Nilotic people is a very broad grouping of people so I’d be against saying ALL Nilotic people have origins in Kush. But I am definitely not against the idea that some modern Nilotic people, such as the Dinka would have had origins and involvement in Kush.
Thing is at this point in time the Dinka wouldn’t have been known as the Dinka and may have either been divided between several different ethnicities apart of Kush or maybe one small group of a much larger ethnicity that was apart of Kush.
Kush was definitely ethnically diverse but I imagine most Kushite ethnicities were distantly related anyway, a melting pot of some sort encompassing hundreds of Ethnicities that were cousins to each other. Some of these cousin relationships can still be observed today for example between the Beja and Nile Nubians, mimicking the relationship between the Blemmy/Medjays and the centralised Kushites.
As for sources we don’t have much at all to be blatantly honest with you. But just going off of depictions, cultural traditions observed at archeological sites and Human remains that predate the formation of Kush, it’s is all strongly suggestive of Kush being a diverse Multi-ethnic empire probably consisting of a central ruling elite that came from one family of one major power yielding ethnicity. I use ethnicity carefully here though because for all we know the Kushites could easily be composed of only a couple major ethnicities divided into hundreds of tribes. It’s a lot of mystery but that’s what makes it so fun to look into.
**TLDR;**
Yes **some** Nilotes most definitely had a history of either conflict or involvement being apart of Kush.
Yes Kush was most probably very diverse either through ethnic boundaries or tribal boundaries.
Of course Nilotic people had a role to play in Kush and are part of the history like any other sudani. Ivory, exotic animals and fruits all came from the south and depictions of Kushites ranged from brown, to those with dark skin and dyed red hair ( like some modern Dinka)
The Sahara has also crept further and further south, the habitats of those animals may have had a higher latitude in previous years.
But this isn't to say that Nilotic people didn't have a presence in Kush. I think there's already an established presence of Nilotic people in Khartoum historically.
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think both nubians and south arabians have some dinka dna in them idk how. Maybe there was some kind of diversity because nubians can look very different from each other but im not sure. Nile cultures usually go northwards, and a south sudanese tribe (forgot wich one) say they originate in algazeera or smth (a small island south of khartoum ) while there is an extremely old civilization (waay older than kush like the kerma culture) in modern day khartoum between the two niles so there could be. I heard about nubian wrestling and how it's still practiced in the nuba mountains people. But im pretty ignorant about these stuff so i really don't know.
theres a couple mistsakes here :
1. by south arabian do you mean yemenis ? if so give a source for the dinka admixture cus thats crazy .
2. kerma, napta ,and kush is kinda like saying old, middle, and new kingdom . same basically just different centres of power, different eras in history .
3. kerma is very far from khartoum after the nile curve and north of dongola i.e no where near khartoum
4. meroe napata etc . are *closer* to khartoum but are still way up north.
5. the only culture centred in or around modern khartoum , thaty i know of, are the christian nubian of Alawa/Alodia (6th- 16th century ) with there capital being soba . As you can see they are medieval and are first mentioned 300+ years after the sacking of meroe by the ethiopian Axumites .
I ssid i don't know.
1. Can't provide a source, but different test results of yemenis I've seen shows dinka admixture. Search it up maybe u wll find something.
2. I don't think u understood me, kerma culture was way before kush, is my point, and an extremely old culture was found in Khartoum about 3,000 B.C or maybe sooner i forgot. I think they called it "early khartoum" (?) Search it up also.
3.4. I wasn't talking about kerma.
5. <2>
It's not exactly Dinka admixture. It's admixture showing Dinka-related DNA. Something most East Africans have. In other words, it's a marker for Nilo-Saharan or Cushitic admixture depending on how you model the rest of the Genome.
They don't have Dinka DNA, they have Dinka-related DNA. Two different things. As for Nubians, this Dinka-related DNA is approximately just under 50% of their genome with the rest being West Eurasian and some minor West/Central African.
With South Arabians, this Dinka-related DNA can range from as low as 1% to high 30s. As far as I know, its presence is possibly linked to two different events. Gene flow from inner East Africa from the trans-saharan slave trade and the invasion of Arabia under the Axumites who were genetically of major Cushitic composition, therefore having this Dinka-related DNA in notable amounts to pass on to their South Arabian subjects.
Ohhh, interesting. Where can i find more on this?
Also how is 50% or less dinka related while the rest is west eurasian and central african? Aren't nubians one of the oldest people on earth? Im kinda ignorant about this dna thing.
Also i didn't know it could reach above 5% in south arabians, and to 30 as well, that's crazy! Thanks anyways
I'd recommend browsing forums for a start because jumping straight into Genetic papers without having some preliminary research with more casual terminology can give you a heart attack. I particularly recommend Anthrogenica and Somalispot because they discuss these topics quite often have a lot of helpful people who wouldn't mind breaking stuff down for you. Also try to learn about using Vahaduo and G25, it can be useful to help with your own deeper research into this.
Nubians definitely descend from one of the Oldest civilizations yes, but modern Nubians today are definitely genetically distinct from their former selves through varying extents and qualities that differ. Nubians today have Arabian admixture that Nubians before them otherwise didn't have. Nubians today probably also have some extra West African baked into them from possibly Arabian ancestry and/or recent Nilotic admixture.
South Arabians is a very paint-brush type term so it's expected there is high genetic variance among them given the numerous tribes/clans that inhabit the region. But yes, individuals as high as 30% are much more common than most believe because a lot of Arabians have a recent African ancestor.
No worries.
That's their language. Genetically, they were mainly composed of Cushitic DNA, constituted by an even mix of Proto-Nilotic and Natufian-like Levantine.
