Are We Misreading Ancient DNA? Unusually Large Shared Segments May Indicate Compressed Chronology

[Scythian]

Hi all,

I’ve been exploring my autosomal DNA results and found something puzzling: I share unexpectedly large segments (20–60 cM) with several ancient individuals dated between 3000 BCE and 1600 CE. These matches come from high-quality databases and include individuals such as:

• I7848 (Yamnaya Moldova, ~2800 BCE) – 25.65 cM segment
• CGG021476 (Scythian Crimea, 325 BCE) – 25.45 cM segment
• SE-23 (Hungarian Conqueror, 950 CE) – 57.81 cM segment
• Others include LBK Stuttgart, Vatya Culture (BR2), Sarmatian, Avar, Aba/Bathory Elites, and Kushan samples with 10–30+ cM segments.

Now, as many of you know, autosomal DNA is thought to dilute over time. According to standard decay models, segments above 10–15 cM should rarely persist more than ~1,000–1,500 years. But I (and a few others I’ve connected with) have dozens of matches to ancient individuals far older than that—raising a question:

Are these segment sizes compatible with standard historical timelines, or do they indicate either a shorter time depth or closer genealogical proximity than currently assumed?

To test this, I ran simulations of genetic decay over 100+ generations. The models predict that shared segments >25 cM should almost never occur from ancestors >100 generations ago. Yet, these matches exist—and many are not fringe results but come from reputable ancient genome projects and show statistical closeness in the 95–99.9th percentile range.

Ancient DNA shows strong continuity between Central European elites and earlier Steppe populations. For example, BR2 (~1200 BCE, Hungary) shares large DNA segments with modern individuals, linking him to earlier Yamnaya-Volga samples like I7848 and ZIM001. This lineage runs through Sarmatian, Avar, and Hungarian Conqueror elites (e.g. SE-23) and continues into medieval dynasties like Aba and Árpád/Báthory—suggesting a 3,000+ year unbroken elite heritage from the Volga-Steppe into Central Europe until about the 1700s.


Some possibilities:

1. Inflated historical timelines – Could it be that certain ancient samples (e.g., Bronze Age elites) are closer in time than we think?
2. Elite endogamy – Perhaps tightly-knit elites retained DNA for much longer, resulting in unexpectedly large segments?
3. Misinterpretation of admixture events – Could some samples be misdated or derived from much later admixture events that we’re reading backward?

Supporting this, recent studies on ancient Iranian DNA (2024) and Transylvanian aDNA show long periods of continuity (up to 5,000–6,000 years) in elite populations—despite massive cultural turnover.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Has anyone else encountered large segment matches to ancient samples? Could this point to a broader pattern that needs reevaluation? Or are we misunderstanding something about decay mechanics or genealogical proximity?

Looking forward to any input or challenges!


Best,

Scythian

 

[MOESAN]

As an amateur and if I understand well, I think the principal source of shortening of the segments is the repetitions of crossing over, linked to time. So a strict endogamy can slowen the fragmentation only if at first the population practizing it was rather homozygotic for a big number of chromosomes segments. It supposes a small population (or caste at first) selected in some precise place at some stage of it history? Only a thought.

 

[Scythian]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for emphasizing the role of recombination in the decay of DNA segments. I fully agree—recombination is the primary mechanism driving the fragmentation of shared segments over time, making segment size a function of the number of generations since the common ancestor.


Regarding endogamy:

You are right that strict endogamy in small, isolated populations can preserve larger DNA segments for slightly longer than expected. However, the evidence from both simulations and real-world studies shows that this effect is modest and cannot explain my observations:


Simulation Results:

• Decay models and simulations (Huff et al. 2011; Carmi et al. 2014) consistently show that, even with extreme endogamy or pedigree collapse, segments longer than 10 cM virtually never persist beyond 10–15 generations (300–400 years).
• Over timeframes relevant to Bronze Age or older samples (~100–150 generations), these simulations predict that almost all shared segments will be broken down below 1–2 cM. The chance of finding 10–20+ cM blocks after thousands of years is essentially zero, regardless of endogamy.

Empirical Data:

• Studies of highly endogamous populations (such as Ashkenazi Jews, Samaritans, or Icelanders) confirm that long IBD segments from distant ancestors do not persist beyond a few dozen generations, supporting the simulation results.

