Kyp's relative YDNA

[Kyp]

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.

Thanks! Great answer!

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.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. But being part of the same tribe for centuries also suggests most people in it are related somehow by now even though there are different paternal origins, as wifes were primarily taken between the tribes of the larger "confederation" or however one wants to call it.

The surname only exists once in Iran though. It's a name thats exclusively related to our small tribe that's why It strongly implies relation. It's not just a random surname. However I suspect that the split of the larger tribe were more geographical or occupational related rather than a split by male line. That's true.

[Kaspias]

Thanks! Great answer!




Yeah that's what I was thinking. But being part of the same tribe for centuries also suggests most people in it are related somehow by now even though there are different paternal origins, as wifes were primarily taken between the tribes of the larger "confederation" or however one wants to call it.

The surname only exists once in Iran though. It's a name thats exclusively related to our small tribe that's why It strongly implies relation. It's not just a random surname. However I suspect that the split of the larger tribe were more geographical or occupational related rather than a split by male line. That's true.

If I were you I would get into contact with that guy and try to convince him for a Big Y. An SNP match could fix all speculations. The same goes for your own test, too