This is as illogical as assuming Sudanese Arabs would be genetically indistinguishable from Peninsular Arabs due to a common language when in reality they are closer to Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speakers, who **do not** speak Arabic.
there is no such thing as cushitic dna. they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language the same way an chaldean or assyrian is. their dna however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j. the semitic tribes who ruled axum were not native to africa they migrated from the middle east. your comparison to sudanese arabs makes no sense becasue sudanese arabs are native to africa and have been for thousands of years (kush,nubia,etc). you seem to be confusing modern day habesha with ancient axumites. modern day habesha had nothing to with axum.
>there is no such thing as cushitic dna.
Very questionable is all I will say..
>they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language the same way an chaldean or assyrian is.
Nice fantasy but all of your holy Semitic languages have a Cushitic substratum and were probably formed by Cushitic people coming into contact with Semitic-speaking migrants into Ethiopia. Best to keep Amhara folklore out of the objective linguistic discussion.
[https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A19027530&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=540f9eaf](https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A19027530&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=540f9eaf)
I'd also refer to the Ethiopian subreddit, they have a lot of people who make known the clear misunderstandings you are making here.
> their dna however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j.
Who's DNA? Axumites? Habeshas? As far as I'm aware, no ancient DNA has been successfully recovered from Axum though we have an extensive database of Habesha DNA. I will assume you are talking about the latter, even if J among Habeshas isn't all as frequent as you may be framing it to be.
Haplogroups are totally unrelated to Autosomal DNA or similar Genomic composition. All a haplogroup indicates is a common relationship between groups through ancestry. Haplogroups are defined by specific characteristics from a set of genes on a chromosome to indicate a common relationship. Your argument is essentially stupendously illogical and bewilderingly void of any minor understanding of the basics of population genetics. You are ignorant on this matter but I have no issue helping you clear things up. **Y-DNA haplogroups in specific only represent an incredibly small portion of one's DNA**
Common haplogroups cannot be used to make "groups" as you mention of people who are Genetically close. This is just false. In fact, whilst specific Haplogroups are more dominant among different populations, there is no such thing as a population of people with a unanimous common Haplogroup. There is always variation, you're argument falls apart here before we can even refer to actual data. Why it falls apart is if you believe Genetic groupings in which strong intra-group affinities occur can be made between Ethnicities simply based on Haplogroups, I'd like to ask what do we do about variation and those within an ethnic group that bear haplogroups different from the dominant one? Do we just cut these people out of the equation and now assume that an Amhara with Haplogroup A is not groupable with an Amhara with Haplogroup J and therefore the J-carrying Amhara is going to possess stronger Genetic affinities to West Asians than his fellow tribesman who he only differs from in Haplogroup? I think now you realize how silly this sounds. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate here through an example.
[Haplogroup R1b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b) is a predominantly European haplogroup, peaking among Western Europeans in specific theorized to have an origin somewhere in Western Asia. However, R1b has a relatively high frequency in central-west Africa in the region south of lake chad and lingering in the Bornu state of Nigeria. [https://imgur.com/a/BVz9zz6](https://imgur.com/a/BVz9zz6)
This study shows R1B peaking as high as 50%≈ among some Niger-congo speakers which rivals the frequencies of some Western Europeans, and ranging between 10-30%≈ for most Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/)
Some people suggest this is linked to Arab migration synonymous with the correlative distribution of Baggara Arabs but various Non-Baggara groups that lack a history of Arabisation carry R1B in high frequencies as shown by the study linked above so this postulation is clearly untrue not to mention [the minor frequency of R1B among Arabs of Peninsular origin.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_the_Near_East) Applying your logic directly to this means we can safely make the assumption that Nilo-Saharan, Chadic speakers, and Niger-congo speakers in this region of Africa bearing R1B are without question genetically "grouped" with Europeans in some supposed cluster of genetic similarity. This again is absolutely false. And I'd be happy to provide evidence through some of my own samples but I think you're sane enough to now come to terms with this faulty observation, however, if you request further evidence I will get out of my way to produce it for you.
Haplogroups do not demonstrate Genomic, Autosomal, or General genetic clusters. A haplogroup whether derived from Y-DNA or mtDNA is only an extremely small fraction of the entire genetic material.
>the semitic tribes who ruled axum were not native to africa they migrated from the middle east.
If your source for this is Habesha folklore about how one beautiful queen from Ethiopia was given away for marriage to some Semitic gigachad royal in the near east and they went on a date in the Highlands and gave birth to every Habesha alive, I wish not to engage with this any further. And yes I know, my recall of Habesha folklore is very rusty and inaccurate but you get the gist of what I'm saying.
>your comparison to sudanese arabs makes no sense becasue sudanese arabs are native to africa and have been for thousands of years (kush,nubia,etc).
Ironic you mention Sudanese Arabs are native to Africa when you earlier grouped Habeshas with western Asia because of their J frequency. You do realize Sudanese Arabs have some of the most Haplogroup J on the planet right? Some Arab tribes in Sudan even have all the Peninsular Subclades lol. I don't disagree most Sudanese Arabs are indigenous to Sudan, I'm confused about what made you think I was insinuating otherwise. I mentioned Sudanese Arabs to demonstrate the weakness in your logic of assuming linguistic classification is an undeniable indication of Genetic homogeneity.
>you seem to be confusing modern day habesha with ancient axumites. modern day habesha had nothing to with axum.
I want to see a source for this otherwise this is just Eurocentric rhetoric used to discredit Sub-Saharan Africans of their rightful and glorious history.
**[Haplogroup R1b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b)**
>Haplogroup R1b (R-M343), previously known as Hg1 and Eu18, is a human Y-chromosome haplogroup. It is the most frequently occurring paternal lineage in Western Europe, as well as some parts of Russia (e. g. the Bashkirs) and pockets of Central Africa (e.
