Mytrueancestry.com

momiasegipcias.JPEG


Nothing and that I am V22. I hope the question has been answered.
 
Do not worry Salento. My male descandants will remember fondly the T's. LOL. :) It seems that the R's are more fertile and had more success than the T’s in propagated their lineage. :grin: But I've heard, I don't know where, that the "Y" chromosome is in extinction. I believe we will all become archelogical relics.:sad-2:(y):LOL:
Duarte, I'm late, as always. ah ah ah
Fertility? Come on! I'm sure you're kidding, but here we go. There are people who think it's about that. :) As you likely know, I'm affraid it hasn't necessarily to do with physiological fertility. As you likely know, too, the frequencies we see in Europe nowadays largely result from ancient movements/replacements and correlations (see articles below), some of them at times of lower population (which in even earlier times certainly favored extinctions, especially when it comes to Y hgs - haplogroups), so I'd say the timeframe/context may be relevant to understand proportions. The population in Europe was low in Neolithic, and started to grow "exponentially" after ~2000 BCE, afaik. The decrease of frequency in Europe as a whole of haplogroups such T (and G) started even before, and it seems it was firstly associated to the relative increase of hg I, for some reasons not clear yet: wars/killing (see for instance what happened with hgs such Q in Americas), RH factor, climate change or diseases that possibly weakened first farmer societies, slavery and/or elite dominance etc. Later, perhaps similarly, they (now also hg I) were impacted additionally by the increase of R1 and probably J2 and E1b in Bronze Age, which are also "successful" lineages generally speaking. I1 itself expanded greatly in Bronze Age though, mainly in Scandinavia. Did I1 men suddenly become more fertile than I2? Hmm... Let's go further. What about R1b-A8039 vs. R1b-P312 (both under R1b-L151)? Or R1b-BY15512 vs. R1b-U152 (both below R1b-P312)? Sorry, not really. Fertility or akin don't explain phenomena like these:

"The forefathers of Europe: Two thirds of modern European men descend from just three Bronze Age leaders"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-leaders.html

"Half of Western European men descended from one Bronze Age 'king'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...onze-age-king/

(They could have reinforced male line, since everybody in Europe must have granddaddies belonging to whatever "European" old haplogroup, but ok. We got it.)

More:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6

So, continuing... already affected, those I mentioned at first were completely "absorbed" at some point, soon or later (it doesn't mean a perfect dilution over time; modern concentrations would be still related to ancient movements, geographical peculiarities etc., sure), and the substantial decrease in each case naturally must have ceased at some point, given the successive changes of context.

Due to the "demographic explosian" in the last thousand years and the huge population we have now, I'd say that the extinction of these older branches are unlikely. Very young branches naturally have more chances to be extincted soon enough. But I'm sure Salento will work hard to guarantee the survival of his more recent lineages. Ha!
Just kidding... ;)
 
Duarte, I'm late, as always. ah ah ah
Fertility? Come on! I'm sure you're kidding, but here we go. There are people who think it's about that. :) As you likely know, I'm affraid it hasn't necessarily to do with physiological fertility. As you likely know, too, the frequencies we see in Europe nowadays largely result from ancient movements/replacements and correlations (see articles below), some of them at times of lower population (which in even earlier times certainly favored extinctions, especially when it comes to Y hgs - haplogroups), so I'd say the timeframe/context may be relevant to understand proportions. The population in Europe was low in Neolithic, and started to grow "exponentially" after ~2000 BCE, afaik. The decrease of frequency in Europe as a whole of haplogroups such T (and G) started even before, and it seems it was firstly associated to the relative increase of hg I, for some reasons not clear yet: wars/killing (see for instance what happened with hgs such Q in Americas), RH factor, climate change or diseases that possibly weakened first farmer societies, slavery and/or elite dominance etc. Later, perhaps similarly, they (now also hg I) were impacted additionally by the increase of R1 and probably J2 and E1b in Bronze Age, which are also "successful" lineages generally speaking. I1 itself expanded greatly in Bronze Age though, mainly in Scandinavia. Did I1 men suddenly become more fertile than I2? Hmm... Let's go further. What about R1b-A8039 vs. R1b-P312 (both under R1b-L151)? Or R1b-BY15512 vs. R1b-U152 (both below R1b-P312)? Sorry, not really. Fertility or akin don't explain phenomena like these:

"The forefathers of Europe: Two thirds of modern European men descend from just three Bronze Age leaders"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-leaders.html

"Half of Western European men descended from one Bronze Age 'king'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...onze-age-king/

(They could have reinforced male line, since everybody in Europe must have granddaddies belonging to whatever "European" old haplogroup, but ok. We got it.)

More:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6

So, continuing... already affected, those I mentioned at first were completely "absorbed" at some point, soon or later (it doesn't mean a perfect dilution over time; modern concentrations would be still related to ancient movements, geographical peculiarities etc., sure), and the substantial decrease in each case naturally must have ceased at some point, given the successive changes of context.

Due to the "demographic explosian" in the last thousand years and the huge population we have now, I'd say that the extinction of these older branches are unlikely. Very young branches naturally have more chances to be extincted soon enough. But I'm sure Salento will work hard to guarantee the survival of his more recent lineages. Ha!
Just kidding... ;)

Hi Régio.

Lol. Thank you for the always timely intervention. Salento should seem like a sailor. Must have a love and a child in each port. Thus the survival of the T line will be guaranteed worldwide. LOL




Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
@Duarte That's why I don't share access with my DNA relatives on AncestryDNA :grin:

Who needs that ... LOL
 
@Duarte That's why I don't share access with my DNA relatives on AncestryDNA :grin:

Who needs that ... LOL
You're right in do not share. A love and a son in each port, like a sailor. You may not have met Adele in a London Pub. But there are many Adeles in London, Rome, Salento, and throughout the United States. Your matches on AncesryDNA may be a little more than just unknown cousins. LOL :grin:


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
@Duarte
Just thinking... Given this critical "nature" of Y-DNA, I guess in some sense all surviving hgs in each time have a portion of "success".
Also, how many lineages were collaterally saved by this huge population growth?
We're used to talk on factors that led to retractions, but at the end, in another perspective, the changes that culminated in Bronze Age may have indirectly caused the survival of many lineages, that otherwise would have been extinct. Some grew more, some less. Still, it's kind of an irony.
Amyways, we all own our existence to human past, the exactly way it happened. :)
Cheers
 
@Duarte
Just thinking... Given this critical "nature" of Y-DNA, I guess in some sense all surviving hgs in each time have a portion of "success".
Also, how many lineages were collaterally saved by this huge population growth?
We're used to talk on factors that led to retractions, but at the end, in another perspective, the changes that culminated in Bronze Age may have indirectly caused the survival of many lineages, that otherwise would have been extinct. Some grew more, some less. Still, it's kind of an irony.
Amyways, we all own our existence to human past, the exactly way it happened. :)
Cheers

Hello Regio.
You're right. All lineages that have survived to the present are victorious, no matter the relative number of individuals in relation to the whole. From a certain time in the humanitie history onwards, the growth of population density made the surviving lineages contribute to each other's mutual success. Hugs dear friend :)


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
Etrusco.JPEG


Tonight I don't win for emotions. I am Etruscan.

7. Etruscan Civitavecchia (650 BC) ..... 10.31 - R474 - (Click for more info)
Etruscan (0.0)
Top 99
% match vs all users

10. Le Mans Revolutionary France (1793 AD) ..... 11.51 - LM_406_T - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] (Click for more info)
Top
[FONT=&quot]​
98
% match vs all users

But please what is Le Mans, I have heard Le Mans Paris, it was like a car race, but also revolutionary, what does it mean.[/FONT]
 
^^
I've finally taken that picture off.
--------------------------

My new results. I had not heard it in my life, except the Etruscans.