My Results:

• The segments I share with Bronze Age and earlier individuals are not only much larger than expected but are also present in matches from a broad range of modern populations—many of whom are culturally and historically unrelated.
• This persistence of large shared segments across such diverse, allegedly unrelated groups for millennia is particularly strange. If endogamy were responsible, we would expect the matches to cluster within one or a few closely related populations with documented continuous inbreeding, not to be dispersed among culturally distinct groups across Europe and beyond.

Given both the decay predictions from simulations and the empirical evidence, it seems clear that endogamy cannot explain the presence of such large ancient segments shared across different populations for thousands of years. This pattern raises questions about our understanding of segment decay and the true continuity of lineages through time and space.

Thank you again for your valuable input! I’m very interested in any counterexamples or further discussion, especially if anyone has seen cases where large IBD segments persist across unrelated groups over such deep time.

 

[MOESAN]

As an amateur and if I understand well, I think the principal source of shortening of the segments is the repetitions of crossing over, linked to time. So a strict endogamy can slowen the fragmentation only if at first the population practizing it was rather homozygotic for a big number of chromosomes segments. It supposes a small population (or caste at first) selected in some precise place at some stage of it history? Only a thought.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for emphasizing the role of recombination in the decay of DNA segments. I fully agree—recombination is the primary mechanism driving the fragmentation of shared segments over time, making segment size a function of the number of generations since the common ancestor.


Regarding endogamy:

You are right that strict endogamy in small, isolated populations can preserve larger DNA segments for slightly longer than expected. However, the evidence from both simulations and real-world studies shows that this effect is modest and cannot explain my observations:


Simulation Results:

• Decay models and simulations (Huff et al. 2011; Carmi et al. 2014) consistently show that, even with extreme endogamy or pedigree collapse, segments longer than 10 cM virtually never persist beyond 10–15 generations (300–400 years).
• Over timeframes relevant to Bronze Age or older samples (~100–150 generations), these simulations predict that almost all shared segments will be broken down below 1–2 cM. The chance of finding 10–20+ cM blocks after thousands of years is essentially zero, regardless of endogamy.

Empirical Data:

• Studies of highly endogamous populations (such as Ashkenazi Jews, Samaritans, or Icelanders) confirm that long IBD segments from distant ancestors do not persist beyond a few dozen generations, supporting the simulation results.

My Results:

• The segments I share with Bronze Age and earlier individuals are not only much larger than expected but are also present in matches from a broad range of modern populations—many of whom are culturally and historically unrelated.
• This persistence of large shared segments across such diverse, allegedly unrelated groups for millennia is particularly strange. If endogamy were responsible, we would expect the matches to cluster within one or a few closely related populations with documented continuous inbreeding, not to be dispersed among culturally distinct groups across Europe and beyond.

Given both the decay predictions from simulations and the empirical evidence, it seems clear that endogamy cannot explain the presence of such large ancient segments shared across different populations for thousands of years. This pattern raises questions about our understanding of segment decay and the true continuity of lineages through time and space.

Thank you again for your valuable input! I’m very interested in any counterexamples or further discussion, especially if anyone has seen cases where large IBD segments persist across unrelated groups over such deep time.

I proposed after you the endogamy as an explication of slowing fragmentation in some cases. That said, I didn't believe it could be have so astonishing results. I'm not genetist. But since some time I wonder if some selective advantages attached to some long segments taken in their whole body couldn't explain their relative duration in time, and i wondered too if some segments of the chromosomes aren't more exposed to "breaking" and crossing-overs than others. But it's only speculations and for evident reasons (amateur) I have no answer.

 

[Scythian]

Your openness to both biological and historical explanations is refreshing. While the possible effects of selection and recombination are definitely worth considering, there’s growing attention in recent research to a different kind of explanation: the potential inflation of historical timelines themselves.

Several historians and geneticists have observed that the officially accepted chronology of European (and especially Roman) history was largely standardized during the 17th and 18th centuries, often to serve political and ideological ends (see Grafton, 1995; Geary, 2002). The timeline was harmonized to align diverse regional narratives with a Roman-centered framework, sometimes stretching or re-dating events to create a more ancient or continuous heritage than the genetic evidence would suggest.