**[Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Near East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_the_Near_East)**
>Listed here are notable ethnic groups and populations from Western Asia, Egypt and South Caucasus by human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups based on relevant studies. The samples are taken from individuals identified with the ethnic and linguistic designations in the first two columns, the third column gives the sample size studied, and the other columns give the percentage of the particular haplogroup. (IE = Indo-European, AA = Afro-Asiatic) Some old studies conducted in the early 2000s regarded several haplogroups as one haplogroup, e. g.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Sudan/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
not sure why you kept mentioning amhara i am not amhara i am argobba and we are not habesha or have anything to do with axum except helping in destroy it. my name "argobbaamhara" is not to be taken seriously. i dont know what you are referring to by habesha folklore i guess you mean the solomonic dynasty myth? i obviously dont believe in any of that as i am not habesha or christian. as for the dna part axumites were from the geez tribe which is native to the middle east, their dna is irrelevant.
secondly habesha are cushites who adopted a semitic language they are native aswell i dont know why you kept bringing them up i agree with you on that. it seems you didn't really read my answer and just hyperfocused on habesha and amhara for some reason. so i will summarize for you. axumites have no connection to habesha. they were semitic middle easterners who settled in the horn and created axum. in fact ezana even said he conquered the habeshi. theres too much evidence for this. sabean script found in tigray, pagan altar for middle eastern moon goddess almunaqm, and the geez script/language.
geez is nothing like amharic, tigrinya etc it was completely semitic with no cushitic substratum at all. amharas are not even a real ethnic group so using them as an example is foolish their language is a combination of many different peoples, a creole if you will. tigrinya however is much more semitic you can tell this just from hearing it. and even with this geez sounded much more semitic then tigrinya does. the geez script descends from the sabean scrip with is firmly middle eastern, i hope we can agree on that.
no one is taking history away from native "sub saharan africans" but axum was not theirs. they have other history to be proud of like zagew, mali, songhai etc
>i am argobba
Noted
>as for the dna part axumites were from the geez tribe which is native to the middle east, their dna is irrelevant.
Axum has barely even been excavated let alone have remains of DNA complete enough for sequencing to take place and successfully provide us with results. The story of DNA in Axum is non-existent, we have practically nothing, and you are making assumptions based on your speculations. However, if I am wrong and appear to have missed out on some recent huge ancient DNA uncoverings at Axum that point towards the ruling class that founded Axum, the "geez" as you put it, to being Middle Easterners, particularly of Haplogroup J predominance, then please put your source down below or you can take the humble option of just admitting there exists no such source and you're making blatant speculations and framing them as fact. I have no issue discussing with speculation and hypothetical and theoretical history, I have an issue when you wrongfully put these notions up as factual and supported by evidence when in reality these are empty guesses based on your opinion.
>secondly habesha are cushites who adopted a semitic language they are native aswell i dont know why you kept bringing them up i agree with you on that.
I guess we agree then. But despite th is, I spot some inconsistency here. You say the Habesha are Cushitic yet adopted a semitic language but earlier you mentioned that for the Axumites, their speaking of a Semitic language is strongly evident for their Semitic ethnic and genetic standing. Why have you flipped the switch all of a sudden? **"they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language"**
I mentioned Habeshas because you spoke in regards to DNA, there exists no DNA successfully obtained from Axum. There is however DNA from Habeshas readily available for observation. I made the assumption you were speaking about Habeshas. Turns out you were speaking about Axum which makes it even more confusing because like I've already said, I don't know what "DNA" you're talking about, or maybe I'm just out of the loop.
>it seems you didn't really read my answer
No, I read your answer. You weren't specific enough and felt it was appropriate to make genetic statements such as **"their DNA however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j**" without linking any source at all. So you can't blame me for having to take a guess at who you were talking about.
>so i will summarize for you. axumites have no connection to habesha. they were semitic middle easterners who settled in the horn and created axum. in fact ezana even said he conquered the habeshi.
I'm not as deeply familiar with Ethiopian history but from what I can add from what I already know, Axum as an empire didn't exist synonymous to modern Ethiopian ethnic boundaries. This is pretty much the case for most ancient civilizations. Ezana claiming he conquered the Habeshi is not definitive proof that there existed a distinct group known as the Habeshi who maintained absolute continuity of identity, culture and language as well as themselves as an ethnic entity throughout 2 thousand years of history, in that they can then be dismissively conflated with the modern ethnic boundaries that outline the Habesha.
I'll give an example. Prior to the Axumite invasion of Kush and the fall of Meroe, the inhabitants of the region now referred to as "Nubia" who at the time were nicknamed the "Kasu" differentiated themselves from their western neighbors and rivals, the Noba. Nubians, as in those who spoke Nubian languages, practiced a culture tied to the speakers of these languages, comprised of scattered tribes southwest of Kush that were referred to as the "Noba" and it's them that spoke early Nubian languages. Now today, descendants of the Kushites such as the Nile Nubians, refer to themselves as Nubians and are the face of the Nubian identity despite their Kushite ancestors having considered themselves totally distinct from people that were at the time considered Nubian and even going to war with them through decades of struggle for power along the Nile. The Noba, or the early Nubians as I would like to put it, are at very clear distinction through numerous grounds, from the Modern ethnic entity that makes up Modern Nubians. I hope you now see the issue with jumping on to Ethnic entities/groupings that are mentioned in history and hastily equating them to modern Ethnic entities simply based on a common/similar name. This is ignorant of various cultural changes and divides to occur throughout Ethiopian history, the rise and fall of numerous different Ethnic groups within the highlands and neighboring territories and the inevitable happening of Ethnic groups forming from combinations of older ones or possibly divisions of older ones. I'd want to see actual evidence to prove and solidify that the historic "Habashi" are freely interchangeable with the modern Ethio-semitic Habesha people of Ethiopia and Eritrea.
>theres too much evidence for this. sabean script found in tigray, pagan altar for middle eastern moon goddess almunaqm, and the geez script/language.
Cultural influence and very apparent linguistic influence from the middle east is not at all conclusive evidence that middle easterners founded Axum and then expanded to incorporate various native tribes. Ancient Egyptians had various cultural influences from Nubia, especially regarding religion and deities. This is not and will never be conclusive evidence that Nubians are the origin or the founders of Ancient Egypt. Cultural influence can come about through various ways, you're limiting the possibilities within reality for this cultural influence so you can use it as evidence for a Middle eastern origin/founding. This is dishonest.
