With what ancient ethnicity do you most identify, and what has DNA told you ?

Celtiberian. I certainly have an ancient celtiberian ancestor, considering my yDNA R1b-DF27-FGC35133 (TMRCA 2700 ybp - YFull).

UwVlL3u.png
 
Celtiberian


ancientpopulations.jpeg
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
So, do you consider 7 to be a close match, or is that rather middling?

I always thought of myself as English/Dutch/German (predominantly northern Germany), the standard early American mix. My closest ancient populations seem to support that,

1. Saxon Hinxton (720 AD) (5.171)
2. Colonial American Pennsylvania (1700 AD) (5.276)
3. Medieval Denmark (1250 AD) (5.779)
4. Frankish/Hungary (590 AD) (6.0)
5. Bell Beaker Scotland (6.325)
6. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (6.426)
7. Viking Saxon Iceland (6.635)
8. Medieval Norway Sankt Nikolai B (1349 AD) (7.252)
9. Post Viking Denmark Odense (1250 AD) (7.479)
10. Anglo Saxon (780 AD) (7.49)
Click to expand...

Yes, I consider a GD of 7 to be a close match. Among my family members the GD for the same samples can vary by several points. My (paternal) grandmother scores a GD of 2 for Franks, but my mother only 9.5. Yet both have all their genealogical ancestry from the same province of Belgium. Look at your own results. You've got a Saxon sample dated from year 720 with a GD of 5 and another Saxon from 780 with a GD of 7.5. And these are just your top matches. There are considerable variations in GD between individuals of the same ancient ethnic group. And we only have have a few samples from each ethnic group, among millions of people who lived in ancient times. So further sampling will inevitably improve everyone's score for genetic distance to single individuals. My closest match is also a Frank from Hungary, but that's because none have been tested from Belgium, the homeland of the Franks. I do not doubt that I will score closer to these, as they are my direct ancestors.
 
Maciamo said:
When I started this thread 10 years ago I mentioned that I identified with Germanic (Frankish), Celtic and Italic/Roman ancestry. I have since estimated that my ancestral blend would be approximately 50% Germanic (about half from Denmark through the Franks and half from assimilated tribes in northern and western Germany), 35% Celtic and 15% Italic/Latin/Roman.

The availability of ancient DNA samples from all Europe has now made it possible to compare the genetic distance from these ancient peoples. My closest population is indeed the Franks (genetic distance of 7 for closest match), then the Celts (GD=9 for Hinxton2), the Saxons (GD=9.5 for Hinxton1) and medieval Danes (GD=10~12). My closest ancient Latin sample (R435 from Palestrina) is at a GD of 12, about the same distance as Danish Vikings.
Click to expand...


I quite disagree with you Maciamo. Based on latest research about the Lowlands,
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.01.892513v2

The Belgian/South Dutch overlap:
it is very clear that Belgium and South Dutch are overlapping, that could be considered Frankish.
eiqypxxuhc.35.08.png


But they are quite separated from the North Germans and the Danes!


Half from assimilated tribes in northern and western Germany
Click to expand...

The Belgians and South Dutch are quite on distance from the North Germans, only the NE Dutch are very close:
jka0aku7.34.56.png


about half from Denmark through the Franks
Click to expand...
And even more from the Danes, this overlap is small and more NW Dutch.

3219dgi93ik.35.22.png



Speaking about my self (outmost North Dutch) this comes very close to the original Anglo-Saxons and other Ingvaeonic North Sea German dwellers. As fare as I can see the 'the Franks', Belgians/South Dutch are quite on distance.....the tombola of all ancient samples in G25 (eurogenes).

69kw0t.32.44.png


gomqw9q0ji.14.23.png


My ' habitat' ? :rolleyes:
1squhw6p.32.14.png




So:
I have since estimated that my ancestral blend would be approximately 50% Germanic (about half from Denmark through the Franks and half from assimilated tribes in northern and western Germany
Click to expand...

I doubt it!

The Belgians and South Dutch seem to represent another genetic cluster, this can be called Frankish but is quite on distance from the Northern Germans and Danes (although this is relatively southern Italians are more on distance).
 
