What is the most interesting Y-DNA haplogroup?

What haplogroup is the most interesting to you?

  • R1a

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • R1b

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • T

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • G

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • I1

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • I2

    Votes: 10 23.8%
  • E1b1b

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • N1c

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • J1

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • J2

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • Q

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
What are you talking about? Gubina's 2013 study of the population in the Altai-Sayan region? The spot I'm talking about is the one in western Russia. Why is there T there, in the same place that there's a heavy concentration of one particular subclade of R1a? And why is there T above that, in the Baltic? A migration of T from the Caucasus, obviously, but associated with what particular population movement?

Gubina took information from 2011 study by Matthew C. Dulik

The study shows Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Altai, Krygyz, Tajiks, Tuvians etc all coming from same area of modern Kazakstan...........they most likely moved to this place you refer as Uyghurs basic homeland is currently there.

Why is there T there you ask..........well T is 20000 years older than R haplogroup, so IMO, they migrated there, maybe for hunting what else.

T in the baltic ( Estonia ) ...........migrated because the marker is 20000 years older than R and so went on the hunt...........also note there is 5% of T1 in gotland........but IMO this is due to the vikings slave trade, could be the same for Estonia..........was Estonia a viking homeland ( a midway stopover ?).

Ask yourself why is there R in estonia. The answer is the same for T or any other haplogroup
 
I don't have an explanation for that either. R1a and T co-existing together at a similar frequency in a population seems quite bizarre. Do you know which subclade is younger? Even more bizarre if the subclade of T was younger than the subclade of R1a.

I would guess; roughly, if the T subclades are older than R1a subclades ... then maybe most Uralic speakers were originally of predominantly Haplogroup T and then gradually absorbed R1a; long before N1c gradually came along and replaced them both as dominant haplogroups, as well. Haplogroup T and Haplogroup R1a then probably became minorities.


Edit: What would be particularly interesting is if we could try and study and determine the origins of both Uralic (Finno-Ugric) and Tyrsenian (Etruscan, Raetic) language groups. Both are non Indo-European languages that are assumed to have been born in the East. (Russia/Caucausus) and migrated West into Europe. I wonder if Tyrsenian peoples carried haplogroup T at a very high frequency. And wondering if there may be a relation between both language groups long long ago.

T marker is over 20000 years older than any R marker

Maybe the 2012 paper by russian expert,
I would like to mention that haplogroup L and T have been studied in Russia and I hope we can get a synthesis on this list.
Indeed, both L and T have been studied in terms of their haplotypes, base (deduced ancestral) haplotypes, and TMRCAs, both intraclade and interclade ones. Results are published (mainly in Russian) in the Proceedings in the July 2011 issue, then October, November, and December issues, and in the 2012 February issue.
Coming back to haplogroups L and T, they might well have a common SNP, but it was a looooong time ago. In fact, it comes back to the times when all other non-African haplogroups have arisen, that is around 60,000 ybp. Since then haplotypes L and T went apart VERY significantly. Their 22-marker haplotypes, composed of the slowest markers, differ by 15 mutations (!), and each mutation in the slowest 22 marker panel adds some 6,000 years. More accurate calculations result in 93,000 years between common ancestors of haplogroups L and T, and THEIR common ancestor, LT, lived ~ 58,000 years ago. Talk about how "close they are". They can be technically in one group all right, however, their haplotypes tell a more adequate story regarding their history.
The analysis of the haplotype tree of haplogroup T results in 13 distinct branches. Their base haplotypes, all thirteen, are listed on p. 1489 of the July 2011 issue of the Proceedings, http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov


note: L and T has been found to have a common SNP ...this is P326

IIRC, He called T the pre-R1a marker because there is only one slow mutation difference between R1a and T
I will try to find the pdf paper of 2 years ago on the subject

The T1 in raetic lands makes up close to 5% with another 4% of L ..........this study belows aims to say the markers for raetics ( which are Ladins ) was not from the middle east
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n1/full/5201906a.html
 
Possibly. At the beginning however I'm sure they had something to do with Neolithic Farmers, perhaps in late Neolithic. Possibly something to do with Mediterranean seafaring culture, like Minoan Crete and others alike, before IE invasion. The lost sons of Atlantis? ;)
Haplogroup-T.gif


In Europe, I agree it looks, except for the spot in Russia, like a spread by seafarers. I don't think the Phoenicians are a good bet...no Phoenicians in mainland Italy or Greece. The Greeks are better, but they didn't have that kind of presence in northeastern Italy or interior southern France (Marseilles was a trading city; they didn't colonize the way they did in Magna Graecia), and conversely, they had a big presence in north eastern Sicily and yet there's none there.

That leaves the Neolithic. The map is sort of misleading. We're talking about very small percentages, with the dark areas indicating a frequency of about 4%. The Indo-Europeans and later the Germanics could easily have halved it to about 2% in central Europe, and the Slavic migrations later on in the northern Balkans could have done the same thing. That seems normal to me for a minor lineage.

