What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!

Introduction:

 

Image Caption: A rendition of an Ethiopian male, featuring what can be considered an average look among the major Cushitic and Semitic speaking populations of Ethiopia. Click on the image to expand!

A recent publication by Pagani & co. (2012), under the heading "Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool", revisits the recurring issue of Ethiopian DNA profiles. In fact, one of the participants of this research, Toomas Kivisild in particular, was one of the authors of one of the last major studies on Ethiopian mtDNA, which was also a subject of blog posting on this site [see: Following Trails of the Cro-Magnon - I and Following Trails of the Cro-Magnon - II, for examples]. Some interesting findings surfaced in that study, as it relates to peculiarities about Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool; these same characteristics reappear in this latest study, as well shall notice in following segments of this entry.

As the authors start of their notes with laying out the goals of their research, they point out the supposed shortcomings of previous publications, particulary as it concerns Ethiopian DNA. In doing so, the authors lament on the supposed infrequency of DNA studies—involving African samples—that focus on Ethiopians in contrast to African samples from central and western Africa. This is right after the authors tell the reader that, because Ethiopia has proven to be relatively rich in human paleontological record, and in their words, "because of Ethiopia’s geographical position between Africa and Eurasia, its capital, Addis Ababa, is often used in genetic studies as a proxy embarkation point for modern human range expansions."

This smacks of double speak, when one considers that the subject of "human range expansions" figures quite a lot in population genetics research undertaken by 'western' research teams, and these seldom avoid including eastern Africa, the African Horn in particular, because its often implied rep of being a "cradle" to modern humanity. On top of this, Ethiopians have often served as "props" by Eurocentric ideologues, both in amateur and academic circles, to effect some ideologically-expedient wedge or another between continental Africans, whereby they feel at liberty to isolate what they either presume to be the source of "their kind" (Europeans) from the "others", who are generally lumped together and dismissed as being "inferior" and/or "undesirable", or use the target group—like Ethiopians—to explain away, and importantly, diminish natural African diversity as that made possible primarily because of foreign contribution.

Who were the Ancient Israelites? A Multidisciplinary search for Answers

Image Caption: "Parting of the Red Sea", during the alleged emigration of ancestors of Jewish people, made famous by the biblical legend. Click on the image for enlargement

Introduction: 

 

Over the years, this has become an age-old question: Who were the ancient Israelites, really? In what capacity did they actually exist, or what not, and do biblical stories around their eponymous ancestors and rulers reflect actual events?

This is actually a topic that came to attention quite a few years back, and to this day, the topic is controversial as ever. Part of the reason it is controversial, is the religious loyalties of elements both within and outside academia, that said persons want to defend. The other, which like the just-mentioned, probably goes without saying, is apparently longstanding identity/racial politics which certain camps are intent on passionately defending.

On the academic front, say for example—Egyptology, those who do not wish to shake up long held traditional narratives—usually highly romantic portrayals that have become cemented in many minds, with the aid of the likes of Hollywood—of what went down in ancient Egypt (Kmtnwt), and are perhaps in part inspired by biblical narratives, are also very reluctant to look at the subject at different, perhaps refreshing and more sober, angles. Whatever the camp, these ideologues generally share in common, resistance to re-examining their prevailing perceptions/preconceptions in the face of ongoing inflow of strongly substantive material, which challenge said viewpoints.

Reviewing: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans

This is a carryover from the "miscellaneous notes" of the last blog posting (The Creation of a Fake Controversy: The Fula Origins). It pertains to extracts taken from: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans, a publication by Tishkoff et al (2009). that just came out recently. Here, we will examine the work a bit more:

Sampling entailed...

We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties.

And mentions of interest here...

Ethnic groups, sample size, language classification, and subsistence classification are given in Table S1. For the Kenyan, Sudanese, Nigerian, and Cameroonian samples, white cells were isolated in the field from whole blood with a salting out procedure modified from (S1) and DNA was extracted in the lab with a Purgene™ DNA extraction kit (Gentra Systems Inc., Minneapolis, MN). Dogon samples were obtained from blood spots donated by participants in a cohort study of malaria incidence in Bandiagara, Mali. Ghanaian DNA was extracted onsite from whole blood, with the Purgene™ DNA extraction kit. The Juspeaking !Xun (a.k.a.Vasekela) and Khoe-speaking Khwe samples were collected from individuals in the area of Schmidtsdrift in the North-West Cape of South Africa. The Cape Mixed Ancestry (CMA) population, commonly referred to as Cape Coloured in South Africa, was collected in the Western Cape Province. The Dogon sample was collected in Bandiagara, Mali. Nigerian samples were collected in Abuja and Adamawa State districts. Cameroon samples were collected from the Eastern Province (Baka Pygmies and neighboring Bantu groups), Southern and Ocean Provinces (Bakola Pygmies and neighboring Bantu groups and coastal groups), Center Provinces (Medzan Pygmies and neighboring groups, mostly Bantu populations), Western Province (Bamileke and Mbororo Fulani groups), Extreme North Province (Mandara mountains and northern plains; Fulani and Afroasiatic/Nilo-Saharan speaking populations). All Cameroonians were sampled in their native village; the Hausa sample (a population who emigrated mainly from the Kano area two generations ago) was sampled in the city of Yaounde. Samples from Chad, CAR, Congo, DRC and Rwanda were obtained from individuals who recently immigrated to Cameroon. Tanzanian DNA samples were collected from individuals residing in the Arusha and Dodoma provinces of Tanzania. Samples from Kenyan populations of southern Ethiopian origin (Burji, Konso) samples were collected in the Rift valley, Nyanza, and Eastern provinces of Kenya. Sudanese samples were collected in the Khartoum and Kasala provinces of the Sudan. The Yemenite Temani and Ethiopian Beta Israel samples were purchased from the National Laboratory for the Genetics of Israeli Populations (S2) . The South African !Xun/Khoe, Xhosa, Vende, Cape Mixed Ancestry (CMA), Yemenite Temani, Beta Israel, and the Malian Dogon DNA samples were amplified by Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) with Illustra GenomiPhi HY™ kits provided by GE-Healthcare (Buckinghamshire, UK). It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).

Abstract:

Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.