7. Etruscan Civitavecchia (650 BC) ..... 10.31 - R474 - (Click for more info)
Etruscan (0.0)

10. Le Mans Revolutionary France (1793 AD) ..... 11.51
- LM_406_T

44. Latin Prenestini Tribe Inland PC (400 BC) ..... 15.05 - R435

58. Le Mans Revolutionary France (1793 AD) ..... 16.35 - LM_306_T

78. Latin Tribe Ardea (650 BC) ..... 17.51 - R851

44. Latin Prenestini Tribe Inland PC (400 BC) ..... 15.05
- R435 - (Click for more info)
Top 99% match vs all users


Please I've been in almost every scrub most important in Europe. ​Peace for all.


 
^^
I've finally taken that picture off.
--------------------------

My new results. I had not heard it in my life, except the Etruscans.

7. Etruscan Civitavecchia (650 BC) ..... 10.31 - R474 - (Click for more info)
Etruscan (0.0)

10. Le Mans Revolutionary France (1793 AD) ..... 11.51
- LM_406_T

44. Latin Prenestini Tribe Inland PC (400 BC) ..... 15.05 - R435

58. Le Mans Revolutionary France (1793 AD) ..... 16.35 - LM_306_T

78. Latin Tribe Ardea (650 BC) ..... 17.51 - R851


44. Latin Prenestini Tribe Inland PC (400 BC) ..... 15.05
- R435 - [FONT=&quot][/FONT] (Click for more info)
Top
[FONT=&quot]​
99
% match vs all users[/FONT]

Many changes. I can’t post all.

iKeqJJ7.jpg

dxzWs2l.jpg

jzLGTUe.jpg

JcfVact.jpg

C7hvjom.jpg

EnZrNGv.jpg

Hxy0zBg.jpg

2REo2zZ.jpg

TpUccLY.jpg

wzkP1p0.jpg



Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
For now I only see new dots in Rome, Roman in the Iron Age map, and a y T Latin Tribe Ardea, maybe a lost tourist.

7QthDrc.jpg


gWf1XTt.jpg

qlFfjpd.jpg


aOMl6Lt.jpg


a8zx9jW.jpg
 
bFmSBBX.png

I now get Latin Tribe Ardea as a new sample, and it is right before Anatolian Copper age. I think these are the two most important samples I get, as I speculate it I am roughly a merger of these two groups, ultimately.

MTZjEWf.png


I used to get Copper Age Anatolian as my 4th sample by these settings, now it has been bumped down to 5, by Latin Tribe Ardea that took it's place.

wVdEhAN.png


What a glorious revelation :)
 
bFmSBBX.png

I now get Latin Tribe Ardea as a new sample, and it is right before Anatolian Copper age. I think these are the two most important samples I get, as I speculate it I am roughly a merger of these two groups, ultimately.
MTZjEWf.png

I used to get Copper Age Anatolian as my 4th sample by these settings, now it has been bumped down to 5, by Latin Tribe Ardea that took it's place.
wVdEhAN.png

What a glorious revelation :)

Latin Tribe Ardea (Rome)

A Glorious Ancestral Revelation :)

jNebMM4.jpg


320px-Ardea12.JPG


180px-Ardea16.JPG


More Roman Latin Tribe Ardea Results:

tTRBNN0.jpg


6ECKd8C.jpg


2t8dZi7.jpg
 
Latin Tribe Ardea (Rome)

A Glorious Ancestral Revelation :)

jNebMM4.jpg


320px-Ardea12.JPG


180px-Ardea16.JPG


More Roman Latin Tribe Ardea Results:

tTRBNN0.jpg


6ECKd8C.jpg


2t8dZi7.jpg


Ardea was was ruled by the Rutuli tribe.....check them out
 
Ardea was was ruled by the Rutuli tribe.....check them out
Been There, Done That :)

Total Premium Map
yxcwnkX.jpg


from 5000 BC until 600 BC

DUqyrCL.jpg
 
bFmSBBX.png

I now get Latin Tribe Ardea as a new sample, and it is right before Anatolian Copper age. I think these are the two most important samples I get, as I speculate it I am roughly a merger of these two groups, ultimately.