Recent genetic studies—when compared against these conventional timelines—often reveal patterns (like persistent large segments) that are not easily reconciled with the official chronology, unless one considers the possibility that some “ancient” events or lineages may in fact be much more recent (Maróti et al., 2022; Ralph & Coop, 2013). In other words, the mismatch between genetic decay rates and documentary time depth could result from a historical framework that overstates the age or separation of certain populations.

While this is still an area of active investigation and debate, it offers a strong alternative explanation for the persistence of unusually large, shared segments across diverse populations. A more empirical, evidence-driven approach to reconstructing timelines—integrating both genetic and documentary sources—might help resolve some of these apparent contradictions.


References:

• Grafton, A. (1995). Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. Princeton UP.
• Geary, P. (2002). The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton UP.
• Maróti, Z., et al. (2022). The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians. Current Biology, 32(14), 2982–2996.
• Ralph, P. & Coop, G. (2013). The geography of recent genetic ancestry across Europe. PLoS Biology, 11(5), e1001555.

 

[MOESAN]

Your openness to both biological and historical explanations is refreshing. While the possible effects of selection and recombination are definitely worth considering, there’s growing attention in recent research to a different kind of explanation: the potential inflation of historical timelines themselves.

Several historians and geneticists have observed that the officially accepted chronology of European (and especially Roman) history was largely standardized during the 17th and 18th centuries, often to serve political and ideological ends (see Grafton, 1995; Geary, 2002). The timeline was harmonized to align diverse regional narratives with a Roman-centered framework, sometimes stretching or re-dating events to create a more ancient or continuous heritage than the genetic evidence would suggest.

Recent genetic studies—when compared against these conventional timelines—often reveal patterns (like persistent large segments) that are not easily reconciled with the official chronology, unless one considers the possibility that some “ancient” events or lineages may in fact be much more recent (Maróti et al., 2022; Ralph & Coop, 2013). In other words, the mismatch between genetic decay rates and documentary time depth could result from a historical framework that overstates the age or separation of certain populations.

While this is still an area of active investigation and debate, it offers a strong alternative explanation for the persistence of unusually large, shared segments across diverse populations. A more empirical, evidence-driven approach to reconstructing timelines—integrating both genetic and documentary sources—might help resolve some of these apparent contradictions.


References:

• Grafton, A. (1995). Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. Princeton UP.
• Geary, P. (2002). The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton UP.
• Maróti, Z., et al. (2022). The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians. Current Biology, 32(14), 2982–2996.
• Ralph, P. & Coop, G. (2013). The geography of recent genetic ancestry across Europe. PLoS Biology, 11(5), e1001555.

I think I've reached here my limits of competence!
That said, what about carbon datations? Errors of layers in tombs? or somethings like that?

 

[Scythian]

That said, what about carbon datations? Errors of layers in tombs? or somethings like that?

Radiocarbon dating (14C) isn’t a standalone absolute method—it relies on calibration curves that align radiocarbon years with known historical or environmental timelines. The key point: those calibrations are based on human-derived chronology, which introduces circularity.


How Carbon Dating Is Calibrated

The raw 14C result gives a “radiocarbon age” in years BP (before present), but that value must be converted into calendar years using calibration datasets like IntCal20. These curves are constructed using:

• Tree-ring sequences (dendrochronology)
• Historical records and events
• Marine and layered sediments

This means that the calendar dates we assign to ancient samples are not direct measurements—they’re estimates anchored to chronologies that were themselves constructed through historical assumptions, many of which emerged during the 16th–18th centuries.

“The radiocarbon calibration process uses historical chronologies as reference points… In this way, 14C dating is dependent on historically informed models.”
— Reimer et al., “The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve,” Radiocarbon, 2020

“Radiocarbon dates have usually been interpreted through the lens of conventional history. This method can reinforce prior expectations rather than question them.”
— Warren Easton, Antiquity, 1994


In Light of the Genetic Data

The problem becomes clear when we match ancient individuals like I7848 (Yamnaya), CGG021476 (Scythian), SE-23 (Conqueror), and HUAS81 (Aba dynasty) with large DNA segments that persist into modern genomes, including mine. These segments:

• Exceed 25–50 cM, far beyond what should survive 100+ generations
• Appear in triangulated clusters, not random artifacts
• Come from well-preserved samples with elite burial contexts
• Show 99–99.9% match percentile closeness, not noise

If these individuals truly lived 2,000–4,000 years ago, the shared segments should be small or gone. But they aren’t—which raises the possibility that the timelines themselves are extended, and that the calibration curves used to date these individuals are partly shaped by the very historical narratives under review.

