Origin of R-M198->R-FGC10641?

[Arhat]

R1a-Z93->Z2124->Z2122->CTS6->Y2619->FGC10641

Haplogroup Z2122 is connected with the Zazaki language, a western Iranic language east of Cappadocia, which is different than Kurdish. The Georgians and Jewish that belong to this subclade including Benjamin Netanyahu's brother are therefore of western Iranic origin. In my opinion it may be related to Cimmerians an ancient Indo-germanic group that moved around a lot in the Middle East, Caucasus and the Pontic steppes.

Z2122 itself i much older than West Iranics. It is for sure Aryan because Z94 was in the BA pretty much restricted to Aryans but without ancient genomes we dont know when and with who it arrived. Could be even some Indo-Aryans like in Mitanni. It being common today among Jews and Iranians doe not mean it was restricted to them in the past. Founder effects and bottle necks can easily mislead us. Rather Z2122 has probably clades associated with various mostly Iranic groips but we need ancient dna to confirm that.

[Shubotai]

Certainly, there is this approach as well, the conservative one. And in this particular case I think a founder effect is more likely. We can say that FGC10641 is Ukrainian or Jewish and just leave it there. I have no objection to that. Take R-Z93 and we can describe many Eurasian populations, take R-CTS3402 and it can range from being just East Slavic to being the ancestral group of all Indo-germanic peoples. Take Q and we can describe the whole world. Or even T and we can still cover a wide range of various ethnicities. They are like layers existing in broad geographical regions and from their various combinations different groups are born.

But I want to note that at the same time that the molecular clock is being a tad overestimated, the age of extant linguistic families is severely underestimated. And so the truth is somewhere in the middle, even if being closer to the first. And what about the calculation of a haplogroup's coalescence age, is it really to be trusted? There is a difference between an approximate estimation and a chronology based on an actual ancient sample. A large array of mutations can not always be only ascribed to an old age but also to other conditions. And that is evident even in the
differences between y-dna and mtdna, where the first has a fast mutation rate and the second has a slow mutation rate because of social habits.

The same goes for autosomal dna and haplogroups. If autosomal results were really accurate then they would show 97% Ethiopian because that is where humans came from and 3% Middle Eastern due to the Neanderthal admixture. But the total admixture is calculated by comparing an area's genome to an other area's genome which can be traced back 200 to 300 years at most. Also the matches are calculated by comparing a person's genome to other persons' genomes which is again an estimation using the comparative method and not really nuclear science backtracking one's one genome. And haplogroups on the other hand can only pinpoint one certain ancestor, so they are only useful for broader population studies.
So haplogroups without autosomal are lame, while autosomal without haplogroups is blind.

The Jewish have the most advanced documentation on haplogroups in the West and so have Koreans in East Asia, which results in an infinite number of subclades being labelled as Jewish or Korean before they are even given the chance to display in which other areas they might have a significant frequency or diversity. Are we then to suggest that all of these ancient subclades independently arised to form the Jewish identity or that an ethnic group loses its meaning entirely?

We could adapt a more complex model where a large part of human genetic variability as it is attested in the various groups today was already present in their ancestral groups before the beginning of pre-historical times and subsequently populations moved from a region to an other amassing other elements in the process while leaving others behind, before they finally form those attested ethnolinguistic groups.

And why miss out on the opportunity to establish permanent genetic terms for persons that belong to the same branches, regardless of their ethnic or linguistic affiliations because unlike those two, haplogroups can actually show a common origin. That is, unless two set of mutations have independently arised in two distinct populations, which is practictally impossible given their large number on one side and the environmental differences on the other.