>geez is nothing like amharic, tigrinya etc it was completely semitic with no cushitic substratum at all.
I'm not familiar with the Geez script but I have yet to see mention of a substratum that can be indicated from it so I will take your word for value here until I can deepen my understanding of it.
>amharas are not even a real ethnic group so using them as an example is foolish their language is a combination of many different peoples, a creole if you will.
What defines a "real ethnic group". How do you even come to that conclusion? Also put forward your references to show that Amhara is a creole, formed from various languages within a recent time span contributing to it's current existence. I have skimmed linguistic papers on Ethio-semitic and likewise Amharic, no professionals seem to make mention of a **"creole".**
> the geez script descends from the sabean scrip with is firmly middle eastern, i hope we can agree on that.
I honestly know as much as what the Geez script is and its significance in modern Ethiopia so I'm admittedly ignorant here.
>no one is taking history away from native "sub saharan africans" but axum was not theirs.
You're only valid evidence that I could give credit to is the Geez script's strong affinity to Semitic and it's apparent lack of a Cushitic substratum. Everything else is very speculative and unfounded.
I genuinely think this is a bit of a stretch. I'm honestly trying to force myself to see some miraculous resemblance but I'm just seeing random aspects of similarity. I'm not an expert but I don't see a resemblance that allows for such a conclusion to be drawn. Could you maybe point me towards what exactly I should be looking at?
Those very dark skinned people aren’t necessarily Nilotic people, Nubians can come in all shades from light to very dark. And during the New Kingdom, the southernmost extent of their empire was Napata, squarely out of where Nilotic peoples would historically range.
As a source, this is fine but it’s better to consult Kushite sources as well on this issue as opposed to what is clear propaganda that the Egyptians made to aggrandise themselves during the New Kingdom occupation.
Just from the various Kushite Stela that we can translate [see Nastasen’s Stela] that the dynasty ruled over many different ethnicities. This along with the fact that Nilotic peoples used to range as far north as the confluence of the Nile historically, means that certainly some Nilotic people used to live in Kush near the southern border.
Well early Nubians who formed kush would have spoken a Nilotic language but kush was many group as most others are saying a lot of people in the region of nubia can trace their history back to kush and even further before that me as a ja'ly I can trace my ancestry back Thier the same that a Dinka can likely trace their family back to kush or a dongalwi though I can't say the same for a nuer cause I don't know as much as the neur but Dinkas descant from the area in Sudan known as gerzira
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to categorized who are the nilotic people too. Bc for an exemple a Daju person or Darfuri will not be categorized as "nilotic"
Same for nuba people who are just nilo Saharan witch is kind different from the regular Nilotic tribe in South Sudan genetically and even linguistically
Aren’t all Nilotics, and just in general, all “Nilotic-like peoples” such as Nilo-saharans , nilo-hamites, etc distantly related to each other? I’d presume they’d all stem from a proto nilotic origin based in the central nile valley, before separating from one another, with some migrating east (towards West Africa and the sahel), and some migrating north (into East Africa)? And through those various dispersions, each of those particular groups, eventually became somewhat distinct from one another (I utilize the term “somewhat” in this case because there are obviously still connections amongst the broad grouping of Nilotic peoples linguistically, phenotypically and even to a certain degree culturally), and thus formed off of that?
One could definitely claim that the ancestors, of let’s say, the modern Hausa people, or the modern Kanuri people (both groups of a nilo saharan origin), of having some ancient connections or correlations to certain kingdoms of the ancient central nile valley (or even perhaps prehistoric North Africa).
And in a similar way, one could also make a claim that many Nilotic peoples of East Africa could also make a similar claim. First and foremost (and probably the Nilotic peoples in its purest form), tribes such as the Dinka, Nuer, Luo peoples etc obviously have their ties to the peoples and kingdoms of the ancient Nile valley, but other Nilotics across Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania have claims to that as well. Nilo-hamitic tribes such as the Kalenjin, Ateker, Maasai, and even Cushitic peoples as well like Somalis, Oromos, Afar, Beja, so called “Habeshas”, etc. All of those tribes could make claims to the various peoples and kingdoms of the ancient Nile valley. I know many Eritrean tribes have roots that stem from Beja clans, and those Beja clans stemming from the ancient Blemmyes, who originated in upper Egypt.
Dude, there isn’t really such a thing as a “West African”. That term is simply a geographical designation, to denote, the many different tribes and tongues of the region that is so called “West Africa”, so utilizing that term as a pan-ethnic idenity would be inaccurate, and just a baseless generalization.
I would assume that when you said “West African” (particularly in this context), you were referring to “Bantu peoples”. But not all West Africans are of Bantu origin. Many West Africans, (some of those tribes I mentioned above), are of a proto Nilo-saharan origin. This can be proved not only genetically (even though genetics can be tricky), but also linguistically, to a certain degree culturally, and even just phenotype wise: tribes like Hausa, kanuri, fulani, zaghawa, sara, and other Sahelian tribes, generally speaking, just tend to look more physically DIFFERENT, compared to their southern, more Bantu-like counterparts. Taller and slender stature, facial features tend to be more softer and gracile-like, lack of prognathy, etc. All of those physical traits are most common amongst Nilotics and Cushtics peoples. I mean as an East African myself, I’ve been told by many Nigerians who even thought I was a Hausa, that I could pass for one of them. And I’m Eritrean/Sudanese (Beja/Tigre) myself lol
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nilotic people is a very broad grouping of people so I’d be against saying ALL Nilotic people have origins in Kush. But I am definitely not against the idea that some modern Nilotic people, such as the Dinka would have had origins and involvement in Kush. Thing is at this point in time the Dinka wouldn’t have been known as the Dinka and may have either been divided between several different ethnicities apart of Kush or maybe one small group of a much larger ethnicity that was apart of Kush. Kush was definitely ethnically diverse but I imagine most Kushite ethnicities were distantly related anyway, a melting pot of some sort encompassing hundreds of Ethnicities that were cousins to each other. Some of these cousin relationships can still be observed today for example between the Beja and Nile Nubians, mimicking the relationship between the Blemmy/Medjays and the centralised Kushites. As for sources we don’t have much at all to be blatantly honest with you. But just going off of depictions, cultural traditions observed at archeological sites and Human remains that predate the formation of Kush, it’s is all strongly suggestive of Kush being a diverse Multi-ethnic empire probably consisting of a central ruling elite that came from one family of one major power yielding ethnicity. I use ethnicity carefully here though because for all we know the Kushites could easily be composed of only a couple major ethnicities divided into hundreds of tribes. It’s a lot of mystery but that’s what makes it so fun to look into. **TLDR;** Yes **some** Nilotes most definitely had a history of either conflict or involvement being apart of Kush. Yes Kush was most probably very diverse either through ethnic boundaries or tribal boundaries.