Carbon dating can’t be used to confirm a chronology if the chronology was used to build the calibration.

This doesn’t invalidate the method—but it does show that genetic segment size offers a cross-check against inflated or inconsistent historical timelines.

 

[Scythian]

Let’s take a closer look at how historical assumptions can shape dating and interpretation—sometimes in a self-reinforcing loop.

A good example is the sample CGG021476, a Scythian elite woman found in a kurgan burial with gold jewelry, weapons, and a horse. Her archaeological context fits what 17th–18th century historiography described as “Scythians”—steppe nomads known for elaborate kurgans, horse burials, and metalwork, supposedly occupying the Pontic Steppe around 700–300 BCE.

But here’s the catch:

When we excavate such a burial and date it based on carbon dating, that dating is calibrated using a curve constructed—at least in part—on historical timelines that already assumed Scythians lived in that place and time. So when the sample comes back as ~325 BCE, it seems to “confirm” the historical record.

In reality, what’s happened is:

1. Historiography (1600s–1700s) defined who the Scythians were and when they lived.
2. Archaeologists identify a burial that fits that description.
3. Carbon dating is calibrated to the same historical chronology that assumed the time range.
4. Result appears to validate the history—but really just mirrors it.

This is what scholars refer to as chronological anchoring. When the calibration curve is built on historical sequences (especially from Egypt, Greece, Rome), those assumptions can feed back into the dating of unrelated sites.

“Radiocarbon chronology, when anchored by historical texts, risks reproducing the errors and assumptions of those texts.”
— Bronk Ramsey et al., 2015, “Radiocarbon Calibration and Chronological Inference”

This doesn’t mean the dating is “wrong” in a simple sense—but it does mean we should treat it with caution, especially when other independent signals—like autosomal DNA segment size—suggest much closer proximity.

In my case, I share a 25.45 cM segment with CGG021476, with a 99.9% closeness percentile—suggesting far fewer generations than 2,300 years. That kind of genetic evidence invites us to look again at whether the timelines we’ve inherited are truly fixed—or partly the product of historiographic scaffolding erected in early modern Europe to explain and control the past.

 

[Twilight]

That’s where Archeological cultures come in, we name the culture by the pots found then Anthropologist and Archeologists will deal with what civilization we are looking at later. ^_^

Welcome to Eupedia btw.

 

[bigsnake49]

Before we engage in conspiracy theories about European historians conspiring to change historical events dates, I would look at the programs that compute common long DNA segments and 99.9% closeness. I have encountered differing common segment length with the same individuals on different platforms such as Ancestry and MyHeritage. After all CentiMorgans are Centimorgans right? Why do I get differing amounts? The other source of error is the long segment breakup rate. How do we know that those calculations are correct?

 

[Duarte]

It's been a long time since I opened the MTA app. I re-uploaded my sample to update the results. In fact, the lengths corresponding to the SNPs shared with old samples seem a bit exaggerated in some cases. I think there is a lot of imputed DNA and a higher tolerance for unrefined results.

Heneti Italic Tribe Grottuna dei Covoloni del Broion Italy 1452 BC
BRC003
mtDNA: U4a2f2
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c2b1 (FGC20796/Y4353)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 62)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 35.79 cM
Largest chain: 297 SNPs / 11.89 cM

Illyrian Slovenia 300 BC
I5692
mtDNA: U5a1a1l2
Y-DNA: G1a1a1a1a (L201)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 48)
7 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 69.36 cM
Largest chain: 276 SNPs / 28.92 cM

Relic French King Louis XVI 1793 AD LXVI
mtDNA: N1b
Y-DNA: G2a (P15/PF3112)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 69)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 51.04 cM
Largest chain: 265 SNPs / 12.83 cM

Middle Bronze Age Musego Croatia 1375 BC
I26774
mtDNA: J1c2ao
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 34.13 cM
Largest chain: 230 SNPs / 10.1 cM

