No, they are not as good. FTDNA and MyHeritage in particular are by far not as reliable, giving people AJ which don't have it and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
Printable View
No, they are not as good. FTDNA and MyHeritage in particular are by far not as reliable, giving people AJ which don't have it and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
i know of cases in my heritage of what you sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
but in ftdna not so much it is pretty a spot on
specially in the my origins 3.0 version ...:thinking:
p.s
i am 1/4 aschenazi by geneology
and ftdna gave me 26% aschenazi pretty good if you ask
me ;-)
FTDNA and sometimes even My Heritage do get it right, sometimes even better than the others, but not consistently so. Like they gave some of my Central European matches, which are practically close 100 percent from one region and ethnicity, very good looking results, but others get complete nonsense, even if they are from the same place, village and even family. They might be siblings and it goes way off. I'm not just judging by my own results, but those from thousands of matches and those of administered samples and from other reports.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
But I do agree that FTDNA might be somewhat better than MH, but still behind AncestryDNA and 23andme which are currently still setting the gold standard, because there is simply no better ethnicity estimate out there.
any of your austrian matches get aschenazi % ?
i know among non- jews there are some cases mainly in hungary and russia
maybe austrians from vienna will have some
who knows:thinking:
johann strauss ii famous austrian composer was 1/8 aschenazi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Strauss_II
if he would take a dna test today ( i mean if he was alive)
he would score 6% or 12% aschenazi
p.s
but i know usually jews lived seperate from non-jews where ever they lived
so chance for mixing was low
There are of course people with Ashkenazi ancestry in Vienna, even some prominent families. In the 19th century a lot of Jews did convert and some assimilated more than others.
There are records of those leaving the Israelite community and there were some peaks of this, already in the 19th century.
It did actually happen in both directions of proselytes and converts at different times, but from Jewish to Christian there was a peak in the 19th century already.
You rather have to consider that the urban German populations have rather low birth rates, most of the time. That's one of the reasons for the replacement over time.
Both rural Catholic Austrians and religious Jews tended to have more offspring than the more urban and bourgeois population to which most converts belonged.
In parts of Hungary the conversions and mixed couples became more widespread even beyond Budapest, though I would be very careful to extrapolate any numbers from testers mostly from this big cosmopolitan city to the rest of the country.
The high numbers for Hungary come definitely from a specific urban and social context, they are not representative for the country as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Landsteiner
P.s
This guy converted and i sure there were
Others to make there life easier
Now
We can turn back to the daunians:smile:
neither of the above has given my family members (6) any ashkenazi percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
23andme is the only site which gave my father about 2% .....................but also gave him Lower Saxony link with East-Frisian jew ...............a person with the impossible surname to trace, which is Tax
it could come from ...............The German surname Tax is derived from the Old German word "dachs" or "dahs," meaning "badger."
Any news whether we're going to get deep subclades on these samples? I'm super curious to see whether those J2B2-L283 are related to northern Illyrians or southern Illyrians/Z638.
They've done lots of comparisons of Messapian and Albanian as languages, and assumed a larger Illyro-Messapic, or Messapo-Illyrian group (Eric Hamp and others), taking Albanian as a modern descendant of Illyrian, but it could just be that Messapic = Northern Illyrian!! We don't have to abandon the theory of Messapian being Illyrian migrants to Italy. They could just be from Croatia/Slovenian parts of Illyria.
They have only been in Puglia since the LBA, so I think it is still possible they could have come from Illyria.Quote:
Originally Posted by enter_tain
Well, there is a view, but not totally conclusive that Peucetian tumuli resemble Istrian tumuli, on the other hand, Histria was dominated by Castellieri Culture which in turn was related to Posusje/Dinaric Culture where J2b2-L283 was found.Quote:
Originally Posted by enter_tain
ORD009 & ORD010 ... Dod. K12b ... Least-squares method vs Gaussian method
ORD009:
Least-squares method Gaussian method
1 Italian_Liguria @ 2.001298
2 Italian_Lombardy @ 2.673237
3 Italian_Emilia @ 3.229977
4 Italian_Piedmont @ 3.581089
5 Italian_Tuscany @ 4.438362
6 Italian_Veneto @ 4.612169
7 Swiss_Italian @ 5.902585
8 Italian_Friuli_VG @ 6.853336
9 Italian_Trentino @ 7.025113
10 Italian_Romagna @ 7.078929
1 Italian_Lombardy @ 2.374203
2 Italian_Tuscany @ 2.746119
3 Italian_Veneto @ 2.771867
4 Italian_Piedmont @ 2.800869
5 Italian_Trentino @ 2.802866
6 Italian_Liguria @ 2.910394
7 Swiss_Italian @ 3.143305
8 Italian_Friuli_VG @ 3.22007
9 Italian_Emilia @ 3.293109
10 Italian_Romagna @ 3.433222
ORD010:
Least-squares method Gaussian method 1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 4.073816
2 Moldovan_Jewish @ 4.893942
3 Italian_Jew @ 5.151244
4 Italian_Calabria @ 5.340065
5 Italian_Campania @ 6.831305
6 Greek_Fournoi @ 7.092064
7 Italian_Sicily @ 7.121437
8 Greek_Crete @ 7.777078
9 Greek_Icaria @ 7.848497
10 Sephardic_Jew @ 7.9452741 Italian_Campania @ 4.172999
2 Italian_Calabria @ 4.475073
3 Greek_Izmir @ 4.78169
4 Greek_Crete @ 4.79933
5 Italian_Jew @ 4.927132
6 Moldovan_Jewish @ 5.055584
7 Greek_Rhodes @ 5.066042
8 Greek_Kos @ 5.156257
9 Italian_Abruzzo @ 5.214077
10 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 5.285824
… Gaussian found a better fit for ORD010 than Least-squares, I think :)
https://i.imgur.com/QxXzuTU.png
There's something about the ORD010 sample that makes it too exotic to be a typical Southern Italian. Both I and ORD009 are very good fits for the modeling I have put together.
