DNA Tribes Autosomal Results

Alan

Elite member
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
450
Points
0
Ethnic group
Kurdish
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1a1a1
mtDNA haplogroup
HV2a1 +G13708A
DNAtribes have improved there data and differentiate very good between the different Genes shared. They give you a very specific and most detailed analyses of the genetic relations.

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2012-08-01.pdf

They have now a huge Data available and improved their whole Calculation.






About the so called "Persian" component.

DNATribes is calling the most prominent component in Kurds the "Persian" component (or "world region") regardless of the fact that it is peaking in Kurds (39.5%) and not in Iran (22.0%). Turkmen also have a high portion of this component (32.6%). The description of this component states: "Lake Urmia, Zagros and Elburz Mountains." Lake Urmia is not Persian, the Zagros Mountains are not Persian. Some people still seem to have problems to distinguish between "Iranic" and "Persian"



The best Term for this component would be "South Caspian" since it obviously follows a southern route from West Caspian to East. It most probably contained in the ancient Median, Parthian and some Scythian groups.

The "North Caucasus" component is a connection between the North Caucasus and Pontic-Caspian Steppes.

The "Indus Valley" component seems to be a more "Western Central- South Asian" like component.

The "Eastmediterranean" component seems to be Levant-Transcaucasus specific.

"Iberian" is a general South(west) European component peaking in Iberians.













 
Last edited:
Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient 'Umman Manda', Iranic folks like the Medes.

Iranians are after the Kurds the second largest group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'.
 
Last edited:
Their analysis were quite good even before the last update. They added more data thanks to the Eurogenes project participants who did the test for free (including my sample).

That's what they said to me, note that we are not dealing with the same analysis, but the population matches would come out surely the same. It makes sense to me considering I'm Catalan:

21 World regions

63.30% Iberian
27.05% Northwest European
6.37% Arabian
2.01% Baltic-Urals
1.05% North African
0.21% South India

Top 10 populations

1 Basque Spain 0.7174 - Europe
2 Basque France 0.7171 - Europe
3 France 0.7168 - Europe
4 Bergamo Italy 0.7167 - Europe
5 Lithuania 0.7161 - Europe
6 Spain 0.7158 - Europe
7 England 0.7157 - Europe
8 Galicia Spain 0.7156 - Europe
9 European-American Utah 0.7154 - Diaspora
10 Cornwall West Britain 0.7153 - Europe

If I remove European-American Utah, then Sardinians show up with 7152 (10).

I think I've recieved more accurate admixture percents than those from both Eurogenes and Dodecad, but it's still quite consistent showing a strong connection with Basques as I've seen before in many other experiments. The top 10 populations make sense to me, except for Lithuania. I don't plan to pay for the last test, but considering there's and East Med cluster, it seems to me that the Arabian would completely disappear according to new Iberian results I've seen (possibly increasing North African).
 
For my sample the results are bit weird :)
Alongside obvious Georgian, Armenian, Adyghe, Abkhazian, Balkar and Ossetian I get Hungary as number 9, Bergamo Italy - 10, Cyprus -11, Western Scotland and Ireland - 13, Basque Spain -14, Tuscany Italy -15.

So I remain skeptical :)
 
Great. Kurds have the highest amount of the so called 'Persian' component, 39.5%. As far as I know modern Kurds are as a nation genetically the closest ethnic group to the ancient 'Umman Manda', Iranic folks like the Medes (the greatest Iranics of them all).

Iranians are after the Kurds the second group and are only for about 22.5% 'Persian'. With other words, Iranians steal history from the Kurds.


As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.
 
As I mentioned "Persian" is a wrong terminus used for this component and obviously stems from the fact that many people still think Iran is equal to Persia. However this component peaks in Northwest Iran/North Mesopotamia/Southeast Caucasus and follows a Southern Caspian root to Northeast Iran-Turkmenistan. This is the legacy of Median/Parthian/Scythian and Mannaean/Hurrian ancestors.

Yes, the so called 'Persian' component is not really 'Iranian/Persian' but 'Kurdish/Median' from Zagros moutains.

As you can see Armenians have with 40.9% the highest percentage of East Mediterranean component, while Kurds, like other folks in the Transcaucasia have around 20.0% of it.
What I'm trying to say is that the 'Umman Manda' tribes were practically an admixture of Persian-North Caucasus-East Mediterranean components.

According to DNAtribes Kurds have also for about 7.2% of Balochi/Gedrosia component. There're two possibilities.
This could mean that a part of Kurds moved to Gedrosia, Balochi language is a West-Iranic language, and according to the Balochi folks they are descendants of the Medes from Kurdistan.
Or that people of Baluchistan moved to Kurdistan, like Parthians and Saka/Eastern Scythians.
 
Last edited:
Wow, it shoes 0% for Sub-Saharan African/Northeast African for all countries except for Spain and Portugal. What does Middle Eastern mean?
 
Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it. The so called component peaks in Azerbaijan Jews, obviously substantial amounts are telling something.

Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence, but in the previous test it wasn't exactly like this (it was more about overlaping groups related to the Middle East, so maybe it was only the Mediterranean similarity). According to the results I've seen this Middle Eastern seems more East African influenced than the other, but until I test myself and compare the results of both analysis I cannot know it for sure. For instance, the Andalusian sample shows no African, but has higher Mideast than the whole Spain instead, and the same is surely valid for other populations with apparently no African (but high in Mideast).

The few Northern Europeans I've seen tend to get some East Asian scores (as well as Amerindian or Oceanian) despite the fact they come out 100% European in the 8 Continents.
 