Late Roman Mix Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R105
mtDNA: T1a26
Y-DNA: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2c4a1a1 (FGC12836)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 61)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 52.02 cM
Largest chain: 195 SNPs / 12.15 cM

Gallic Cenomani Tribe Italy Verona Seminario Vescovile 300 BC
3196
mtDNA: U5b1b2
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 62)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 31.39 cM
Largest chain: 180 SNPs / 13.29 cM

Celtic Iron Age Bratislava Slovakia 95 BC
I11716
mtDNA: H55-a
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 47)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.19 cM
Largest chain: 370 SNPs / 23.43 cM

North Alpine Bronze Age 1794 BC
AITI_43
mtDNA: X2b+226
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 41)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 26.85 cM
Largest chain: 329 SNPs / 8.37 cM

Middle Bronze Age Gudnja Cave Croatia 1460 BC
I26726
mtDNA: J1c3-a1
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1a1a (Z1297)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 50)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 36.61 cM
Largest chain: 319 SNPs / 9.89 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5685
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 59)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 41.6 cM
Largest chain: 276 SNPs / 36.68 cM

Late Medieval Cancelleria Basilica 1485 AD
R1219
mtDNA: H11a
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1a (L142.1)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
8 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 104.13 cM
Largest chain: 275 SNPs / 36.46 cM

Protovillanovia Martinsicuro 930 BC
R1
mtDNA: U5a2b
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 94)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 85.49 cM
Largest chain: 273 SNPs / 18.28 cM

Christopher Corvinus Hunyadi Dynasty 1506 AD
CKM
mtDNA: T2c1+146
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c (BY4281/PH1173)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 66)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 65.81 cM
Largest chain: 241 SNPs / 29.99 cM

Iron Age Hillfort Croatia Kriz Brdovecki Sava Valley 450 BC
I5723
mtDNA: HV1a'b'c
Y-DNA: J2b2a1 (L283)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 38)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 46.0 cM
Largest chain: 231 SNPs / 22.13 cM

Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy 1355 AD
R61
mtDNA: HV
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a2a (CTS6889/S1161)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 69)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 140.02 cM
Largest chain: 229 SNPs / 53.96 cM

Gallo-Roman Mix Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R108
mtDNA: T2b-a
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a1b1a (S2795)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 58)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 52.92 cM
Largest chain: 228 SNPs / 28.91 cM

Pannonian Hill Fort mala Metaljka Croatia 490 BC
I24882
mtDNA: H
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 48.54 cM
Largest chain: 207 SNPs / 27.68 cM

Roman Republic Siena Chiostraccio man Italy 113 BC
UDC_P
mtDNA: HV0
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 93)
7 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 134.89 cM
Largest chain: 202 SNPs / 53.48 cM

Gallo-Roman Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R109
mtDNA: H1ba
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 33)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.73 cM
Largest chain: 201 SNPs / 20.31 cM

Early Bronze Age Mokrin Necropolis Serbia 1950 BC
MOK29
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 67)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.68 cM
Largest chain: 201 SNPs / 13.5 cM

Iron Age Slovenia 500 BC
I5698
mtDNA: H3
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 51)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.21 cM
Largest chain: 189 SNPs / 10.56 cM

Iron Age Smiljan Croatia 690 BC
I24638
mtDNA: U5a1g
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 40)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 43.7 cM
Largest chain: 187 SNPs / 23.96 cM

Iron Age Smiljan Croatia 740 BC
I23995
mtDNA: H3b
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 55.35 cM
Largest chain: 182 SNPs / 25.74 cM

Iron Age Vas County Hungary 900 BC
I25504
mtDNA: H79b1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 50)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 67.25 cM
Largest chain: 181 SNPs / 30.13 cM

Roman/Illyrian Celio Military Hospital 500 AD
R36
mtDNA: T1a1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b3c (PF6578/S371/Z145)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 78.39 cM
Largest chain: 177 SNPs / 28.71 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5687
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 65)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.81 cM
Largest chain: 172 SNPs / 12.41 cM

Gallic Cenomani Tribe Italy Verona Seminario Vescovile 300 BC
3196n
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 60)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 30.11 cM
Largest chain: 171 SNPs / 12.76 cM

Illyrian Jazinka Cave Croatia 700 BC
I26742
mtDNA: HV0e
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 52)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 53.23 cM
Largest chain: 171 SNPs / 31.79 cM