On the other hand, I'm sure T is not monolithic. It's just that unfortunately all the research is going toward the R clades. It didn't all need to arrive at the same time either. One cluster might have arrived in the Neolithic, one, perhaps a downstream clade, with Greeks, another with Phoenicians, and a group that was in the northern Caucasus could have been swept along with the original Indo-European movements and wound up stranded far to the north. It might be analogous to the situation with G in Italy. Boattini found at least four separate clusters from four different migrations, one that he thought could be mesolithic there, but was at least Neolithic, and one late cluster that was probably Indo-European.
 
IIRC, He called T the pre-R1a marker because there is only one slow mutation difference between R1a and T
I will try to find the pdf paper of 2 years ago on the subject

The T1 in raetic lands makes up close to 8% with another 4% of L ..........

Interesting ... Not to change the subject here ... BUT I think I read a report on the haplogroup samples of the Basque population recently. And there was an unusual finding of Y-DNA haplogroup L1b. (formerly known as L3) but it was at a very very small percentage. I'll have to try and dig up the source some where; but I found that to be bizarre and fascinating. (it may indicate that Y-DNA haplogroup L was in Europe and Western Europe at one point, a long long time ago.)

Wait; here is the source right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L-M20#Europe

GipuzkoaL1b is found in 1.7% of Gipuzkoans

(according to Young 2011)
 
In Europe, I agree it looks, except for the spot in Russia, like a spread by seafarers. I don't think the Phoenicians are a good bet...no Phoenicians in mainland Italy or Greece. The Greeks are better, but they didn't have that kind of presence in northeastern Italy or interior southern France (Marseilles was a trading city; they didn't colonize the way they did in Magna Graecia), and conversely, they had a big presence in north eastern Sicily and yet there's none there.

That leaves the Neolithic. The map is sort of misleading. We're talking about very small percentages, with the dark areas indicating a frequency of about 4%. The Indo-Europeans and later the Germanics could easily have halved it to about 2% in central Europe, and the Slavic migrations later on in the northern Balkans could have done the same thing. That seems normal to me for a minor lineage.

On the other hand, I'm sure T is not monolithic. It's just that unfortunately all the research is going toward the R clades. It didn't all need to arrive at the same time either. One cluster might have arrived in the Neolithic, one, perhaps a downstream clade, with Greeks, another with Phoenicians, and a group that was in the northern Caucasus could have been swept along with the original Indo-European movements and wound up stranded far to the north. It might be analogous to the situation with G in Italy. Boattini found at least four separate clusters from four different migrations, one that he thought could be mesolithic there, but was at least Neolithic, and one late cluster that was probably Indo-European.

IMO, after its creation around gedrosian, it went to south caucasus, it then migrated very early with G via southern anatolia, through the balkans , north italy, south france and into Iberia.........mostly avoiding the very cold weather at the time. The "gap" in the balkans near slovenia and croatia to me represents the later slavic migration that overwhelmed the indigenous people , for those areas.

The levant, Egypt, saudi arabia peninsula and african zone markers are all noted as being younger than the south caucasus. ( ther is a paper on this )
The south caucasus markers are younger than the gedrosian, afghan, himalyan area
 
Gubina took information from 2011 study by Matthew C. Dulik

The study shows Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Altai, Krygyz, Tajiks, Tuvians etc all coming from same area of modern Kazakstan...........they most likely moved to this place you refer as Uyghurs basic homeland is currently there.

Why is there T there you ask..........well T is 20000 years older than R haplogroup, so IMO, they migrated there, maybe for hunting what else.

T in the baltic ( Estonia ) ...........migrated because the marker is 20000 years older than R and so went on the hunt...........also note there is 5% of T1 in gotland........but IMO this is due to the vikings slave trade, could be the same for Estonia..........was Estonia a viking homeland ( a midway stopover ?).

Ask yourself why is there R in estonia. The answer is the same for T or any other haplogroup

You're still on the wrong side of the Urals. I was talking about western Russia, not Kazakhstan. And the reason there's a lot of R in western Russia and the Baltic is because it's probably been there since those areas were repopulated after the last glacial maximum. But if T is a halogroup from the Middle East that spread to the Caucasus, why did some end up in western Russia and the Baltic? I was just wondering what population movement from the Caucasus would account for it. If Maikop people migrated to the IE homeland and mixed with R folks from the forest and steppe to become Yamnaya, that could mean that while some of the T in Europe is undoubtedly much older, some of it could have gotten there as recently as the Bronze Age.
 
In Europe, I agree it looks, except for the spot in Russia, like a spread by seafarers. I don't think the Phoenicians are a good bet...no Phoenicians in mainland Italy or Greece. The Greeks are better, but they didn't have that kind of presence in northeastern Italy or interior southern France (Marseilles was a trading city; they didn't colonize the way they did in Magna Graecia), and conversely, they had a big presence in north eastern Sicily and yet there's none there.
I added phoenicians to the mix, because I think this element was older than cultures of Phoenicians and Greeks. At the historical times everybody around Mediterranean was spreading it already. If this element was introduced later we would have seen closer correlation with known civilizations. It seems sort of washed off now.