Right off the bat, the first thing that probably jumps at any reader, is the heavy reliance on microsatellite repeats, as opposed to uniparental binary markers. Restricted fragment length nucleotide sequences or polymorphisms [relying on insertions/deletions] can add precision to identifying discrete monophyletic units, but even here, the results are not always as clear cut as the case generally is with "classic" uniparental binary markers of Y-DNA and mtDNA respectively, relying on unique event SNPs. For instance, certain RFLP haplotypes have been linked to two different haplogroups; case studies on RFLP haplotypes on this website have shed light to such occurrences: see Lucotte et al.'s haplotype IV, RFLPs: Lucotte et al., A case study — Pt. 1, and RFLPs: Lucotte et al., A case study — Pt. 2. In the first link of the three for instance, we were told:

A total of 21 different 49a,f haplotypes were found and are illustrated in Fig. 4 as a sub-classification of the Iraqi Y-chromosome haplogroups. The most represented haplotype of haplogroup E is haplotype 5 (A 2 C 0 D 0 F 1 I 1 ). This is followed by haplotype 11 (A 3 C 0 D 0 F 1 I 1 ) at a much lower frequency. Haplotypes 5 and 11 were observed both in Africa (Lucotte et al., 2001; Passarino et al., 1998; Persichetti et al., 1992; Santachiara-Benerecetti and Semino, 1996; Spurdle and Jenkins, 1992; Torroni et al., 1990) and Eurasia (Passarino et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2000b) but in Africa they belong to haplogroup E, whereas in Eurasia, particularly in *Northeastern Eurasia*, they belong mainly to the haplogroup R-M17. Interestingly, the proportion of haplotypes 5 and 11 in haplogroups E and R-M17 is reversed, with haplotype 5 prevalent in haplogroup E and haplotype 11 in haplogroup R-M17. By considering that the two haplotypes differ by a single band change and their different proportion in the two lineages, it is likely that haplotype 11 is a derivative of haplotype 5 in haplogroup E and just the opposite in haplogroup R-M17. - N. Al Zahery et al. 2003, Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations.

In cases where it might be difficult to link a RFLP haplotype to a specific sub-clade or else superclade, classic uniparental (Y-DNA or mtDNA) SNP and/or UEP markers are called on, as we see in the aforementioned link 2 and link 3 on Lucotte et al. Questionable allocation(s) of ancestral origin based on "shared" microsatellite markers and/or insertion/deletion markers is therefore bound to occur, as one comes across in the study at hand; ancestry, which would otherwise actually be more a reflection of an ultimate shared common recent ancestry prior to the ethnogenesis of the implicated contemporary groups into recognizable ethnic or socio-geopolitical entities they are known today, as opposed to some recent unidirectional gene flow from one designated contemporary group to another.

Moving onto excerpts of interest...

As some have correctly picked up on, and as the authors themselves openly admit, there are issues with their Dogon sample that need to be ironed out...

Detection of relative pairs: Relative pairs and duplicated samples in the dataset were inferred from the pattern of shared genotypes and population allele frequencies with RELPAIR 2.0.1 ( 6-8) . Because the inclusion of closely related individuals can impact population genetic inferences [e.g. (S9)], we took the conservative approach of excluding individuals inferred to be third degree or more closely related, including inferred relative pairs between regional ethnic populations (e.g. all Tanzanian populations). An exception was made in the case of the Dogon as it is difficult to reliably infer relative pairs in a small sample and the Dogon are highly distinctive and could not be readily merged with other populations to improve allele frequency estimates. Merging the Dogon with other non-Pygmy West African populations inferred four unrelated individuals in the sample, but this may be overly conservative given the distinctiveness of the Dogon sample from other West Africans. Also, the Dogon are the only representatives from Mali in our study and since the sample size is already small we did not want to further reduce the sample size in the analyses, especially if the relative pair estimates were questionable. Therefore, RELPAIR inferred relative pairs among the Dogon were not excluded. In total 737 individuals were removed. Networks of relatives, which in some cases were quite complex, were plotted with neato from the GraphViz software package (S10), which was used to select the minimum number of individuals to exclude to break up networks of relative pairs.

Indeed, the Dogon sample size, which to reiterate what the authors tell us — consisted of candidates who could also possibly be closely related and the only sample that represented Mali, was only one of 9 individuals, a fairly modest size. Keeping this in mind, we are told:

The Dogon from Mali, who speak a Niger-Kordofanian language, cluster with the Saharan and eastern Africans in the NJ tree (Fig. 1), consistent with the results from STRUCTURE analysis, showing considerable Saharan (blue) and Afroasiatic (purple) ancestry, and consistent with oral history of a northern African origin (although it should be noted that the sample size for this population, 9 individuals, is very small and many markers did not amplify well) (Fig. S13; Table S9).

"Saharan" without regional specificity is next meaningless. Just about any of the groups on the Sahara, Sahel or adjoining "sub-Saharan" territories have "Saharan ancestry". Furthermore, as has been the talk of this site recently, relics of "fertile-Sahara" era or earlier east African ancestry is scattered along the length of the Sahara, and generally finds expression in Sahelian and "Sub-Saharan" populations in relatively low incidences, if not somewhat patchy distribution. Such shared Saharan ancestry is bound to have some sort of manifestation across bi-parental microsatellite markers as well. As we've just seen, the authors note that "many markers did not amplify well", and indeed, if there is any further indication of an air of dubiousness about the results of the amplifications, then perhaps it is notion of some 45% ancestry, or specifically 45% of the sample identified with an AAC (Associated Ancestral Cluster) , being suggestive of European ancestry in that small sample of Dogon, with 9 individuals [see table S8 of the publication]; and even if one were to remotely entertain the possibility as a hypothetical scenario for argument's sake, it would implicate these individual as essentially "outliers", if anything, based off on previous information published on samples taken from sections of Malian society, including the Dogon. Additionally, with regards to such an outlier situation, one might even ask if this is not a function of "third party" interaction, with that "third party" being coastal north African Imazighen and Arabized groups. The authors themselves base AAC assignment on where said markers are allegedly the most maximum in 'frequency'...

African and non-African Associated Ancestral Clusters (AACs; labeled based on the populations showing the highest levels of ancestry for each inferred ancestral cluster)are highly divergent.