Iron Age Celtic Hungary Gyor-Moson-Sopron 250 BC
I18529
mtDNA: W1+119
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 37)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.51 cM
Largest chain: 169 SNPs / 22.82 cM

Illyrian Croatia Velim-Kosa 250 BC
I18831
mtDNA: H7
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 34)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 43.58 cM
Largest chain: 166 SNPs / 20.56 cM

Bronze Age Obrezje Slovenia 1350 BC
I5695
mtDNA: N1a1a1-b
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 53)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 67.99 cM
Largest chain: 164 SNPs / 32.2 cM

Bronze Age Spain Cogotas 1290 BC
I12208
mtDNA: K1a1b1
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 45)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 26.9 cM
Largest chain: 162 SNPs / 11.44 cM

Illyrian Velika Gruda Montenegro 1260 BC
I13172
mtDNA: H
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 63.8 cM
Largest chain: 160 SNPs / 25.43 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1600 BC
I4331
mtDNA: I1a1-a
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b (CTS3617)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 36)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 37.17 cM
Largest chain: 152 SNPs / 22.54 cM

Iron Age Poltenbrunn Lower Austria 350 BC
I11701
mtDNA: T2b81
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 46)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 23.34 cM
Largest chain: 150 SNPs / 10.4 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5684
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 59)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 54.43 cM
Largest chain: 144 SNPs / 33.85 cM

Illyrian Szeged-Kiskundorozsma-Sandpit Hungary 300 BC
I18259
mtDNA: I1a1-a
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 37)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.0 cM
Largest chain: 142 SNPs / 22.78 cM

Illyrian Slovenia 300 BC
I5693
mtDNA: H2a2a1
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 49)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 23.99 cM
Largest chain: 138 SNPs / 9.82 cM

Etruscan Tarquinii Italy 198 BC
TAQ005
mtDNA: T2d2a5
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 41)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.21 cM
Largest chain: 134 SNPs / 8.61 cM

Elite Scordisci Grave Osijek Croatia 100 BC
I26735
mtDNA: J1c12Y-DNA: R1b (M343/PF6242)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 52)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 47.2 cM
Largest chain: 130 SNPs / 30.22 cM

Bronze Age Italy Grotta Delle Mura 1063 BC
NEO806
mtDNA: N1a1a1
Y-DNA: J2b (M12)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 37.56 cM
Largest chain: 124 SNPs / 37.56 cM

Imperial Rome Mausoleo Augusto 500 AD
R33
mtDNA: K1a1f
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 70)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 21.27 cM
Largest chain: 119 SNPs / 12.84 cM

Iron Age Campiglia dei Foci Siena Italy 660 BC
CAM001
mtDNA: H41b1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 45)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.97 cM
Largest chain: 118 SNPs / 27.46 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1200 BC
I3313C
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.54 cM
Largest chain: 103 SNPs / 25.54 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1200 BC
I3313B
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.48 cM
Largest chain: 101 SNPs / 25.48 cM

 

[Scythian]

It's been a long time since I opened the MTA app. I re-uploaded my sample to update the results. In fact, the lengths corresponding to the SNPs shared with old samples seem a bit exaggerated in some cases. I think there is a lot of imputed DNA and a higher tolerance for unrefined results.

Heneti Italic Tribe Grottuna dei Covoloni del Broion Italy 1452 BC
BRC003
mtDNA: U4a2f2
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c2b1 (FGC20796/Y4353)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 62)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 35.79 cM
Largest chain: 297 SNPs / 11.89 cM

Illyrian Slovenia 300 BC
I5692
mtDNA: U5a1a1l2
Y-DNA: G1a1a1a1a (L201)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 48)
7 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 69.36 cM
Largest chain: 276 SNPs / 28.92 cM

Relic French King Louis XVI 1793 AD LXVI
mtDNA: N1b
Y-DNA: G2a (P15/PF3112)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 69)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 51.04 cM
Largest chain: 265 SNPs / 12.83 cM

Middle Bronze Age Musego Croatia 1375 BC
I26774
mtDNA: J1c2ao
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 34.13 cM
Largest chain: 230 SNPs / 10.1 cM

Late Roman Mix Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R105
mtDNA: T1a26
Y-DNA: J1a2a1a2d2b2b2c4a1a1 (FGC12836)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 61)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 52.02 cM
Largest chain: 195 SNPs / 12.15 cM

