because we are definitely not recent migrants to the Horn and I highly doubt our ancestors split from theirs in the last millennium or so.

I have never met an Isaaq who takes his abtiris to Dir, nor do Isaaqs view Samaroons and Ciises as belonging to the same Qabiil as them and they don't either, we see each other as totally distinct qabiils, namely Dir and Isaaq. The only Dir connections we claim is maternal (magaadle). The Bani Hashim tradition itself is quite old and the earliest documentation of an Isaaq claiming Bani Hashim descent is Sharmarke Saalax of Zeila in the mid 1800's, and i'm sure the tradition predates him by centuries. So its not something recent sxb.

Sxb, the Ciise and the Samaroon have not traditionally considered each other to be more closely related to each other than Isaaq. The prevailing tradition among them has been that they belong to different branches of Dir whilst Isaaq is never identified as being a separate Qabil that descended from an Arab Sheikh that settled among us. This is explained well in the following meeting between Ciise and Samaroon politicians (3.52 onward).



Yes, the Bani Hahim Abtirsi is referenced in Burton's book but so is the Dir controversy as laid bare by the fact that there were contradictory accounts as to whether the Isaaq are Dir or Bani Hashim as claimed by Haji Sharmarke so I don't where you are coming from by referencing Haji Sharmarke's abtirsi.



You also state that you have never met an Isaaq who Abtirsis to Dir, well that is your anecdotal evidence because there are definitely those who Abtirsi to Dir. I have met several in my lifetime, so have non-Somali academics.



Nonetheless, you are right, a large percentage of your clan now believe they are descendants of the Prophet SAWS who assimilated into the Somali ethnic group via marriage into the Dir clan.

I'm just relaying what Haplogroup T expert Esteban concluded. In regards to HG-T you are a novice compared to him sxb. Dudes been studying this Haplogroup since back when it was called K2

We owe a lot to Esteban but it doesn't hurt to think for oneself and do your own reading.

Happy Ramadan, once again.

Sxb, the Ciise and the Samaroon have not traditionally considered each other to be more closely related to each other than Isaaq. The prevailing tradition among them has been that they belong to different branches of Dir whilst Isaaq is never identified as being a separate Qabil that descended from an Arab Sheikh that settled among us. This is explained well in the following meeting between Ciise and Samaroon politicians (3.52 onward).

Yes, the Bani Hahim Abtirsi is referenced in Burton's book but so is the Dir controversy as laid bare by the fact that there were contradictory accounts as to whether the Isaaq are Dir or Bani Hashim as claimed by Haji Sharmarke so I don't where you are coming from by referencing Haji Sharmarke's abtirsi.



You also state that you have never met an Isaaq who Abtirsis to Dir, well that is your anecdotal evidence because there are definitely those who Abtirsi to Dir. I have met several in my lifetime, so have non-Somali academics.



Nonetheless, you are right, a large percentage of your clan now believe they are descendants of the Prophet SAWS who assimilated into the Somali ethnic group via marriage into the Dir clan.

I think we can both agree that the Isaaqs who identify paternally with Dir are in the extreme minority. I personally find it hard to entertain the fact that Isaaqs sometime in the distant past were Dir and adopted the Arab lineage only later on, people just don't leave their lineages like that. Look at how despite the heaps of evidence people are still clinging to the Arab myths, educated science literate people at that, now can you imagine geeljires who generations upon generations were Dir just ditching it in favor of being Arabs?, hard to believe.

But i do admit that the Isaaq Dir lineage makes a thousands times more sense than the Banu Hashim one.

I wish Spain to win this year. Because spain my favourite football teams.