One can suppose 'frequency' could be a telltale sign of geographical origin of certain biparental microsatellite clusters, if only tenuously by itself, but as a matter of precision, it effectively plays that role only when taken into account with other molecular genetics information, like the internal molecular variation of a designated clade, and in association, how much of this variation is paraphyletic, along with definite geographical patterns of distribution. For instance, one might surmise that Hg R1b originated in Europe, merely on the account of the haplogroup's unparralleled prevalence in that region, and place the maximum likelihood of finding ancestral R1b clades in Europe before finding them elsewhere. However, as a matter of merely "frequency", Hg R1b's incidence in Europe in no way allows inference that either Hg R1* or its descendant, the upstream clade R1b* originates there; in fact, R1b* clades bearing upstream SNPs that are nearer to the root of that sub-clade, but lacking the well-known downstream SNPs, have so far only been identified in non-European samples. Interestingly, these non-European samples happen to be African ones. At the same, ironically, R1b itself is relatively rare in Africa, even in the coastal north African areas which are closer to Europe. So frequency as a single factor for adjudging origin can be misleading. Neutral factors like random genetic drift, for example, can elevate a marker's frequency in a designated locale, and yet, this locale in of itself need not be the actual location of origin for said marker. For microsatellite repeats, in absence of binary or UEPs, the assignment of origin based on frequency alone becomes even more uncertain, than the case is for binary or SNP markers. Microsatellite repeats could even be shared both between different and within single monophyletic clades in some occasions, due to homoplasy.

Many questions abound the objectivity of result inferred for the small Malian sample. In a related matter, the Beja samples were implicated in some ~ 32% and ~ 34% AACs [the Banuamir and Hadandawa samples respectively] placed under "European" [see: Table S8 of the journal]. Well, to the extent that ancestry suggestive of "possible" European origin has been implicated in a Beja sample before, it is reasonable to assume that this may render a section of the Beja to display shared clusters with Europeans in a segment of nuclear DNA that is outside uniparental binary markers; however, it is worth noting that the uniparental gene pool, the paternally-inherited one in particular, featured fairly low incidence of ancestry suggestive of ultimate European ancestry. Citing Hassan et al. (2008), the Beja male gene pool comprised of only ~ 5% ancestry that could *potentially* be linked to European origin [Hassan et al. (2008) provide little information on specific downstream clades of Hg R1b]; this is fairly consistent with R1b's general distribution in northern Africa, where it is generally low, in contrast to the fairly considerable representation of European maternal ancestry in coastal northwest Africa. So, the 32 or so % of microsatellite AAC linked to a possible European origin is out of character, when uniparental ancestry information is taken into account. On the other hand, substantial AAC sharing between coastal northwest African samples and the European ones is consistent with uniparental DNA examinations, which to reiterate, mainly finds expression in the maternally-inherited gene pool.

Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that Fulani have lineages of predominantly West African origin and that they cluster together and close to the Mandenka population from Senegal [S93].

By contrast, Y chromosome analyses of Fulani sampled in the Sudan indicates shared ancestry with Nilo-Saharan and Afro- Asiatic speaking populations [S89].

The line about the mtDNA is essentially a reversion back to what has been cited in the main post above, as observed by Cerny et al. (2006). The line about the Y chromosome analysis however, is quite misleading; one only needs to refer to Hassan et al. (2008) [see: Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese] to see how: The Sudanese Fula sample here, as noted in the main post above, predominantly featured Hg R1*-M173 markers in the uniparental paternal gene pool. This marker is in fact generally quite rare in "Afro-Asiatic" speaking populations; rather, its highest incidences has thus far been reported in Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and "Afro-Asiatic" (Chadic) speaking groups in northern Cameroon, with smaller occurrences in the rest of central Africa [see Luis et al. 2004]. Nilo-Saharan groups in Sudan itself, it should be noted, did NOT share this ancestry with the Sudanese-based Fulbe at all. This reverts back to what had already put forward in the main post, about the implication being that these Sudanese Fula derived from a section of the northern Cameroonian Fula, wherein the Hg R1*-M173 is featured in a considerable but not the predominant frequency.

The only marker that the Sudanese Fula shared with Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan ("Afro-Asiatic") speaking Sudanese groups was Hg E3b1 (M78). Common sense however, intimates that this aspect of the paternal gene pool was largely picked up from neighboring populations, only after the Fula situated themselves in Sudan. It makes sense, since after all, E3b1 is one of the prominently featured markers found in the Sudanese sample.

To recap, there's something still unmistakable about the Sudanese Fula sample: they retain western African ancestry, as signified by Hg E1-M33, which was absent in all autochthonous Sudanese groups; the only other groups where this marker was implicated in Hassan et al.'s (2008) work, were, well, the well-established west African groups like the Hausa and Wolof. When pressed on to explain away this anomalous feature of the Sudanese Fula's paternal gene pool, dissidents of the west African origin noticeably become mute on the matter.

These results raise the possibility of differential patterns of male and female gene flow into this population.

Whatever may be "differential" about male and female gene flow patterns in Fula sample, no doubt influenced by matters like life style — recalling on nomadic vs sedentary, both the maternal and paternal gene pools communicate the same thing: west African origin!

Our analysis, using genome-wide nuclear markers and STRUCTURE, indicates that the Fulani have distinctive ancestry [fuchsia] at K = 14 in the global analysis [Figs. 3,4] and at K = 9 -14 in the Africa analysis [Fig. S13]. The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13> They also cluster near the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations in the NJ tree based on population genetic distances [Fig. 1].

Fula samples taken from either central Africa or Sudan are expected to cluster with groups in central Africa-Chad, as the Fula would have arrived in Sudan via a central African and/or Chadic corridor, having experienced a bottleneck [see main blog post]. The central African Fula in turn would have arrived ultimately from Atlantic-coastal regions of western Africa, where their ethnogenesis as the Fula-"proper" likely occurred.

The pattern of the Sudanese Fula's Y-DNA composition is for instance, undoubtedly different from their western African brethren, but continuity still exists via recurring typical western African markers that unite all Fula groups, regardless of where they spread to; e.g. primarily Hgs E1 and E3a, and a lesser extent, Hg E2. Either of these clades are telltale signs of so-and-so Fula groups' western African ancestry.

In the global STRUCTURE analysis, the Fulani show low to moderate levels of European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue], consistent with mtDNA and Y chromosome [S89] analyses, as well as the presence at low frequency of the -13910 mutation associated with lactose tolerance in Europeans in this population [S94].

Again quite misleading. Yes, understandably, "low" levels of shared ancestry attributable to potential "European" ancestry, might be correlated with "low level" incidences (~1.7 %) of R1b [pertaining the Rosa et al.'s (2007) Guinean sample] or relics of this ancestry attained from coastal northwestern populations [Imazighen] seen on the mtDNA side [Cerny et al. 2006], as cited in the main post. However, in the case of Fula samples, from northern Cameroon through to Sudan, a good degree of presumed shared "European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue]" may very well actually be linked to common "distant" ancestry, as the paraphyletic R*-M207 and R1*-M173 markers suggest; these latter two are essentially rare to absent in "Middle Eastern" and "European" populations, which are mainly characterized by more downstream markers, especially European populations, who have no upstream markers for R1. Now, because R1b and R1a markers are still 'molecularly' linked to the upstream R*, any group bearing the latter or else any intermediary nodes between the upstream R* and the downstream R1a and R1b will "appear" to share ancestry with Europeans and/or possibly "Middle Easterners", which could misleadingly be misread as ancestry from "European/Middle East". Given the features of northern Cameroonian and Sudanese Fula sample uniparental male gene pool, it is a safe bet that this is the underlying issue at work, especially when the red flag of "moderate" levels is evoked; the Fula uniparental gene pool specifics, whether maternal or paternal, simply do not bear out "moderate" ancestry from "Middle East" or "Europe".