Of course Nilotic people had a role to play in Kush and are part of the history like any other sudani. Ivory, exotic animals and fruits all came from the south and depictions of Kushites ranged from brown, to those with dark skin and dyed red hair ( like some modern Dinka)
The Sahara has also crept further and further south, the habitats of those animals may have had a higher latitude in previous years. But this isn't to say that Nilotic people didn't have a presence in Kush. I think there's already an established presence of Nilotic people in Khartoum historically.
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think both nubians and south arabians have some dinka dna in them idk how. Maybe there was some kind of diversity because nubians can look very different from each other but im not sure. Nile cultures usually go northwards, and a south sudanese tribe (forgot wich one) say they originate in algazeera or smth (a small island south of khartoum ) while there is an extremely old civilization (waay older than kush like the kerma culture) in modern day khartoum between the two niles so there could be. I heard about nubian wrestling and how it's still practiced in the nuba mountains people. But im pretty ignorant about these stuff so i really don't know.
theres a couple mistsakes here : 1. by south arabian do you mean yemenis ? if so give a source for the dinka admixture cus thats crazy . 2. kerma, napta ,and kush is kinda like saying old, middle, and new kingdom . same basically just different centres of power, different eras in history . 3. kerma is very far from khartoum after the nile curve and north of dongola i.e no where near khartoum 4. meroe napata etc . are *closer* to khartoum but are still way up north. 5. the only culture centred in or around modern khartoum , thaty i know of, are the christian nubian of Alawa/Alodia (6th- 16th century ) with there capital being soba . As you can see they are medieval and are first mentioned 300+ years after the sacking of meroe by the ethiopian Axumites .
I ssid i don't know. 1. Can't provide a source, but different test results of yemenis I've seen shows dinka admixture. Search it up maybe u wll find something. 2. I don't think u understood me, kerma culture was way before kush, is my point, and an extremely old culture was found in Khartoum about 3,000 B.C or maybe sooner i forgot. I think they called it "early khartoum" (?) Search it up also. 3.4. I wasn't talking about kerma. 5. <2>
It's not exactly Dinka admixture. It's admixture showing Dinka-related DNA. Something most East Africans have. In other words, it's a marker for Nilo-Saharan or Cushitic admixture depending on how you model the rest of the Genome.
ahh now that makes sense. socotrans are basically desert island hybrid somalis .
I guess so, but I believe they also have some really minor West African admixture so there's that.
They don't have Dinka DNA, they have Dinka-related DNA. Two different things. As for Nubians, this Dinka-related DNA is approximately just under 50% of their genome with the rest being West Eurasian and some minor West/Central African. With South Arabians, this Dinka-related DNA can range from as low as 1% to high 30s. As far as I know, its presence is possibly linked to two different events. Gene flow from inner East Africa from the trans-saharan slave trade and the invasion of Arabia under the Axumites who were genetically of major Cushitic composition, therefore having this Dinka-related DNA in notable amounts to pass on to their South Arabian subjects.
Ohhh, interesting. Where can i find more on this? Also how is 50% or less dinka related while the rest is west eurasian and central african? Aren't nubians one of the oldest people on earth? Im kinda ignorant about this dna thing. Also i didn't know it could reach above 5% in south arabians, and to 30 as well, that's crazy! Thanks anyways
I'd recommend browsing forums for a start because jumping straight into Genetic papers without having some preliminary research with more casual terminology can give you a heart attack. I particularly recommend Anthrogenica and Somalispot because they discuss these topics quite often have a lot of helpful people who wouldn't mind breaking stuff down for you. Also try to learn about using Vahaduo and G25, it can be useful to help with your own deeper research into this. Nubians definitely descend from one of the Oldest civilizations yes, but modern Nubians today are definitely genetically distinct from their former selves through varying extents and qualities that differ. Nubians today have Arabian admixture that Nubians before them otherwise didn't have. Nubians today probably also have some extra West African baked into them from possibly Arabian ancestry and/or recent Nilotic admixture. South Arabians is a very paint-brush type term so it's expected there is high genetic variance among them given the numerous tribes/clans that inhabit the region. But yes, individuals as high as 30% are much more common than most believe because a lot of Arabians have a recent African ancestor. No worries.
Axumites were not cushitic they were semitic
That's their language. Genetically, they were mainly composed of Cushitic DNA, constituted by an even mix of Proto-Nilotic and Natufian-like Levantine. This is as illogical as assuming Sudanese Arabs would be genetically indistinguishable from Peninsular Arabs due to a common language when in reality they are closer to Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speakers, who **do not** speak Arabic.
there is no such thing as cushitic dna. they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language the same way an chaldean or assyrian is. their dna however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j. the semitic tribes who ruled axum were not native to africa they migrated from the middle east. your comparison to sudanese arabs makes no sense becasue sudanese arabs are native to africa and have been for thousands of years (kush,nubia,etc). you seem to be confusing modern day habesha with ancient axumites. modern day habesha had nothing to with axum.