As we know, the Italian_Apulia sample (and other "Updated Dodecad K12b modern samples) comes from dubious sources, so we cannot verify if it is representative, or where it actually comes from.
But relatively speaking, this modeling is a bad fit for ORD010:
https://i.imgur.com/WNKkTzA.png
Normally, this modeling works well for Modern and Ancient Italians.
https://i.imgur.com/Idl3THN.png
https://i.imgur.com/zV0kYKy.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
the T1a ydna of R850 is very very close to ORD010 in regards to the numbers you presented
we know that R850 came from the Etruscan Rutuli tribe in Lazio province
That's true, but the distance is very large compared to the majority of the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
8.6+ for R850
5.7+ for ORD010
There's something else that should be included in the modeling, that would make their fit better.
Modern Northern and Southern Italians, along with Latins, and Etruscans fit really well with the modeling, around 1 distances or below 0.
The Daunians look very heterogenous, with mostly bad fits, though if the modeling is anything to go by, I would suggest ORD009 was a "native" to Italy.
ORD010 … about 1078 - 1156 AD, around the time of the County of Apulia and Calabria:
“later the Duchy of Apulia and Calabria, was a Norman state founded by William of Hauteville in 1042 in the territories of Gargano, Capitanata, Apulia, Vulture, and most of Campania. It became a duchy when Robert Guiscard was raised to the rank of duke by Pope Nicholas II in 1059 …”
… “Bohemond of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, born in Calabria, in 1098 AD became Bohemond I of Antioch, he was the most experienced military leader of the First Crusade” ….
… speculating :) maybe ORD010 or one of the Parents originated in Antioch, …
https://i.imgur.com/k00nh8o.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coun...a_and_Calabria
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemond_I_of_Antioch
It is possible, there's a number different scenarios that could explain who he was. He could have had ancestry further from the east, from the more cosmopolitan era prior to the middle ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salento
He could have had some Saracen/Moorish input.
The South underwent a series of ethnic cleansing in middle ages, where you saw the destruction of places like Lucera, the final Moorish stronghold. There was also persecution of Jewish people by Catholics, in the middle ages as well. That's what drove former Roman Jews into northern Europe.
Maybe some stayed behind in secret and were mixed out of existence, by the larger native Southern population.
The possibilities are endless.
At any rate, I don't think this person should have been used as a being representative of medieval Puglia in terms of autosomal proportion. The Apulian samples from the Viking paper are different from him as well, and they are from roughly the same era.
That doesn't matter, his calculators within and of itself were modified to produce results to control for a "calculator effect".Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
Here is an old post where Dienekes addresses this issue of "calculator effect", and in the comment section, has a debate with Davidski about it.
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/08/...or-effect.html
I myself have tried to make calculators in the past, with other collaborators. All of our attempts were unsuccessful in trying to replicate the results of academic studies. While trying to do that, I realized making a calculator itself is vulnerable to a high possibility of error, even when using the same exact samples used for studies.
Using samples to model population X has a high possibility of error.
Calculator X within and of itself could have something erroneous with it.
This is why I take these calculators with a grain of salt.
I completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
Fwiw, I don't know if he only uses academic samples today. Has he ever published his complete set? I absolutely know he didn't when he first created his calculators because he solicited samples from his followers. So did Dienekes, of course, but he showed you the clusters and posted his complete methodology for the sake of transparency. So far as I know Davidski has yet to do that.
I want to add that some of K12b samples are not perfect either. The Ligurian one is too Tuscan-like, probably an outlier and the Greek Macedonian one is from the assimilated Slavophone minority, they are genetically closer to Bulgarians than to Peloponnesians, which is not true for other Greek Macedonians. Davidski himself knows that some of his modern samples are not good either. But overall the calculator is not amazing but it's decent.