Recalling a previous blog post here, R1*-M173 in Africa, we have:

Interestingly, upon revisiting Wood et al. (2005), it should be pointed out that paraphyletic clade of R*-M207 was detected amongst some "Afro-Asiatic" African groups, along with the paraphyletic clade R1*-M173 [it is worth noting that Wood et al. implicate the Egyptian sample here as something other than that of Semitic speakers (Arabic)], while some Niger-Congo groups — though in small frequencies [pooled] — tested positive for the paraphyletic R1b*, lacking the established downstream R1b markers. Henceforth, R*-M207, lacking downstream mutations have been identified in African groups via this study; and yes, the basic nodes of all presently known Hg R's downstream clades had been accounted for, which means that R*, as predicted above, is NOT relegated to the Indian sub-continent. All in all, this suggests that African Hg R pool is actually more diverse than many seem to think.

As for the matter concerning lactose tolerance, it has been pointed out here before, how this has nothing to do with European ancestry. Recap, see: More on R1*-M173 bearers

In summation, the piece essentially rehashes the well-understood facts of primary west African ancestry of the Fula, both in terms of genealogy and language, along with genealogical "admixture" elements picked up over the course of migratory events, but suffers from matters, as laid out in detail in the main blog post, pertaining to idealistic urges for mystification where none is necessary or warranted. To provide an example, consider the following line:

Our analysis, using genomewide nuclear markers and STRUCTURE, indicates that the Fulani have distinctive ancestry (fuchsia) at K = 14 in the global analysis (Figs. 3,4) and at K = 9 -14 in the Africa analysis (Fig. S13). The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13>Fulani show low to moderate levels of European/Middle Eastern ancestry (blue), consistent with mtDNA (S93) and Y chromosome (S89) analyses, as well as the presence at low frequency of the -13910 mutation associated with lactose tolerance in Europeans in this population (S94). Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations (Figs. 3, 4, S13;Tables S8, S9). These results do not enable us to determine the definitive origin of the Fulani, although they indicate shared ancestry with Saharan and Central Sudanic populations and suggest that the Fulani have admixed with local populations, and possibly adopted a Niger-Kordofanian language, during their spread across central and western Africa. The origin of European (possibly via the Iberian peninsula) and/or Middle Eastern ancestry in the Fulani requires further exploration with additional genetic markers.
 
The words "admixed with local populations" is particularly interesting, as it is naturally inconsistent with mtDNA report [and Y-DNA] where western Africa is concerned, recalling Cerny et al. (2006) for example, who point out that their results show a primarily or predominantly west African ancestry of "charasteristic" markers of the Fula, but wherein the gene pool of nomadic Fula samples show very little genetic contribution from neighboring sedentary populations. This, to put it simply, means that the only way for the Fula gene pool to be primarily west African, is if they were autochthonously west African.

Another interesting choice of words, is the mention of "adopt" in Tishkoff et al.'s piece above, in relation to the Fulani language. "adopt" is usually suggestive of one taking on something that wasn't originally his/her's. Supposing one remotely entertained said insinuation of the authors for just a minute, their very idea that a small band of foreigners adopted the "Niger-Kordofanian" language along their migratory path, means that the locals along that path would have had to have already been Fula speakers; that is the only way a wandering group of immigrants/foreigners could have become speakers of a Niger-Congo language — a language family that supposedly did not characterize their own — which by chance, happens to be Fula. In other words, the Fula as an ethnic group was already established on the continent prior to the intrusion of this small band of immigrants; it's just common sense. Henceforth, this band of immigrants cannot be judged as proto-Fula antecedents by any stretch of the imagination; rather, they should be viewed merely as a foreign element that integrated into an already well established ethnic-group, i.e. the Fula, as opposed to assuming the role of a "prototype" for the group into which they allegedly integrated. To somehow use this [unsupported] scenario as something that mystifies Fula origins, is clearly not rational or logical deductive reasoning; at best, it is quite comical. The matter of Fula origins was recently posted here, in detail; recap: The Creation of a Fake Controversy: The Fula Origins

It is interesting to note that while the authors carry themselves as very confused individuals about Fulani ancestry, their own tables (see S8) show very little AAC sharing with Europeans; their Nigerian Fulani sample supposedly shared ~5 % or so AACs placed under "European", while the Cameroonian Fula samples shared about 2.5% and 2.6% respectively. Nothing "moderate" about these.

From language, culture to genealogical heritage, all indicators resolutely point to a west African ethnogenesis of the Fula. This has been supplemented with archaeological evidence, as that from Tassili, on rock art. Here, are renditions of a cattle-rearing group, bearing features reminiscent of contemporary Fula and/or western Sahel groups in general. One scholar often cited on the internet, regardless of how objective or otherwise the sites themselves are, for identifying definite links between the Tassili n'Ajjer rock painting and contemporary Fula, is Amadou Ba. For instance, one site notes:

At the Tin Tazarift site, for instance, historian Amadou Hampate Ba recognized a scene of the lotori ceremony, a celebration of the ox's aquatic origin. In a finger motif, Ba detected an allusion to the myth of the hand of the first Fulani herdsman, Kikala. At Tin Felki, Ba recognized a hexagonal carnelian jewel as related to the Agades cross, a fertility charm still used by Fulani women. With the disappearance of many traditions and other aspects of African culture, works of traditional African art are becoming more and more scarce. - This particular piece is from Jamtan.com

The following are from Andrew Brown Smith [African Herders (2005)], who seemingly attempts to portray himself as a "voice of moderation":

Of note here, is the observation that Smith — as any other person guided by reasoning — could not pass over the significance of linguistics, i.e. recalling the Niger-Congo familial ties of Fula language.