Last edited:
Which 'Middle Eastern' do you mean? On the schemes here I can't see it
 
It's in the 8 continents admixture (not the 24 World Regions).
 
It's in the 8 continents admixture (not the 24 World Regions).
Ah, now I see, gracies :) But why do you say East Africa and not just Arab/Beduin/Old Semitic?
 
They are representative of the Southwest Asian component at higher ressolution (different tests), but according to Dienekes' and Davidski this component is basically Mediterranean with some East African influence. It's the same as if we check Berbers at higher ressolution: they come out very high in Northwest African, which is also Mediterranean with some African as well.

The present Middle Eastern in the 8 continental admixture seems more "Southwest Asian like" than it was before, that's the main point.
 
Scores are less than 1%, not worth mention this. Checking the 24 world regions most countries, specially those in Southern Europe, show Egyptian and North African. Having high amounts of East Med seems to indicate similar ancestry as well at some point, since Southern Italy has a lot of it.

Middle Eastern should mean Mediterranean with some East African influence
No, it is worth mentioning this since it shows up in the Spanish cluster.

There's barley any Egyptian in Southern Italians and even less if Sicilians aren't considered. Sicilians shouldn't even be apart of the Italian cluster since they have a different genetic history altogether. Spanish/Portuguese have highest N.African influence.

And no, As you can see, there is 0% East African in the Italy (General) category as well as Southern Italy/Sicily.
 
The General Italian sample shows 6% Egyptian, so you obviously see what you want to see. And by the way, you don't understand what the issue is (or you simply don't want to understand): the African influence is INSIDE the Middle Eastern cluster, this is atested by the example I posted concerning the Andalusian (0% African) and the general Spanish samples (0.1%...ridiculous lol). And also atested by the 24 world regions, where seems clear that the mentioned populations are not 0% African (East Med, Arabian, North African and Egyptian). That's what really worth mentioning if you want to talk about African influence, although I asume you don't like to accept it of course.
 
Last edited:
The General Italian sample shows 6% Egyptian, so you obviously see what you want to see. And by the way, you don't understand what the issue is (or you simply don't want to understand): the African influence is INSIDE the Middle Eastern cluster, this is atested by the example I posted concerning the Andalusian (0% African) and the general Spanish samples (0.1%...ridiculous lol). And also atested by the 24 world regions, where seems clear that the mentioned populations are not 0% African (East Med, Arabian, North African and Egyptian). That's what really worth mentioning if you want to talk about African influence, although I asume you don't like to accept it of course.
Are you blind, or can you articulate and read what I just wrote? Sicilians aren't Italian, nor do they consider themselves to be. In you remove them from the equation, the amount of Egyptian would drop ENORMOUSLY. If you want to talk about admixture, how come Spain has 6.0% N.African while Italy (General) has 1.4%? Maybe it's something that YOU don't want to see/accept. Southern Italy/Sicily alone is 4.8%. Imagine how much of the Egyptian would drop if Sicily was removed from the equation.
 
The only blind is you. 6% is General Italy, and Spain is also general, so it's exactly the same. Spain has much lower Egyptian and much lower East Med (which is obviously African shifted and very high in ALL Italian regions, but you like to miss this point). So stop worrying about the African genes in Iberia and take care of your Italians.

However, this are the figures without East Med and Arabian (also African shifted and higher in Italy, by the way):

Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA

Even with this figures I don't consider the African contribution significant nowhere in Europe, but considering you're so concerned about it you'll probably enjoy the summary. I hope so, good night ;)

PD: Weren't you the one who said that Southern Italy and Sicily were less African than Spain even with its history? And now it seems it alters the equation so much LOL. Seriously, stop t.r.o.l.l.i.n.g, you've been warned many times.
 
The only blind is you. 6% is General Italy, and Spain is also general, so it's exactly the same. Spain has much lower Egyptian and much lower East Med (which is obviously African shifted and very high in ALL Italian regions, but you like to miss this point). So stop worrying about the African genes in Iberia and take care of your Italians.

However, this are the figures without East Med and Arabian (also African shifted and higher in Italy, by the way):

Spain: 1% Egyptian and 6% NA
General Italy: 6.1% Egyptian and 1.4% NA

Even with this figures I don't consider the African contribution significant nowhere in Europe, but considering you're so concerned about it you'll probably enjoy the summary. I hope so, good night ;)
Your delusional. Arabian is not African, nor African influenced first of all. You need to worry about genes in Spaniards from the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It's been confirmed time and time again that they have the brunt of it. Plus, East Med doesn't include African. Egyptian would be MUCH lower if Sicilians weren't included, thus making Italians have less Egyptian and 1.4% N.African. It's been confirmed that N.African DNA is only high in Sicily and pretty much absent in all other Italian regions.

And yes, Southern Italy/Sicily are much less African than Spain. Especially mainland Southern italy.
 
For more you keep denying again and again, those clusters are admixed. You don't know what the admixture software does, it's useless to talk about this with someone like you with no other pretension than having fun with strange agendas. That's the only thing it's been largely confirmed, and I told you, you've been warned many times and still prefer not to listen.
 
For more you keep denying again and again, those clusters are admixed. You don't know what the admixture software does, it's useless to talk about this with someone like you with no other pretension than having fun with strange agendas. That's the only thing it's been largely confirmed, and I told you, you've been warned many times and still prefer not to listen.
When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?
 
When it all comes down to it, Mainland Italians barley have any admixture. And yeah, I've been warned, so what? It's not like I'm breaking any rules. You just don't like people who disagree with you. Do you think you scare me?

Before talking about generalized results and making flaming remarks, why don't you order a test? Who knows what your own ancestry is.. ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 33698 times.

Back
Top