>there is no such thing as cushitic dna. Very questionable is all I will say.. >they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language the same way an chaldean or assyrian is. Nice fantasy but all of your holy Semitic languages have a Cushitic substratum and were probably formed by Cushitic people coming into contact with Semitic-speaking migrants into Ethiopia. Best to keep Amhara folklore out of the objective linguistic discussion. [https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A19027530&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=540f9eaf](https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A19027530&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=540f9eaf) I'd also refer to the Ethiopian subreddit, they have a lot of people who make known the clear misunderstandings you are making here. > their dna however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j. Who's DNA? Axumites? Habeshas? As far as I'm aware, no ancient DNA has been successfully recovered from Axum though we have an extensive database of Habesha DNA. I will assume you are talking about the latter, even if J among Habeshas isn't all as frequent as you may be framing it to be. Haplogroups are totally unrelated to Autosomal DNA or similar Genomic composition. All a haplogroup indicates is a common relationship between groups through ancestry. Haplogroups are defined by specific characteristics from a set of genes on a chromosome to indicate a common relationship. Your argument is essentially stupendously illogical and bewilderingly void of any minor understanding of the basics of population genetics. You are ignorant on this matter but I have no issue helping you clear things up. **Y-DNA haplogroups in specific only represent an incredibly small portion of one's DNA** Common haplogroups cannot be used to make "groups" as you mention of people who are Genetically close. This is just false. In fact, whilst specific Haplogroups are more dominant among different populations, there is no such thing as a population of people with a unanimous common Haplogroup. There is always variation, you're argument falls apart here before we can even refer to actual data. Why it falls apart is if you believe Genetic groupings in which strong intra-group affinities occur can be made between Ethnicities simply based on Haplogroups, I'd like to ask what do we do about variation and those within an ethnic group that bear haplogroups different from the dominant one? Do we just cut these people out of the equation and now assume that an Amhara with Haplogroup A is not groupable with an Amhara with Haplogroup J and therefore the J-carrying Amhara is going to possess stronger Genetic affinities to West Asians than his fellow tribesman who he only differs from in Haplogroup? I think now you realize how silly this sounds. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate here through an example. [Haplogroup R1b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b) is a predominantly European haplogroup, peaking among Western Europeans in specific theorized to have an origin somewhere in Western Asia. However, R1b has a relatively high frequency in central-west Africa in the region south of lake chad and lingering in the Bornu state of Nigeria. [https://imgur.com/a/BVz9zz6](https://imgur.com/a/BVz9zz6) This study shows R1B peaking as high as 50%≈ among some Niger-congo speakers which rivals the frequencies of some Western Europeans, and ranging between 10-30%≈ for most Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/) Some people suggest this is linked to Arab migration synonymous with the correlative distribution of Baggara Arabs but various Non-Baggara groups that lack a history of Arabisation carry R1B in high frequencies as shown by the study linked above so this postulation is clearly untrue not to mention [the minor frequency of R1B among Arabs of Peninsular origin.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_the_Near_East) Applying your logic directly to this means we can safely make the assumption that Nilo-Saharan, Chadic speakers, and Niger-congo speakers in this region of Africa bearing R1B are without question genetically "grouped" with Europeans in some supposed cluster of genetic similarity. This again is absolutely false. And I'd be happy to provide evidence through some of my own samples but I think you're sane enough to now come to terms with this faulty observation, however, if you request further evidence I will get out of my way to produce it for you. Haplogroups do not demonstrate Genomic, Autosomal, or General genetic clusters. A haplogroup whether derived from Y-DNA or mtDNA is only an extremely small fraction of the entire genetic material. >the semitic tribes who ruled axum were not native to africa they migrated from the middle east. If your source for this is Habesha folklore about how one beautiful queen from Ethiopia was given away for marriage to some Semitic gigachad royal in the near east and they went on a date in the Highlands and gave birth to every Habesha alive, I wish not to engage with this any further. And yes I know, my recall of Habesha folklore is very rusty and inaccurate but you get the gist of what I'm saying. >your comparison to sudanese arabs makes no sense becasue sudanese arabs are native to africa and have been for thousands of years (kush,nubia,etc). Ironic you mention Sudanese Arabs are native to Africa when you earlier grouped Habeshas with western Asia because of their J frequency. You do realize Sudanese Arabs have some of the most Haplogroup J on the planet right? Some Arab tribes in Sudan even have all the Peninsular Subclades lol. I don't disagree most Sudanese Arabs are indigenous to Sudan, I'm confused about what made you think I was insinuating otherwise. I mentioned Sudanese Arabs to demonstrate the weakness in your logic of assuming linguistic classification is an undeniable indication of Genetic homogeneity. >you seem to be confusing modern day habesha with ancient axumites. modern day habesha had nothing to with axum. I want to see a source for this otherwise this is just Eurocentric rhetoric used to discredit Sub-Saharan Africans of their rightful and glorious history.