While briefly citing examples of the sort of reception Ba's definite correlations got in certain quarters, mainly amongst "western" observers, even Smith could not resist pointing out that the "coincidences" surrounding the reminiscence of Fula socio-cultural traits in definite features of the rock arts are simply too considerable to not draw a link between the two, i.e. between the figures in the rendition and contemporary Fula. Notwithstanding this openly-admitted acknowledgment, Smith of course, goes onto characterize Ba's demonstrations as "perhaps what they wanted to see to support their thesis", but offers no substantive counter-thesis that puts to question the "specifics" of what Ba "sees", other than a mere opinionated presumption of Ba's "possible" motive behind making the definite links that he made.

Click on the above images to get higher resolution versions.

In the lower images for example, one notices the head gear, which is not unlike that featured on a contemporary Dogon dancer in the image on the right hand side.

Other notes: Fulani cattle are also deemed to be of west African origin, as a sub-phyla of the west African breed of Zebu cattle called the "West African Zebu", and they fall into the following two groups -

The Fulani have been classified further into two groups: the lyre-horned subgroup consisting of Senegalese Fulani (or the Gobra), the Sudanese Fulani, and the White Fulani (or Bunaji); and long-horned subgroup represented by the Red Fulani (or Rahaji). Diali (or Djeli) is a strain of Fulani found on the flood plains of Niger river in Niger and south-west Nigeria (Rege 1999; Rege and Tawah, 1999). - courtesy cdad-is.org

Dictionary description...

Sudanese Fulani cattle
West African, lyre-horned, milking cattle, usually light gray.- Medical-dictionary

Continuing with examination of the study at hand, the authors note:

Individuals from Saharan and Eastern Africa show heterogeneous ancestry, reflecting descent from populations ancestral to non-Africans and/or gene flow from non-Africans into Africa.

Well, "exotic" gene flow as function of said heterogeneity, while reasonably a contributing element to some extent, is really quite trivial in the big scheme of things. African populations would still be quite heterogeneous *regardless* of gene flow from non-Africans. In relation to this, a subset of Africans who formed the basis for non-African groups, would assume an intermediary position in a case study involving a "comprehensive" collection of African and some non-African samples, because quite simply, that subset of Africans only represents a portion of the overall African diversity. Non-Africans in turn, only have a portion of the diversity of the subset of Africans from whom they emanate.

*Watch for occasional updates or modifications of this post in future.


*Last edited on 10/26/2010.

Unwinding the Convoluted Character of the Emergence of Imazighen Groups

The sequence of events involved in the genesis of the diversity that we see today in Imazighen groups is something that not only generates a considerable degree of interest, but also one that continues to challenge even the experts who've spent a good deal of their time in unwinding the archaeological, cultural and biological developments that accompanied the development of the Imazighen.

Amongst the Imazighen, perhaps the tawny-hued coastal northwestern groups draw in the most curiousity, in terms of their seemingly asymmetric sourcing of their gene pool—comprising of Y DNA, predominantly made up of autochthonous African markers, and mtDNA, in most cases made up of largely "Eurasian"-tagged markers—and the question of when they attained their apparent tawny or "light-skin" epidermal phenotype, in a continent dominated largely by 'dark skin' [of varying degrees] autochthonous groups. All sorts of rounds of rationalizing and speculation have taken place over the years, in efforts to explain what appears to be an anomaly of some sort to some, from tying contemporary Imazighens to the so-called Mecthoid (or supposed "Cro-Magnoid") types of the EpiPaleolithic and Neolithic era to being outright descendents of the likes of Vandals, Arabs or "Near Easterners", as opposed to being descendents of autochthonous Africans with genetic influence from groups that spent their evolutionary history outside of mainland Africa. None of these of course, have born out to be based on facts consistent with evidence. To take the "Mechtoid" example for instance, attempts had been taken by Eurocentric scholars to suggest that these were the ancestors of contemporary coastal northwest African Imazighen populations, by arguing for their supposed "caucasoid" cranio-facial phenotype, the supposed morphological link with the European Cro-Magnon specimens, and by typifying them as "Mediterranean caucasiod" types [See: Mechta and Afalou: Do they and the so-called "Mechtoids" constitute a type with the "Cro-Magnon"? and Mechta-Afalou and the so-called Mechtoids: Continued!]

At least one study states this: 

the most ancient, i.e. those from Taforalt in Morocco, Afalou-bou-Rhummel in Algeria and Singa in the Sudan, cannot be considered as being either Negro or San, whereas the later Jebel Sahaba sample (c. 12000 B.P.), the Wadi Halfa (c. 11950 - 6400 B.P.) and the Mechta-el-Arbi individuals (c. 8500 B.P.) and the Jebel Moya sample (c. 2950 - 2350 B.P.) are not significantly removed from the Negro populations. - Santiago Genovés

Bearing in mind those ages provided in that extract above, it should be noted that from DNA analysis, it has been implied that the Imazighen ("Berbers") ancestor emerged ca. 8.2 kya or so [Arredi et al. 2004] in northeast Africa; given this, the northwest African samples here [the Taforalt, Afalou-bou-Rhummel, and the Mechta-el-Arbi] are all too old to be associated with the contemporary Imazighen. The age given to the Mechta-el-Arbi specimens is the only one that comes close to any age associated with contemporary Imazighen speakers; but even here, it is questionable, given that Imazighen expansion in northwest Africa is dated even more recently than the upper end 8 kya time frame—that expansion dates to ca. 2.3 kya or so. The point is, although some find it tempting to associate the contemporary Imazighen with these EpiPaleolithic and Neolithic era northwest African specimens, available data suggest otherwise.

Speaking of DNA, skin pigmentation analysis suggest that "west Eurasian" contribution likely explains the coastal northwest African 'outlier' skin tones; granted, it is quite highly likely that coastal northwest African Imazighen would have still undergone *some* level of skin tone lightening, even if they weren't influenced by "west Eurasians", as they moved to the sub-tropical areas, especially in the Atlas mountain areas. This skin lightening event though, would have likely produced—at most—the level of skin tones seen in the likes of the San "Bushmen" and the KhoiSans. The UV radiation levels in the supra-tropical and sub-tropical regions of Africa are simply not as acute as those found in the even more northerly latitudes of Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Recalling on Norton et al (clickable), we have... 

"The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%)."

"The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations."

Which also doesn't rule out the probability of North Africans receiving some of their skin tone variations from so-called "Middle Easterners" as well.

Citing Rando et al. 1998 [mtDNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near Eastern and sub-Saharan populations] along the way,...