On the other hand, I'm sure T is not monolithic. It's just that unfortunately all the research is going toward the R clades. It didn't all need to arrive at the same time either. One cluster might have arrived in the Neolithic, one, perhaps a downstream clade, with Greeks, another with Phoenicians, and a group that was in the northern Caucasus could have been swept along with the original Indo-European movements and wound up stranded far to the north. It might be analogous to the situation with G in Italy. Boattini found at least four separate clusters from four different migrations, one that he thought could be mesolithic there, but was at least Neolithic, and one late cluster that was probably Indo-European.
Right, and founder effects of new fast growing clades in some areas might be distorting the ancient picture even more.
 
But Phoenicians came from North Africa, LeBrok. We know that evidently Haplogroup T migrated from the Near East.
 
But Phoenicians came from North Africa, LeBrok. We know that evidently Haplogroup T migrated from the Near East.

The Phoenicians came from Lebanon, not north Africa, they later moved to north Africa though.
 
The Phoenicians came from Lebanon, not north Africa, they later moved to north Africa though.
And supposedly from same ethnic background as Jews, the Canaanites.
 
And supposedly from same ethnic background as Jews, the Canaanites.
Does that include Ethiopian and Chinese Jews too?
 
The Phoenicians came from Lebanon, not north Africa, they later moved to north Africa though.

Indeed.
Phoenician+World.jpg


Ancient Carthage:
carthage-reconstr800.jpg


One might say the daughter was greater than the mother in this case. Pity the Romans tore it down and sowed the fields with salt on top of it...not sufficiently evolved.
 
Does that include Ethiopian and Chinese Jews too?
It is more of a cultural phenomenon especially for Ethiopians and Chinese jews, I suppose, than genetic relations. I'm expecting to find more genetic unity between ancient Jews and Phoenicians, as descendents of same canaanite group. Future will tell.
 
I think Haplogroup T is a little bit rare in Jewish people, is it not?

But it's interesting to see genetic footprints of Phoenicians in colonies of the Iberian peninsula and North Africa. Such as the tiny percentage of Q1b spanning from Andalusia, Spain to Southern Portugal. And the Q1b seen in Sicily. These individuals have extremely ancient ancestors. I believe most of the Sephardic Jews were concentrated mostly in the region of Extremadura, Spain.

Haplogroup-E-M123.jpg

I am guessing the E-M123 in North Africa and the Iberian peninsula is probably of either Sephardic Jew or Phoenician dispersal.
 
The Phoenicians came from Lebanon, not north Africa, they later moved to north Africa though.

In North Africa mostly Tunisia more precise Carthage (meaning New City) founded by colonists from Tyre (in modern Lebanon) under the leadership of Queen Elissa or Dido who was exiled from her homeland. Later unlike the Phonecians who mostly traded the Carthaginians became very war like and challanged Rome in many ways probaly the most famous was Hanibals march through Iberia through the Alps and down to Rome with Elephants. Finally Carthage was totally destroyed by the Romans and became part of the Roman empire.


 
Phoenicians were from modern Lebanon they colonized Carthage and in Italy only a small part of coastal north western Sicily (two small colonies in an island where Greek and Italic formed the entire population) and the south Sardinia (4 colonies).



They also founded many colonies in the Balearic Islands and Mediterranean Spain.

 
Phoenicians were from modern Lebanon they colonized Carthage and in Italy only a small part of coastal north western Sicily (two small colonies in an island where Greek and Italic formed the entire population) and the south Sardinia (4 colonies).


What does the orange part represent in Italy, I cannot zoom in to see what it says............I know its not carthagian..........

The Map reminds me on what I was always told.............the Italians only in the central and south ,..........tuscans not being Italians...........and the questioned orange as unknown other indigenous natives
 
The orange in center Italy is the Etruscan dominion in V century a.C.
 
I think Haplogroup T is a little bit rare in Jewish people, is it not?

But it's interesting to see genetic footprints of Phoenicians in colonies of the Iberian peninsula and North Africa. Such as the tiny percentage of Q1b spanning from Andalusia, Spain to Southern Portugal. And the Q1b seen in Sicily. These individuals have extremely ancient ancestors. I believe most of the Sephardic Jews were concentrated mostly in the region of Extremadura, Spain.

View attachment 7020

I am guessing the E-M123 in North Africa and the Iberian peninsula is probably of either Sephardic Jew or Phoenician dispersal.

Saying "Jewish people" when talking about genetics is way too general, the largest group that shares significant IBD are the Sephardis and Ashkenazis aka western Jewry. Even though they make up the majority of Jews, they don't make all of them.
 
It is more of a cultural phenomenon especially for Ethiopians and Chinese jews, I suppose, than genetic relations. I'm expecting to find more genetic unity between ancient Jews and Phoenicians, as descendents of same canaanite group. Future will tell.
The only way to find that out is through the sampling on ancient DNA from ancient Jews and their comparison to modern populations, until then, all those calculators like Gedmatch are just speculating.
 

This thread has been viewed 37358 times.

Back
Top