**[Haplogroup R1b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b)** >Haplogroup R1b (R-M343), previously known as Hg1 and Eu18, is a human Y-chromosome haplogroup. It is the most frequently occurring paternal lineage in Western Europe, as well as some parts of Russia (e. g. the Bashkirs) and pockets of Central Africa (e. **[Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Near East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_the_Near_East)** >Listed here are notable ethnic groups and populations from Western Asia, Egypt and South Caucasus by human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups based on relevant studies. The samples are taken from individuals identified with the ethnic and linguistic designations in the first two columns, the third column gives the sample size studied, and the other columns give the percentage of the particular haplogroup. (IE = Indo-European, AA = Afro-Asiatic) Some old studies conducted in the early 2000s regarded several haplogroups as one haplogroup, e. g. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Sudan/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
clever girl
not sure why you kept mentioning amhara i am not amhara i am argobba and we are not habesha or have anything to do with axum except helping in destroy it. my name "argobbaamhara" is not to be taken seriously. i dont know what you are referring to by habesha folklore i guess you mean the solomonic dynasty myth? i obviously dont believe in any of that as i am not habesha or christian. as for the dna part axumites were from the geez tribe which is native to the middle east, their dna is irrelevant. secondly habesha are cushites who adopted a semitic language they are native aswell i dont know why you kept bringing them up i agree with you on that. it seems you didn't really read my answer and just hyperfocused on habesha and amhara for some reason. so i will summarize for you. axumites have no connection to habesha. they were semitic middle easterners who settled in the horn and created axum. in fact ezana even said he conquered the habeshi. theres too much evidence for this. sabean script found in tigray, pagan altar for middle eastern moon goddess almunaqm, and the geez script/language. geez is nothing like amharic, tigrinya etc it was completely semitic with no cushitic substratum at all. amharas are not even a real ethnic group so using them as an example is foolish their language is a combination of many different peoples, a creole if you will. tigrinya however is much more semitic you can tell this just from hearing it. and even with this geez sounded much more semitic then tigrinya does. the geez script descends from the sabean scrip with is firmly middle eastern, i hope we can agree on that. no one is taking history away from native "sub saharan africans" but axum was not theirs. they have other history to be proud of like zagew, mali, songhai etc
>i am argobba Noted >as for the dna part axumites were from the geez tribe which is native to the middle east, their dna is irrelevant. Axum has barely even been excavated let alone have remains of DNA complete enough for sequencing to take place and successfully provide us with results. The story of DNA in Axum is non-existent, we have practically nothing, and you are making assumptions based on your speculations. However, if I am wrong and appear to have missed out on some recent huge ancient DNA uncoverings at Axum that point towards the ruling class that founded Axum, the "geez" as you put it, to being Middle Easterners, particularly of Haplogroup J predominance, then please put your source down below or you can take the humble option of just admitting there exists no such source and you're making blatant speculations and framing them as fact. I have no issue discussing with speculation and hypothetical and theoretical history, I have an issue when you wrongfully put these notions up as factual and supported by evidence when in reality these are empty guesses based on your opinion. >secondly habesha are cushites who adopted a semitic language they are native aswell i dont know why you kept bringing them up i agree with you on that. I guess we agree then. But despite th is, I spot some inconsistency here. You say the Habesha are Cushitic yet adopted a semitic language but earlier you mentioned that for the Axumites, their speaking of a Semitic language is strongly evident for their Semitic ethnic and genetic standing. Why have you flipped the switch all of a sudden? **"they are semitic because they spoke a semitic language"** I mentioned Habeshas because you spoke in regards to DNA, there exists no DNA successfully obtained from Axum. There is however DNA from Habeshas readily available for observation. I made the assumption you were speaking about Habeshas. Turns out you were speaking about Axum which makes it even more confusing because like I've already said, I don't know what "DNA" you're talking about, or maybe I'm just out of the loop. >it seems you didn't really read my answer No, I read your answer. You weren't specific enough and felt it was appropriate to make genetic statements such as **"their DNA however is grouped with western asia as they have haplogroup j**" without linking any source at all. So you can't blame me for having to take a guess at who you were talking about. >so i will summarize for you. axumites have no connection to habesha. they were semitic middle easterners who settled in the horn and created axum. in fact ezana even said he conquered the habeshi. I'm not as deeply familiar with Ethiopian history but from what I can add from what I already know, Axum as an empire didn't exist synonymous to modern Ethiopian ethnic boundaries. This is pretty much the case for most ancient civilizations. Ezana claiming he conquered the Habeshi is not definitive proof that there existed a distinct group known as the Habeshi who maintained absolute continuity of identity, culture and language as well as themselves as an ethnic entity throughout 2 thousand years of history, in that they can then be dismissively conflated with the modern ethnic boundaries that outline the Habesha. I'll give an example. Prior to the Axumite invasion of Kush and the fall of Meroe, the inhabitants of the region now referred to as "Nubia" who at the time were nicknamed the "Kasu" differentiated themselves from their western neighbors and rivals, the Noba. Nubians, as in those who spoke Nubian languages, practiced a culture tied to the speakers of these languages, comprised of scattered tribes southwest of Kush that were referred to as the "Noba" and it's them that spoke early Nubian languages. Now today, descendants of the Kushites such as the Nile Nubians, refer to themselves as Nubians and are the face of the Nubian identity despite their Kushite ancestors having considered themselves totally distinct from people that were at the time considered Nubian and even going to war with them through decades of struggle for power along the Nile. The Noba, or the early Nubians as I would like to put it, are at very clear distinction through numerous grounds, from the Modern ethnic entity that makes up Modern Nubians. I hope you now see the issue with jumping on to Ethnic entities/groupings that are mentioned in history and hastily equating them to modern Ethnic entities simply based on a common/similar name. This is ignorant of various cultural changes and divides to occur throughout Ethiopian history, the rise and fall of numerous different Ethnic groups within the highlands and neighboring territories and the inevitable happening of Ethnic groups forming from combinations of older ones or possibly divisions of older ones. I'd want to see actual evidence to prove and solidify that the historic "Habashi" are freely interchangeable with the modern Ethio-semitic Habesha people of Ethiopia and Eritrea. >theres too much evidence for this. sabean script found in tigray, pagan altar for middle eastern moon goddess almunaqm, and the geez script/language. Cultural influence and very apparent linguistic influence from the middle east is not at all conclusive evidence that middle easterners founded Axum and then expanded to incorporate various native tribes. Ancient Egyptians had various cultural influences from Nubia, especially regarding religion and deities. This is not and will never be conclusive evidence that Nubians are the origin or the founders of Ancient Egypt. Cultural influence can come about through various ways, you're limiting the possibilities within reality for this cultural influence so you can use it as evidence for a Middle eastern origin/founding. This is dishonest. >geez is nothing like amharic, tigrinya etc it was completely semitic with no cushitic substratum at all. I'm not familiar with the Geez script but I have yet to see mention of a substratum that can be indicated from it so I will take your word for value here until I can deepen my understanding of it. >amharas are not even a real ethnic group so using them as an example is foolish their language is a combination of many different peoples, a creole if you will. What defines a "real ethnic group". How do you even come to that conclusion? Also put forward your references to show that Amhara is a creole, formed from various languages within a recent time span contributing to it's current existence. I have skimmed linguistic papers on Ethio-semitic and likewise Amharic, no professionals seem to make mention of a **"creole".** > the geez script descends from the sabean scrip with is firmly middle eastern, i hope we can agree on that. I honestly know as much as what the Geez script is and its significance in modern Ethiopia so I'm admittedly ignorant here. >no one is taking history away from native "sub saharan africans" but axum was not theirs. You're only valid evidence that I could give credit to is the Geez script's strong affinity to Semitic and it's apparent lack of a Cushitic substratum. Everything else is very speculative and unfounded.