Here is a theory: Shortly after their emergence ca. 8 ky ago or so, nomadic pastoralist Imazighen groups dispersed from where they emerged in eastern Sahara, likely in the region straddling Egypt and Sudan, and moved northward [and also possibly westward in the Sahara]. Here, they would come into contact with arriving Neolithic groups from the so-called Near East, who would have also included E-M78* carriers [along with Hg J carriers], which made its way to the “Near East” at an earlier time frame. Being nomadic, these E-M78* and E-M81 Imazighen carriers would have likely been male-biased; however, their dispersal may have included notably Hg M1 carriers from their point of origin, amongst other common L type mtDNA lineages common in north Africa. The incoming Hg J and returning Hg E carriers would have been accommodated by “Eurasian” tagged mtDNA markers that are generally common to Europeans and “Near Easterners”, along with those more commonly found in the “Near East”. These would have presumably included some, if not somewhat limited, European mtDNA markers radiated from Last Glacial Maximum refugium centers in the so-called Near East, likely radiated from the likes of Anatolia. The following might prove to be insightful, notwithstanding outdated constructs that the authors apply in the course of their analysis... 

A great number of the 99 L3E sequences in our sample from the Berbers and other Moroccans, West-Saharans, and Mauritanians seem to be of European descent in view of the numerous matches (more than one fourth) with European but not Near Eastern sequences. The average transitional distance to the nearest neighbours in the European/Near Eastern mtDNA pool is as low as .4, which would correspond to an age of 8000 years. The same figure is also obtained for the L3 sequences from the Algerian Berbers (Corte-Real et al. 1996)...

Some further Near Eastern mtDNA lineages, more similar to extant European lineages, might have come along from the Near East with the (or some) ancestors of the Iberomaurusians, but the bulk of them probably arrived in North Africa with the posterior Mesolithic and Neolithic waves. There is thus a caveat with the European appearance of North African mtDNAs: the same lineage types that came from the Near East and dispersed along the southern Mediterranean littoral around the Last Glacial Maximum (possibly spreading the Gravettian cultures) or after the Younger Dryas (bringing the Neolithic) may also have taken the northern route along the Mediterranean sea. It is therefore difficult to establish at present a clear cut between European and Near Eastern mitochondrial lineages. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence for some European genetic input into North Africa, as for example testified by Haplogroups U5 (Richards et al. 1998) and V (Vandals, Portuguese and Spanish colonization).

The Neolithic hypothesis above seems like the more plausible scenario. And to exemplify the difficulty grappling researchers in unwinding the very complex history of the north African Imazighen,... 

In summary, the mitochondrial landscape of Northwest Africa appears to be quite complex, and cannot be studied in isolation from the European, Near Eastern or sub-Saharan mitochondrial background. Population affinity diagrams reflect essentially the north-south gradient, which is evident from cluster compositions, whereas sequence comparisons employing the mtDNA database reveal the traces in Northwest Africa of (1) Paleolithic settlement(s) before the Last Glacial Maximum, (2) Neolithic waves, and (3) migrations of northern Europeans (and possibly others, such as Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, and Iberians) in historical times.

These multiregional influences may explain the partially conflicting interpretations of North African data, which emphasize indigenous development and European/West Asian affinity (Irish, 1197, 1998) and a clear relationship to Iberians in particular (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1995) or disclaim specific relationships to Iberians (Comas et al. 1998) and significant (Neolithic) demic diffusion from the Near East (Barbujani et al. 1994; Bosch, et al. 1997). 

These same Neolithic groups would have found their way to southeast Europe and onto islands therein, like Crete. However, because the nomadic Imazighen groups now situated in the coastal areas of northeast Africa were male-biased and with small effective population size, their mixing with the females that came along the Neolithic groups would have given the appearance of substantial intermixing. However, these nomadic pastoralist Imazighen groups would have not been the type that would have allowed arriving Neolithic groups to dominate them. So, it would appear that instead, the Neolithic elements who intermixed with them, adopted the languages and other aspects of the nomadic Imazighen groups, while their Neolithic traditions continued to stay with them. Consequently, the nomadic Imazighen groups too would be influenced by those traditions, resulting in settlement moves amongst them, like those near the oasis on the western desert of the Nile Valley. This is where they’d have likely made initial efforts to settle before moving to the far western areas. By the bronze age Holocene period, it would appear that some coastal North Africans had spilled over to southeast European areas, with Crete being an example of that. Other Imazighen nomads spread through the length of the Sahara, likely mixing with other groups therein; and again, being male-biased, they would have picked up mtDNA gene pools of those other groups. This would explain the gradient that authors like Rando et al. observed: 

The mitochondrial data of the Northwest African populations (Berber from Morocco and Algeria, Moroccans, West-Saharans, Mauritanians, Tuareg) show a mosaic composition of mtDNA types, with a pronounced gradient of sub-Saharan lineages from north to south: at the one extreme, the Berbers from Morocco have a predominantly European (Iberian) affinity, while at the other extreme, the Tuareg are closely related to sub-Saharan West Africans as represented by several Senegalese groups in this study, whereas the West-Saharans and Mauritanians are somewhat intermediate. It is remarkable that the Tuareg bear little mitochondrial resemblance to the Berber populations, although they speak a Berber language. 

Hg U6 would have invariably been spread across the Sahara, with relative frequency peaks in the western end of it. At any rate, subsequent intrusions into north Africa, e.g. the likes of Phoenicians, the Greco-Romans or the Vandals, would have likely left a rather limited genetic imprint only in centers of foreign administration. It is quite plausible that much of the European-specific maternal lineages came around the historic periods after those epochs, as perhaps best indicated in one of the extracts above, when the author said: "(3) migrations of northern Europeans (and possibly others, such as Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, and Iberians) in historical times." On the other hand, when the authors said, "sequence comparisons employing the mtDNA database reveal the traces in Northwest Africa of (1) Paleolithic settlement(s) before the Last Glacial Maximum", they were likely alluding to the likes of the autochthonous north African marker of U6, which at any rate, generally comprise a relatively smaller portion of the Imazighen mtDNA gene pool. It is not clear if much earlier contacts with the likes of Cretans would have contributed to Imazighen gene pool in a substantial way, but it’s certainly possible that some degree of genetic exchange with elements therein had resulted in a portion of mtDNA gene pool spilling into north Africa, perhaps by groups returning with African ancestry. Anyway, this could very well also have contributed to the frequency of seemingly European-specific mtDNA. Contact between Cretan inhabitants and north Africans have been spoken about on many occasions, and even implicated in images of antiquity, like the example below:

The characters with frizzy-looking hair—although with the resolution of the image above, it is rather difficult to ascertain—are said to be north Africans. Other images from the Minoans seem to invoke a considerably heterogenous or "mixed" people; the following are photographs of images on Minoan sarcophagi...