Distance to: Italian_Liguria 0.01994164 Italian_Lombardy 0.02259627 Italian_Piedmont 0.02374994 Italian_Bergamo 0.02490093 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige 0.02570667 Italian_Veneto 0.02748159 Swiss_Italian 0.02848505 Italian_Tuscany 0.03041169 Spanish_Menorca 0.03137781 French_Corsica 0.03167126 Italian_Northeast 0.03182874 Spanish_Eivissa 0.03237525 Greek_Thessaly 0.03267611 Spanish_Mallorca 0.03379182 Italian_Marche 0.03387672 Spanish_Baleares 0.03449545 French_Provence 0.03564830 Spanish_Terres_de_l'Ebre 0.03616846 Spanish_Murcia 0.03625818 Albanian 0.03679837 Spanish_Andalucia 0.03701475 Italian_Umbria 0.03718578 Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha 0.03756287 Greek_Macedonia 0.03762135 Portuguese 0.03818783 Spanish_Extremadura
These samples were not made by Dienekes. They are very recent additions from apricity members. We aren't sure where they come from.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
I agree with that. Amazing how people feel free to comment when they're not in possession of the factsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
As for the Ligurian sample mentioned above, the only way anyone could know if it's an "outlier" and "not representative" is if it could be compared to a large sample of Ligurians, preferably elderly people, all of whose grandparents were from Liguria. That's because migration to Liguria began in the late 19th century. Also, it would be important to gather samples from both western and eastern Liguria, because despite being such a small region, the history and genetic influences were quite different depending on the area.
It would also be useful to compare that one lone sample added by apricity members to the so-called "Piemonte" samples, who are really mountain Ligures speaking a Ligurian dialect who were only very, very recently made a part of Piemonte.
That's unless, of course, someone has a crystal ball, and I hear they're in short supply. :)
The one you posted is the G25 and the Ligurian average on G25 is based only on 1 individual (ALP099), as anyone can check in the datasheet. Apart from the fact that the K12b average is accurate or not, the Ligurian average in G25 is really unlikely to be accurate, it is not even an average but a single individual (unclear from what area of Liguria, AFAIK the only sampled area of Liguria in the previous studies is the Savona area, which linguistically contains Western Ligurian areas, Genoese areas, and transitional area between Ligurian and Piedmontese).Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
The only Ligurian individual on the G25 datasheet
Italian_Liguria:ALP099,0.113823,0.146236,0.027153,-0.011951,0.029236,-0.002231,0.00235,0.001154,0.009613,0.025331,-0.009743,0.002847,-0.013082,0.001101,-0.001086,-0.012463,-0.00665,-0.00038,0.003771,0.00075,-0.00025,0.000989,0.003944,0.000723,0.000599
The Ligurian average on G25
Italian_Liguria,0.113823,0.146236,0.027153,-0.011951,0.029236,-0.002231,0.00235,0.001154,0.009613,0.025331,-0.009743,0.002847,-0.013082,0.001101,-0.001086,-0.012463,-0.00665,-0.00038,0.003771,0.00075,-0.00025,0.000989,0.003944,0.000723,0.000599
As you can check for yourself, there is no difference.
So, the Ligurian Dodecad K12b average is not accurate? Maybe yes, but you certainly can't use the Ligurian G25 average to prove it as it is definitely not even an average. But Davidski is not to blame, it is some Italian geneticist who plays games.
Ligurians in an Academic PCA come up as, strictly, Northern Italian not Central Italian. The paper was probably discussed here, even though I cannot find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax Augusta
Also the Ethnic Macedonian sample were very Greek-shifted compared to Bulgarians, some that I have seen. Davidski has updated the (ethnic) Macedonian samples and they are Romanian/Bulgarian-like now. In Academic PCA ethnic Macedonians are pretty much like Bulgarians but a little more South-western shifted.
There is one Macedonian t.roll saying that South Slavs are 80% Ballkanic, I would not be surprised if he twisted his own samples that he gave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
Ligurians do not come out as Central Italian in K12b, regardless of whether it is really accurate as an average. The most comprehensive paper on Italy so far, from which that sample used on G25 came from, is Raveane 2019. The PCAs have been posted several times.
The Northern Italian is the biggest Italian cluster.
In the Raveane 2019 paper in green are Ligurians and Emilians (NItaly3) with a minority of Piedmontese and Venetians, in pink and red are Tuscans (NCItaly 1, 2, 3). Mainland Italy this time was divided in two parts, not into three clusters as in previous studies. Ligurians came out together with Emilians as the southernmost part of the Northern Italian cluster, while Tuscans ended up just behind Ligurians and Emilians in a cluster called Northern-Central Italian grouped with the Northern Italian clusters.
Do you need me to show you better?Quote:
A sharp north-south division in cluster distribution was detected, the separation between northern and southern areas being shifted north along the peninsula (Fig. 1B) (12). The reported structure dismissed the possibility that the Central Italian populations differentiated from the Northern and Southern Italian groups (Fig. 1A) (13). Individuals from Central Italy were, in fact, assigned mostly to the Southern Italian clusters, except for samples from Tuscany, which grouped instead with the Northern Italian clusters (Fig. 1, A and B) (12).
https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/...aw3492-f1.jpeg
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
Which calculator are we talking about now? The K12b or the G25? Likely the updated K12b averages may have been made by several different users. The G25 updated averages are based on available academic samples. But not all available academic samples are accurate and exhaustive.