MTZjEWf.png


I used to get Copper Age Anatolian as my 4th sample by these settings, now it has been bumped down to 5, by Latin Tribe Ardea that took it's place.

wVdEhAN.png


What a glorious revelation :)


Latin Tribe Ardea (Rome)

A Glorious Ancestral Revelation :)

jNebMM4.jpg


320px-Ardea12.JPG


180px-Ardea16.JPG


More Roman Latin Tribe Ardea Results:

tTRBNN0.jpg


6ECKd8C.jpg


2t8dZi7.jpg

@Salento @Jovialis.

Congratulations dear friends. I know that the Etruscan people were very evolved, but the Latins learned the art of war better and the Etruscans were absorbed. But it was good, because the Latins carried forward and around the world the legacy of the Etruscan people along with the legacy of the Greek people. Greetings to the Latin brothers. :)

QCnOvTV.jpg

yBgzFAN.jpg

SdM448H.jpg

JvFJKru.jpg

uxLvgfZ.jpg



Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
Hello Regio.
You're right. All lineages that have survived to the present are victorious, no matter the relative number of individuals in relation to the whole. From a certain time in the humanitie history onwards, the growth of population density made the surviving lineages contribute to each other's mutual success. Hugs dear friend :)
Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
"no matter the relative number of individuals in relation to the whole"

Precisely. Funny thing is that this relative number is highly relative itself. I mean, being purposely exaggerated for the sake of illustration, T is in fact just a subgroup of K, which accounts for most of European individuals. :) Of course, they splitted very early. Point is that Y-DNAs change permanently, no matter the labels.

If you allow me some mental exercises, without intending to be really surgical, but trying to think out of the box, I was just thinking (as someone interested in Y-DNA)...
Strictly, if by "success", an elastic term, we mean relative growth/expansion (not just absolute numbers, since forces/correlations change over time, and since in fact most of macro-hgs must have experienced growth in the last thousands of years when it comes to absolute numbers) and by non-success we mean relative retraction, which also implies some sort of virtual competition, then place and timeframe is again important. We usually talk on macro-haplogroups. In fact, we "personified" them, which may be misleading. But in each period and each area, under different forces, there will be other virtual actors (subclades) "competing" with one another, so to speak, even when they belong to the same macro-haplogroup (mind you, first of all, they are letters and numbers that represent a set of specific shared mutations, but their subclades may be somewhat distant from each other in time and then in number of shared mutations too; rigorously, every individual is unique, and the actual competition happens between people - in the past strongly correlated to certain hgs, but not that much anymore -; so people may be more "objectivelly" successful in some manner). And hgs won't "thrive" everywhere and everytime. In this sense, again, success would be more linked with expansion than to absolute frequency, be it over space, be it over time in a specific area, a thing that depends, again, on the context discussed, and we know it always changes. (But as suggested, victory may mean surviving to certain "accidents", or casualities. I.e., just surviving, even with all adversities imposed, may be also a kind of victory sometimes. So, it's not always a matter of suplanting competitors, but also of overcoming "circumstances". We're used to think that a lineage is only "successful" if it's frequent "everywhere" or very frequent somewhere. Well, in certain way, perhaps, but "success" must be then properly defined. I don't want to be relativistic, btw, but this complex subject itself seems to be highly "relative"; binary reasoning may led us to a wrong way.) :)