Sarcophagus portion #1:

 
Sarcophagus portion #1 blown up below:




 
Sarcophagus portion #2 blown up below:

In ancient Egyptian artwork:

In ancient Egyptian art, the first group to their western desert—in an area now dominated by Imazighen speaking populations—that *tentatively appears on their records from the predynastic era onwards, are the "Tjehenu/Tehenu"; these people were generally painted in dark hue as the Egyptians themselves were. In the old Dynastic era, one comes across another group of people in the western desert area of the Nile Valley; they were presumably referred to as the "Tjamahu/Tamahu". These latter group of people were generally depicted in the light-skin tone, in a manner not different from the Aamu, generally known by many as "Asiatics". The "Tehenu" were presumably located in the coastal areas on the western desert region, while the "Tamahou" were presumably located in the more southward areas of the western desert. The latter were generally depicted sporting interesting body tattoos, and feather head gear. There are also other groups attested to in the western desert areas; namely the "Meshwesh/Mashawash" and the "Libu/Lebu (Ribu/Rebu)", notably mentioned in the New Kingdom era [see Merneptah stele for example], in the Rameside period. Any group here or any combination of these groups may have been ancestors of the contemporary north African Imazighen. Below, is a repro of a wall relief depicting what appears to be a "Meshwesh" figure under captive, and other figures from the western desert areas, possibly the "Tjamahu" (Tamahu/Tamahou)...

 

A curious feature though about the Minoan art, is the seeming consistent [though not necessarily exclusively] depictions of the male figures in dark hue, with some being even in plain black tone; this seems to be the case in the ancient Egyptian example below, and the Minoan painted counterpart underneath that...

Below, is an occasion showing individuals in plain black hue...


Relaxing on visual aids, and resuming our theory at hand...

With substantial gene flow from European maternal gene pool in the historic period, it’s likely that some of the older Eurasian mtDNA markers may have experienced unfavorable genetic drift, lowering their relative frequency. Likewise, genetic drift may have worked favorably for the more historic European markers from the Iberian peninsula. Though not exclusively, the following examples of historic events must have surely had their own role to play, in contributing to coastal northwest African gene pool,...

 
Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. Then there were also sudden waves of migration to the north African coast during the fall of direct northwest African rule in the Iberian peninsula; no doubt families who reached the north African coast had left some genetic imprint therein. And of course, again, genetic drift has its own role to play in all this.

All that aside, a look at samplings so far undertaken in coastal northwest Africa suggests that these have generally relied on sampling small, scattered populations [see Cherni et al. 2005], giving fragmented or incomplete picture of northwest African maternal gene pool structure.
________________________________________________________________
*References:

— As noted in the paragraphs.

'*' corresponds to record that was/is taken into consideration with regards to the Tjehenu/Tehenu. For instance, the "Tehenu" Palette was subsequently discussed here: The So-called Tehenu Palette

Renaming Afro-Asiatic and its Semitic offshoot

It has recently been proposed by several scholars/linguists that Semitic may have originated in East Africa and/or in the north eastern part of Egypt near Sinai, by proto-Afrasan or "pre-proto-Semitic" pre-agricultural migrants in the region...

“A careful reading of Diakonff shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively Africa origin for the family. He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and links it to pre--Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the family wholly in Africa. One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre-food-producing population movement from Africa into the Levant, consistent with the linguistic arguments for apre-Neolithic migration of pre-proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai.” - Ehret et al.

More excerpts on the matter:

Brandt, Steven. University of Florida and Juris Zarins, Southwest Missouri State University.

An African Origin for Semitic-Speaking Peoples? Archeological, Genetic and Linguistic Perspectives.

The origins of Semitic - speaking peoples have traditionally been linked to Near Eastern cultures that first occupied the lower Mesopotamian alluvium prior to 4000 BC. Drawing upon recent archeological, linguistic and genetic data, this paper develops an alternative model which suggests that Neolithic Afro-Asiatic speaking nomadic pastoralists from North-eastern Africa were the first to introduce “proto-Semitic” languages and an African form of nomadic pastoralism to Arabia, perhaps from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea and Sinai.Implications of this model for clarifying long-standing issues related to the later prehistory and history of Northeastern Africa and Arabia are discussed.

From the excerpt above,...

multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea and Sinai.

...would explain the abundance, or the bulk of Semitic languages being located in the African Horn. Perhaps a relatively more recent affair, but maybe intuitive:

Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had **already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.** " - Stuart Munro-Hay

Personal deductions: The Agaw adopted the Semitic languages from indigenous Semitic speaking Ethiopians, [and as stated above] not from southern Arabians. To support this fact, the author makes it quite blatant in the following, what language speakers the Agaw were prior to their adoption of the said Ethio-Semitic languages:

Whatever was the cause of the end of the former Aksumite kingdom, a new centre eventually appeared in the province of Lasta to the south under a dynasty, apparently of Cushitic (Agaw) origin, later regarded as usurpers, called the Zagwé (Taddesse Tamrat 1972: 53ff; Dictionary of Ethiopian Biography 1975: 200ff). The existence of a long and a short chronology for this dynasty indicates that the Ge`ez chroniclers were in some confusion as to the precise events occurring at the end of the `Aksumite' period until the advent of the Zagwé. - courtesy of S. Munro-Hay.

Taken from: Nile Valley Forum

Ge'ez itself has been characterized as a now-defunct but well differentiated autochthonous Ethiopian "Semitic" language at the time of its use. This would make Ge'ez's ancestor [not Ge'ez itself] the "proto-Ethio-Semitic" language. Apparently, 'proto-Semitic' is the reconstructed hypothetical common ancestor of all so-called Semitic languages.

As part of a discussion, at least one perspective on the matter was this:

I'm curious to know why Semitic is even still considered to be a linguistic branch while Hamitic was abandoned (done at the insistence of Joseph Greenberg that the concept of Hamitic languages were invalid).

It is my understanding that the language family Hamito-Semitic was abandoned in favor of Afro-Asiatic because the concept of Hamite implied a Mesopatamian/Near Eastern origin of various branches of that language family that were dispersed into Africa, as the Bibilical theory of the Table of Nations (from which the words Hamite and Semite are derived from) suggests.

Of course archeological and linguistic evidence shows that it was the other was around, these languages in Africa once regarded as Hamitic originated in Africa and dispersed elsewhere.

So why is it that certain languages in Africa are considered to be part of the Semitic branch (and even proto-Semitic itself has been suggested to have originated in Africa) when the term itself still implies a West Asian origin?

