Kyp's relative YDNA

[Smitty]

No he is definetly closely related as he is from the same nomadic tribe that migrated through multiple regions together. Just his paternal origin is seemingly different, but those lineages being seperated would at the very least be 200 years ago, where our family migrated to our current location from the same place. I hope you understand what i'm saying. Additionally we were the only turkic speaking group in our region.



No but I will contact him. Here's his 23andme results:

Yeah, I understand now. DNA relative + common surname led me to believe you were saying he was related to you on your paternal line.

[Rethel]

No he is definetly closely related

Do you have the genealogical connection with this guy?

[Kyp]

Do you have the genealogical connection with this guy?

not that i'm aware of will contact him. But it's a subranch of a small tribe (probably like 50 families now. So the relation should not be too far apart.

[Kyp]

Yeah, I understand now. DNA relative + common surname led me to believe you were saying he was related to you on your paternal line.

Technically he is related ony my paternal line as we have the same surname and tribe. Just the ydna is different. It looks like turkish and Iranian tribes are not patrilinear like arab tribes for example. That would be my conclusion.

[Rethel]

not that i'm aware of will contact him. But it's a subranch of a small tribe (probably like 50 families now. So the relation should not be too far apart.

What kind* of surname you both have and how old it is?


*topographic, equal with first name, occupational, patrinomic, etc.

[Kyp]

What kind* of surname you both have and how old it is?


*topographic, equal with first name, occupational, patrinomic, etc.

Occupational and the suffix indicates tribal belonging.

[Smitty]

Technically he is related ony my paternal line as we have the same surname and tribe. Just the ydna is different. It looks like turkish and Iranian tribes are not patrilinear like arab tribes for example. That would be my conclusion.

But the fact you have different yDNA would indicate you don't share a common paternal ancestor in thousands of years, outside of an adoption-type situation. Not denying that you're both related and part of the same tribe.

[Rethel]

...

So, from all what you wrote, I would say, that in 80% it is coincidental, 20% NPE.

Why?

1. You do not have genealogical connection.
2. You have occupational surname.
3. You do not know how old it is, so, I guess is not older than 100 years, probably younger.
4. Tribes are patrilinear among Iranians and Turks, at least in general, families inside of tribes
totaly, BUT turkish tribes, if not settled, then are mostly hordes, and so, membership can be
fluid as citizenship: some people are gone, some people are coming. It has nothing to do with
lack of patrilinearity, but with migrations of people.
5. Look at my first post in this thread. Do it, and then you can make serious conclusions.

[Kyp]

4. Tribes are patrilinear among Iranians and Turks, at least in general, families inside of tribes totaly, BUT turkish tribes, if not sattled, then
are mostly hordes, and so, membership can be fluid as citizenship: some people are gone, some people are coming. It has nothing to do with
lack of patrilinearity, but with migrations of people.

Yes this was what I was trying to say. It doesn mean that we don't share history for a very long time or differ from one another in any other way than paternal lineage.

[Kaspias]

Oghuz who organized in Western Kazakhstan Steppe in between Caspian and Ural as well as Southern parts of Western Siberia has multiple origins. It is common ground among Turkish historians that there had been three different origins, one being Kimak-like who is a continuum of Xiongnu Turkicness, the other being a Saka-related group, and the other one is native tribes of Western Siberia who headed to the South. I'm pretty sure that homogeneity was reached before Oghuz migration to the West because there had been a population boom at that time period and tribes constantly interacted with each other. Going with this, results suggest the Western Siberian group of Oghuz as a deeper origin, which possibly descended from Sargat Culture.

In addition, although I do not have comprehensive information on Anatolian Turks in this issue, I can provide information on Balkan Turks. There are two major N clades for Turkey Turks, one being under L666 and the other is under N-TAT. The one your relative holds is under N-TAT, according to yfull seen also in Tokat where Celali Rebellions took place. Proceed with this, there are 12 Balkan Turks(among 130) who bear N, 8 of them under L666 and the other 4 is under N-TAT. One result exactly the same as yours, N-L1034, has self-reported ancestry from Greece but no region is known. Other 3 individuals are not deeply tested and listed under N-L708, a father clade of yours. One individual is from Thessaloniki, the other one is from Momchilgrad, and the other is Haskovo. Such frequency among Balkan Turks indicates a clear Turkic origin for the HG as it is not present in Balkan groups. After all, if it is not common among Azerbaijani's -I do not have an idea, unfortunately- it may be a strong suggestion for the Turkish origin of your tribe.

Technically he is related ony my paternal line as we have the same surname and tribe. Just the ydna is different. It looks like turkish and Iranian tribes are not patrilinear like arab tribes for example. That would be my conclusion.

I doubt it's related to it. Surname culture among Turks is not tribal, and just because you share the same surname you are not necessarily relative even if you're living in the same village. I'm sharing the same surname with like 5% of Western Thrace, but I do not have one single relative from my paternal grandfather's line. You might be a relative from your father's maternal side, or grandfather's maternal side, etc. and the surname might be either coincidence or a sign of being historical companions. The tribe system of Turks was not like Serbs, for example, which suggests a common paternal origin. In this sense, surnames were replaceable at any time. But it is still great information related to your tribe, as it probably suggests the same origin even though not being relative.