Not gonna say it ain't it, but we need more samples
Yeah the answer will be clearer with more samples. I think the t- haplogroup experienced an even more intense founder effect than e-v32 in somalia.
Weirdly, it's not more pronounced in Arabia if the oldest branch is found there, TMCRA is only 2900 years old, if there is a Sudanic branch older than it, that will cement it, trade in the Red Sea went bought ways.
That's probably the best place to look. The eastern cushites somalis are descended from seem to have migrated along the coast and through the eastern desert. And if that was the case it wouldn't be surprising if some of them crossed over the red sea.
I already explained why it’s very unlikely. In my opinion, the little we do know is just enough to rule out certain conclusions.
My point is that us finding a t-haplogroup in modern middle eastern indivuals and then trying to assume that It could only have come into Somalia from these people migrating is flawed.
The larger Haplogroup t is several thosuand years old and in it's itself tells us nothing that I agree.
Irrelevant. The Zayali'a are very diverse Y-DNA wise and are nothing but a single tribe among thounsands.
?? You've literally mentionned the existence of founder effects earlier.
Is it vibes telling you that ? Left during which period ? I don't see anything that would support this. Had it been the case, it would've been us representing a basal clade, not the other way round.
We have barely any t haplogroups of this specific t subclade found in saudi arabia its only a couple samples .
Its not irrelevant at all. Thr fact thag you have all these individuals with a somali nisba is obviously relevant. There is even a Zayli Martime museum in saudi arabia.