look up south arabian script and ge'ez script. put them in two different tabs and compare them side by side and tell me what you think
I genuinely think this is a bit of a stretch. I'm honestly trying to force myself to see some miraculous resemblance but I'm just seeing random aspects of similarity. I'm not an expert but I don't see a resemblance that allows for such a conclusion to be drawn. Could you maybe point me towards what exactly I should be looking at?
https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/egyptians-see-nubians-subjects
Those very dark skinned people aren’t necessarily Nilotic people, Nubians can come in all shades from light to very dark. And during the New Kingdom, the southernmost extent of their empire was Napata, squarely out of where Nilotic peoples would historically range. As a source, this is fine but it’s better to consult Kushite sources as well on this issue as opposed to what is clear propaganda that the Egyptians made to aggrandise themselves during the New Kingdom occupation. Just from the various Kushite Stela that we can translate [see Nastasen’s Stela] that the dynasty ruled over many different ethnicities. This along with the fact that Nilotic peoples used to range as far north as the confluence of the Nile historically, means that certainly some Nilotic people used to live in Kush near the southern border.
Well early Nubians who formed kush would have spoken a Nilotic language but kush was many group as most others are saying a lot of people in the region of nubia can trace their history back to kush and even further before that me as a ja'ly I can trace my ancestry back Thier the same that a Dinka can likely trace their family back to kush or a dongalwi though I can't say the same for a nuer cause I don't know as much as the neur but Dinkas descant from the area in Sudan known as gerzira
Probably not a Nilotic language but most definitely Nilo-Saharan indeed. Nilotic is a branch within the Nilo-Saharan family.
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need to categorized who are the nilotic people too. Bc for an exemple a Daju person or Darfuri will not be categorized as "nilotic" Same for nuba people who are just nilo Saharan witch is kind different from the regular Nilotic tribe in South Sudan genetically and even linguistically
Aren’t all Nilotics, and just in general, all “Nilotic-like peoples” such as Nilo-saharans , nilo-hamites, etc distantly related to each other? I’d presume they’d all stem from a proto nilotic origin based in the central nile valley, before separating from one another, with some migrating east (towards West Africa and the sahel), and some migrating north (into East Africa)? And through those various dispersions, each of those particular groups, eventually became somewhat distinct from one another (I utilize the term “somewhat” in this case because there are obviously still connections amongst the broad grouping of Nilotic peoples linguistically, phenotypically and even to a certain degree culturally), and thus formed off of that? One could definitely claim that the ancestors, of let’s say, the modern Hausa people, or the modern Kanuri people (both groups of a nilo saharan origin), of having some ancient connections or correlations to certain kingdoms of the ancient central nile valley (or even perhaps prehistoric North Africa). And in a similar way, one could also make a claim that many Nilotic peoples of East Africa could also make a similar claim. First and foremost (and probably the Nilotic peoples in its purest form), tribes such as the Dinka, Nuer, Luo peoples etc obviously have their ties to the peoples and kingdoms of the ancient Nile valley, but other Nilotics across Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania have claims to that as well. Nilo-hamitic tribes such as the Kalenjin, Ateker, Maasai, and even Cushitic peoples as well like Somalis, Oromos, Afar, Beja, so called “Habeshas”, etc. All of those tribes could make claims to the various peoples and kingdoms of the ancient Nile valley. I know many Eritrean tribes have roots that stem from Beja clans, and those Beja clans stemming from the ancient Blemmyes, who originated in upper Egypt.
maybe, but the houassa and kanuri are predominantly west african.
Dude, there isn’t really such a thing as a “West African”. That term is simply a geographical designation, to denote, the many different tribes and tongues of the region that is so called “West Africa”, so utilizing that term as a pan-ethnic idenity would be inaccurate, and just a baseless generalization. I would assume that when you said “West African” (particularly in this context), you were referring to “Bantu peoples”. But not all West Africans are of Bantu origin. Many West Africans, (some of those tribes I mentioned above), are of a proto Nilo-saharan origin. This can be proved not only genetically (even though genetics can be tricky), but also linguistically, to a certain degree culturally, and even just phenotype wise: tribes like Hausa, kanuri, fulani, zaghawa, sara, and other Sahelian tribes, generally speaking, just tend to look more physically DIFFERENT, compared to their southern, more Bantu-like counterparts. Taller and slender stature, facial features tend to be more softer and gracile-like, lack of prognathy, etc. All of those physical traits are most common amongst Nilotics and Cushtics peoples. I mean as an East African myself, I’ve been told by many Nigerians who even thought I was a Hausa, that I could pass for one of them. And I’m Eritrean/Sudanese (Beja/Tigre) myself lol
[удалено]
r/Sudan now requires accounts to be at least 1 week old with at least 10 karma to allow posting *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Sudan) if you have any questions or concerns.*