Haplogroups are pieces of one’s genome that do down one’s matrilineal or patrilineal line of descent. They are one of the few ways we can use genetics to track our genealogies to distant individuals in history, as opposed to simply abstract regions and populations.
Paternal haplogroups come from the Y chromosome. Men have an X and a Y chromosome with the X chromosome coming from their mothers and the Y chromosome coming from their fathers. Because it goes through the male line paternal haplogroups roughly correspond to last names.
Maternal haplogroups come from the Mitochondrial DNA. The Mitochondria is an organelle that is in the cells of all multicellular organisms, and all Eukaryotic organisms. Because women take the last names of their husbands and fathers in most cultures this means we don’t have last names for them.
I propose an egalitarian system of surnames. Where women have surnames from their mitochondrial haplogroup and men have surnames from their Y haplogroup. This would be based on the Ancient Roman naming system of Praenomen Patronymic/Matronymic Nomen Cognomen. The Patronymic/Matronymic being the first name of the fathers of men and the mothers of women. This tradition is found in most traditional cultures. The Nomen will represent the haplogroup. And the Cognomen will be the traditional surnames of men and somehow take an identity for women.
Nomens represented someone’s core family group. Julius Caesar was named Gaius Julius Caesar, Gaius was his first name, and Julius Caesar was his last name. Julius was his Nomen and dated back to the founding of the Roman Republic, while Caesar was a name that referred to his recent family group. Most Nomens had similar great stories of their origins, while cognomens often had obscure and unknown origins.
The Gaiad mythologizes the founders of haplogroups in a similar way to the mythical origins of Roman Nomens or Chinese surnames. Taking a genetic test connects you directly to the Gaiad and mythical heroes in a similar way.
Cognomens were always fairly arbitrary, and in our culture surnames are like that too, people change them frequently with men sometimes taking wives surnames, or single mothers giving their children their surnames. They should flexibly change to help proliferate surnames as some die out.
For example Nelson Mandela would be called Nelson Gadlasson Ramses Mandela, Princess Diana would be called Diana Francesdaughter Rhea Spencer.
Whether women should take their current surnames as their cognomens, their current surnames, or new surnames is up for debate. There are points for each position. Using their current surnames is an obvious idea as that is the name most associated with the identities of many women, younger women tend to establish themselves with their maiden names while older women such as Hillary Clinton tend to have established themselves with their married names. Since many women are choosing not to change their names with marriage this might become a non issue in the future.
However no women have traditional haplogroup linked surnames like men do, except for some small tribal groups. Many women, especially those coming from very patriarchal cultures may want to create their own cognomens instead of taking ones from male ancestors, and many men and women might be so devoted to the movement that they will want to earn their own cognomens.
By adopting this social system we will remythologize genealogy and bring epic ancestral sagas to the masses. Even if no information is available about either one of a person’s parents we still will trace them to mythical heroes with genetics. Genealogy will finally become egalitarian.