Indeed, the issue of the rationality of sustaining the term "Semitic" in the science of language/linguistics, given its biblical origins, what that implied and its subsequent inspirational impact on the 19th & 20th century Eurocentric racialist ideological schema, is something that crops up time and again. Whatever happened to the idea of separating religion from science?

The way the present author sees it, if someone were to say that the 'Semitic' descriptive should not be an issue, then that same someone should not have any issues with "Hamito-Semitic", the earlier descriptive given to the language family in question. Of course, the 'Hamito' end of it, implicates the Hamitic hypothesis. Hamites too, like Semites, is rooted in biblical jargon, but Eurocentrist scholars from the 19th and 20th century ran off with the term and applied it in bio-anthropological discourse; in some cases, we've seen the disastrous consequences of the Hamitic myth in European imperialism. Here, whereas Hamites were supposedly hybridized "Negroes", Semites were considered to be "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The earlier rational of "Hamito-Semitic", is the presumed notion that while these folks were distinct, that is to say—Hamites and Semites, their language were somehow related; Why not?...after all, the rationale was that Hamites partly descended from "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The Semitic end of the language family was initially believed to be of "non-African" origin, amongst these "non-African" Semites. If "Hamites" can be dropped, why should "Semites" not be dropped as well? However, if the rationale is that "Afro-Asiatic", as used today, is a linguistic construct, and that Semitic too is the same, well hey, "Hamito-Semitic" too was a linguistic construct in its day; why have issue with it?

It brings a good point to the table, as to the question of why "Hamito-Semitic" hasn't been dropped "altogether". Perhaps, the answer lies in the now outdated notion that, the "Hamitic" branch of languages were supposedly realized to have been of African origin before the same was realized for the supposed "Semitic" branch—something which Steven Brandt and Juris Zarins, for example, point out about the latter [Semitic] in the excerpt above.

Ehret thought even the term "Afro-Asiatic" was still reminiscent of the idea of African origin and an Asian offshoot, which according to his conclusions about exclusive African origins [for both proto-Afrasan AND its proto-Semitic descendant], did no justice to that conclusion. Thus, Ehret thought the term "Afrasan" would do it more justice, and get that "Asiatic" bit out of the way. But yes, Semitic too, as a term, may well need revision, with preponderance for African origins, especially in light of genetics, in combination with recent archeological findings—genetics wasn't exactly given much consideration back in the old "Hamito-Semitic" days, since very little was known about the science then.

For some, another reasoning for clinging onto that construct [i.e. Semitic] could be that, even though the "proto-Semitic" languages have African origins, their independent further development in the various respective regions where they are now spoken, would not be so apparent, so its linguist advocates reckon, if they did not use the term "Semitic". But again, from a personal opinion, considering the history of that term, perhaps its further usage needs to be revised—how?...a question linguists will have to think about! And here, several reasonable ideas will be proposed, as to how to go about renaming the Afro-Asiatic super phylum appropriately.

Another opinion on the matter:

A part of it had to do with the bias implied in the elevation of the Semitic languages, among the most recently derived - why semitic, and not Chadic for instance?

Then the concept of Hamites as - black skinned whites - was acknowledged to be and essentially ideological ruse.

For starters, let's consider the name Afro-Northern Rift [Valley]/Afro-North Rift (with the latter being an allusion to the Great Rift Valley) Super language, an entry for candidacy in replacing the "Afro-Asiatic" moniker.

It should be noted that the "Semitic" term issue aside, the "Asiatic" in "Afro-Asiatic" has the effect of over-emphasizing Asia's role in the language complex, given that Asia is apparently a gigantic landmass, with the Afrisan derivatives being limited to just the Great Rift region. Thus originating in Africa, this language phylum spreads its wings to only as far as part of the Great Rift Valley on the other side of the Red Sea. Though generally counted as part of Asia in "Western" discourse, the Great Rift areas across the Red sea really more closely lean towards Africa geologically, culturally and even politically. The case can also be made that populations in this area are generally more genetically closer to Africans than those further away.

The "Rift Valley" or "Great Rift Valley" moniker addresses not only the geographical issue, but also the "Semitic" nick end of it.

Then, how about considering a variant of the Afro-Northern Rift super-phylum: "Saharo-North Rift [Valley]" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) super language phylum, as a replacement of "Afro-Asiatic".

Why any consideration for the 'Sahara' at all? Technically, Afrisan languages are spoken both on the Sahara and in areas below the Sahara, in east and west Africa. But its spread westward on the continent, would have likely come about via the former wet-Saharan belt corridor.

Here is one opinion on the idea:

I take it you're proposing Saharo-Northern Rift replace Afrisan.
This is good because Asia doesn't have a damn thing to do with
the super-phylum at all in the least and Afrisan retains the 's'
of Asia.

Seeing that the speakers of this superphylum are all indigenous
to the northern Great Rift Valley and the Sahara — including its
periphery to Lake Tschad, the Nile, the Mediterranean, and the
Atlantic — it's the perfect geographic complement to Niger-Congo
although it conflicts somewhat with Nilo-Saharan — but 'Saharan'
in that instance does not include the periphery. And yes the island
of Malta is overlooked in the Saharo-Northern Rift label but that's
just a tiny forgiveable oversight.

Well yes, the present author is proposing Saharo-Northern Rift as another possible candidate; the present author realizes that Saharo in the "Saharo-Northern Rift" doesn't immediately speak to every single geographical 'periphery' where the Afrisan language may well be spoken, but it is proposed for the reasons stated above: that is to say, the major corridors for its historical or rather, pre-historic expansions. The Sahara would have proven to be a major corridor for its westward expansion on the continent; whereas East Africa is where the language phylum likely first emerged—in the Northern Rift Valley region, and spread thereof across the Red Sea.

The "Afro-Northern Rift" speaks more to the general geographical reach of the Afrisan phylum than the former above, in that "Afro" compensates for any other areas where the language phylum mainly exists outside of the Northern Great Rift areas.

Some have proposed a descriptive to the effect of: Saharo-Erythrean!

However, as for 'Saharo-Erythrean' or any variant of it thereof, this is the present author's opinion on it: Why the invocation of "Erythrean"? The Great Rift Valley already includes the areas across the Red Sea from Africa.

It may well boil down to matter of taste, if not preference of the proposed reasoning behind either variant terms respectively over the other, but the question now is: Between say, "Afro-North Rift" (Afro-Northern Rift Valley) and "Saharo-North Rift" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) which is a better candidate?

Whatever the choice between the two may be, there is little to suggest otherwise, that either term is an improvement over the current moniker of "Afro-Asiatic", and by extension, the "Semitic" moniker of its Semitic offshoot; it is like killing two birds with one stone!