Gallic Cenomani Tribe Italy Verona Seminario Vescovile 300 BC
3196
mtDNA: U5b1b2
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 62)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 31.39 cM
Largest chain: 180 SNPs / 13.29 cM

Celtic Iron Age Bratislava Slovakia 95 BC
I11716
mtDNA: H55-a
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 47)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.19 cM
Largest chain: 370 SNPs / 23.43 cM

North Alpine Bronze Age 1794 BC
AITI_43
mtDNA: X2b+226
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 41)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 26.85 cM
Largest chain: 329 SNPs / 8.37 cM

Middle Bronze Age Gudnja Cave Croatia 1460 BC
I26726
mtDNA: J1c3-a1
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1a1a (Z1297)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 50)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 36.61 cM
Largest chain: 319 SNPs / 9.89 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5685
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 59)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 41.6 cM
Largest chain: 276 SNPs / 36.68 cM

Late Medieval Cancelleria Basilica 1485 AD
R1219
mtDNA: H11a
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1a (L142.1)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
8 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 104.13 cM
Largest chain: 275 SNPs / 36.46 cM

Protovillanovia Martinsicuro 930 BC
R1
mtDNA: U5a2b
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 94)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 85.49 cM
Largest chain: 273 SNPs / 18.28 cM

Christopher Corvinus Hunyadi Dynasty 1506 AD
CKM
mtDNA: T2c1+146
Y-DNA: E1b1b1a1b1a6a1c (BY4281/PH1173)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 66)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 65.81 cM
Largest chain: 241 SNPs / 29.99 cM

Iron Age Hillfort Croatia Kriz Brdovecki Sava Valley 450 BC
I5723
mtDNA: HV1a'b'c
Y-DNA: J2b2a1 (L283)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 38)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 46.0 cM
Largest chain: 231 SNPs / 22.13 cM

Late Medieval Villa Magna Italy 1355 AD
R61
mtDNA: HV
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a2a (CTS6889/S1161)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 69)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 140.02 cM
Largest chain: 229 SNPs / 53.96 cM

Gallo-Roman Mix Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R108
mtDNA: T2b-a
Y-DNA: G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a2a1b1a (S2795)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 58)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 52.92 cM
Largest chain: 228 SNPs / 28.91 cM

Pannonian Hill Fort mala Metaljka Croatia 490 BC
I24882
mtDNA: H
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 48.54 cM
Largest chain: 207 SNPs / 27.68 cM

Roman Republic Siena Chiostraccio man Italy 113 BC
UDC_P
mtDNA: HV0
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 93)
7 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 134.89 cM
Largest chain: 202 SNPs / 53.48 cM

Gallo-Roman Crypta Balbi 500 AD
R109
mtDNA: H1ba
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 33)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.73 cM
Largest chain: 201 SNPs / 20.31 cM

Early Bronze Age Mokrin Necropolis Serbia 1950 BC
MOK29
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 67)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.68 cM
Largest chain: 201 SNPs / 13.5 cM

Iron Age Slovenia 500 BC
I5698
mtDNA: H3
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 51)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.21 cM
Largest chain: 189 SNPs / 10.56 cM

Iron Age Smiljan Croatia 690 BC
I24638
mtDNA: U5a1g
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 40)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 43.7 cM
Largest chain: 187 SNPs / 23.96 cM

Iron Age Smiljan Croatia 740 BC
I23995
mtDNA: H3b
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 55.35 cM
Largest chain: 182 SNPs / 25.74 cM

Iron Age Vas County Hungary 900 BC
I25504
mtDNA: H79b1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 50)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 67.25 cM
Largest chain: 181 SNPs / 30.13 cM

Roman/Illyrian Celio Military Hospital 500 AD
R36
mtDNA: T1a1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b3c (PF6578/S371/Z145)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 78.39 cM
Largest chain: 177 SNPs / 28.71 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5687
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 65)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.81 cM
Largest chain: 172 SNPs / 12.41 cM

Gallic Cenomani Tribe Italy Verona Seminario Vescovile 300 BC
3196n
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 60)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 30.11 cM
Largest chain: 171 SNPs / 12.76 cM