Back to the initial point. For example, due to some sort of correlation, you may have a certain set of closely related ascendant/descendant clades which experienced a comparative high expansion in number and frequency between 5000-4000 years ago, causing a very high frequency of these clades even thousands of years later, but hypothetically you can have younger related subclades - then in a different context - that experienced a retraction even if compared to subclades from different and now "absorbed" macro-haplogroups. There must be practical examples in each context, such 35% of Serbs belonging to I-Y3120 (only ~2000 years old) according to Serbian Project, while, additionally, ~2/3 of these 35% would belong to I-PH908 (just ~1800 years old). Impressive! It also surprises me haplogroups such R-Y10827, which apparently grew well from 1600 ybp, even belonging to a "minor" R-P312 clade. R-M222 under R-L21 is also very interesting (great expansion of subclades from 2000 ybp). And on and on. YFull recently released a different view that makes all these huge variations more evident. Example: https://yfull.com/sc/tree/R-P312/ . Of course, there must be sampling bias sometimes (R-L21 vs. R-U152, for instance); still... Point is, were they all comparatively super-fertile? Don't think so. :) I-PH908 and others also exemplifies as "lucky" in broad sense (one more elastic term) may play a role, and phenomena such founder effects are just an example of that. But mind you, this "lucky" would include also what I'd call "inertia", especially when there is continuity, but not only (it could happen as well after invasions/replacements in relation to newly introduced hgs and their new interactions in the new place). I mean, relative growth may continue to happen for some random reasons in each context, even in the more recent ones, however, importantly, they'll tend to correlate with some already frequent older hg. Let's say, a 75% hg would have more chances to "win the lottery" over some 15% different hg in a given place and in a given situation of expansion. So it'd work like a wave. But "improbabilities" may also happen, of course, and in some manner that's the history of Y-DNA.

Theoretically, certain mutations that define (sub-)haplogroups could also play some role, but I see no evidence that they are that important, at least not to the point to largely justify modern frequencies (see articles in my first comment on this subject). I really doubt, for instance, that haplogroups such R1a would from now on suplants over time other haplogroups such J2a in, let's say, Turkey, in the fashion of Bronze Age Europe, even if this country suffered some kind of foreign "intervention", je je. Or J2a in Eastern Europe in relation to R1a. Other times, other circumstances. Huge variations in frequency of the same clade in different places, including those where they have an ancient presence, are per se evidences of how lucky matters.
Too many variables in the game anyway, and it's hard to "exhaust" it in ("poor english") summarized texts like this one, and possibly even in deep professional works. :)

So that's the point. What if we compare younger clades, whatever the haplogroup? We could name them with whatever letters, in order to not being distracted by ancestor clades that previously experienced important expansions. Of course, even so - even talking in different timeframes -, modern Y-DNA frequencies/distributions are the most important reference in hand. Some old haplogroups are still "successful" in general and simple sense, not just because they expanded in frequency sometime in the past, but also because they keep being frequent (haven't retracted significantly in the last times). Also, belonging to certain subclade still implies belonging to certain clade (in the example in a previous comment, R1b-A8039 - rare - is still R1b-L151 - very common. So ok. All of this may be confusing because haplogroups are not people. :) This is highly complex, and I think some simplifications I've seen are just fun. I mean, 2/3 of European pop descending in male line from three BA kings? Were they coincidently affected at the same time by different super-SNPs? I mean, the three SNPs that define R1b-L151 worked for R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 but not to R1b-A8039? The same for others below, in each level. je je Come on! Really not about fertility. Anyway, if some mutations that help define certain frequent haplogroups are that important in some way, then we should know soon, as we know mtDNA hgs must have slight implications in health etc.

As a last example which applies to our time, I could mention Middle Eastern and North African subclades such as J1's, which must be growing in frequency in Europe and will keep growing in the next years, due to immigration (numbers don't distinguish it from invasion, lol), birth rate among ethnic groups etc. Under the perspective we're discussing here, it means these virtual entities are being "successful" at this time. Of course, the variables in the game are not the same, but they have never been the same and they never will be.

Conclusion is that, at this moment, given all complexity involved, modern haplogroup distribution/frequencies in general are hardly explained by significant physiological (dis)advantages, as far as I can see.

Sorry for the long text. I'm done now. It's completely off-topic. Just thought about it reading your post and decided to share. ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 1253338 times.

Back
Top