Illyrian Jazinka Cave Croatia 700 BC
I26742
mtDNA: HV0e
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 52)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 53.23 cM
Largest chain: 171 SNPs / 31.79 cM

Iron Age Celtic Hungary Gyor-Moson-Sopron 250 BC
I18529
mtDNA: W1+119
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 37)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.51 cM
Largest chain: 169 SNPs / 22.82 cM

Illyrian Croatia Velim-Kosa 250 BC
I18831
mtDNA: H7
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b2 (PH1601)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 34)
5 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 43.58 cM
Largest chain: 166 SNPs / 20.56 cM

Bronze Age Obrezje Slovenia 1350 BC
I5695
mtDNA: N1a1a1-b
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 53)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 67.99 cM
Largest chain: 164 SNPs / 32.2 cM

Bronze Age Spain Cogotas 1290 BC
I12208
mtDNA: K1a1b1
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 45)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 26.9 cM
Largest chain: 162 SNPs / 11.44 cM

Illyrian Velika Gruda Montenegro 1260 BC
I13172
mtDNA: H
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 44)
6 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 63.8 cM
Largest chain: 160 SNPs / 25.43 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1600 BC
I4331
mtDNA: I1a1-a
Y-DNA: J2b2a1a1a1b (CTS3617)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 36)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 37.17 cM
Largest chain: 152 SNPs / 22.54 cM

Iron Age Poltenbrunn Lower Austria 350 BC
I11701
mtDNA: T2b81
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 46)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 23.34 cM
Largest chain: 150 SNPs / 10.4 cM

Early Iron Slovenia Dolge Njive Hill Fort 600 BC
I5684
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 59)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 54.43 cM
Largest chain: 144 SNPs / 33.85 cM

Illyrian Szeged-Kiskundorozsma-Sandpit Hungary 300 BC
I18259
mtDNA: I1a1-a
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 37)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.0 cM
Largest chain: 142 SNPs / 22.78 cM

Illyrian Slovenia 300 BC
I5693
mtDNA: H2a2a1
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 49)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 23.99 cM
Largest chain: 138 SNPs / 9.82 cM

Etruscan Tarquinii Italy 198 BC
TAQ005
mtDNA: T2d2a5
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 41)
4 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 29.21 cM
Largest chain: 134 SNPs / 8.61 cM

Elite Scordisci Grave Osijek Croatia 100 BC
I26735
mtDNA: J1c12Y-DNA: R1b (M343/PF6242)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 52)
3 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 47.2 cM
Largest chain: 130 SNPs / 30.22 cM

Bronze Age Italy Grotta Delle Mura 1063 BC
NEO806
mtDNA: N1a1a1
Y-DNA: J2b (M12)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 63)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 37.56 cM
Largest chain: 124 SNPs / 37.56 cM

Imperial Rome Mausoleo Augusto 500 AD
R33
mtDNA: K1a1f
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (L2/S139)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 70)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 21.27 cM
Largest chain: 119 SNPs / 12.84 cM

Iron Age Campiglia dei Foci Siena Italy 660 BC
CAM001
mtDNA: H41b1
Y-DNA: R1b1a1b1a1a2 (P312/PF6547/S116)
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 45)
2 SNP chains (min. 60 SNPs) / 33.97 cM
Largest chain: 118 SNPs / 27.46 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1200 BC
I3313C
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.54 cM
Largest chain: 103 SNPs / 25.54 cM

Illyrian / Dalmatian 1200 BC
I3313B
Shared DNA: (Sample Quality: 42)
1 SNP chain (min. 60 SNPs) / 25.48 cM
Largest chain: 101 SNPs / 25.48 cM

Thanks for sharing these matches, Duarte! They do seem large. Without doing a one-on-one autosomal comparison, I can tell our lines connect in Hungary 1200 BCE.

My line: Eneolithic Steppe 4200 BCE
Yamnaya, Moldova 2800 BCE
BR2 Hungary 1200 BCE

Here our lines meet but yours continues as:

Illyrians 1000 - 100 BCE
Roman Italy 0 - 500 CE
Hunyadi 1400 CE

While mine moves through:

Scythians/Sarmatians up to 300 CE
Huns 450s CE
Avars 500s - 800s CE
Conquerors 800s - 1000s CE
Aba/Arpad/Bela/Bathory up to 1600s CE