Northener said:
I quite disagree with you Maciamo. Based on latest research about the Lowlands,
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.01.892513v2

The Belgian/South Dutch overlap:
it is very clear that Belgium and South Dutch are overlapping, that could be considered Frankish.
eiqypxxuhc.35.08.png


But they are quite separated from the North Germans and the Danes!




The Belgians and South Dutch are quite on distance from the North Germans, only the NE Dutch are very close:
jka0aku7.34.56.png



And even more from the Danes, this overlap is small and more NW Dutch.

3219dgi93ik.35.22.png
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the North Dutch are very close genetically to the Danes, while the South Dutch are close to the Belgians. That's common knowledge in population genetics. But that is not at all what I am referring to. I was talking about the origin of the Germanic component found among Belgians (and South Dutch). There is ample evidence that the Franks originated in Denmark. But they did not arrive in Belgium in a pure, unadmixed form. They mixed with West Germans tribes (including Saxons) along the way. So much is evident from the deep clades of Y-DNA haplogroups found in Belgium. About half of the Germanic Y-DNA appears Scandinavian (such as I1-L22 or R1b-Z9). I explained all this in my genetic history of the Benelux several years ago.

It's obvious that when a population like the Belgians is only 25% of Danish origin they are not going to look like pure Danes (or North Dutch) in autosomal comparisons.

Speaking about my self (outmost North Dutch) this comes very close to the original Anglo-Saxons and other Ingvaeonic North Sea German dwellers. As fare as I can see the 'the Franks', Belgians/South Dutch are quite on distance.....the tombola of all ancient samples in G25 (eurogenes).

69kw0t.32.44.png


gomqw9q0ji.14.23.png
Click to expand...

You are using Vahaduo to calculate genetic distance based on a calculator's coordinates (percentages of admixtures). I was referring to actual genomic comparisons, comparing the genetic distance using hundreds of thousands or millions of SNP's. That is not comparable at all. You can get a GD of less than 0.1 using the former (admixture percentages like K12b) even with someone unrelated, but the only way you could get such a close distance with SNPs is with a close blood relative. The two are like comparing apples and oranges.
 
G25 ancient 2500 BCE - 2000 BCE calculator


Distance to:Torzio_scaled
0.02559149BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5524
0.03801966BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4885
0.04063399BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_E09538
0.04298622BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I3590
0.04372055BEAKERS-IBERIA-ITALY:Beaker_Northern_Italy_I2478
0.04888005BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5759
0.04991541BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4887
0.05018206BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5017
0.05216697BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5520
0.05484287BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5529
0.05683393BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4888
0.05774157BEAKERS-HUNGARY:Beaker_Hungary_I3529
0.05814508BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I6591
0.05854680BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I6581
0.05878922BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4896
0.05964394BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4891
0.05964717BEAKERS-HUNGARY:Beaker_Hungary_I2364
0.05983243BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I7275
0.06054558BEAKERS-NETHERLANDS:Beaker_Southern_France_I3874
0.06276071BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4945
0.06366065BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I0113
0.06506361BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I6624
0.06615359BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I6582
0.06678927BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I4886
0.06727492BEAKERS-CENTRAL-EUROPEAN:Beaker_Central_Europe_I5835

I5524

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
doi:10.1038/nature25738


and

I4885

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
doi:10.1038/nature25738


same paper
 
Jovialis said:
Ancient Romans

GzmHLdF.png
Click to expand...

He are my samples from GD of 8 and below. I'm surprised to see that I am actually slightly closer to the Scythian syc192, than I am to R437.

Distance to:Jovialis
3.02061252R973_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
3.28542235R835_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.34644588R54_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
3.41667967CrusaderKnightApuliaAbruzzoLebanonCrusaderSI53
3.43008746R121_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
3.70737104R836_Imperial_Era_Civitanova_Marche
3.83489244R970_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
3.85554147CL121
4.06829202R60_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.18988067R969_Medieval_Era_Tivoli_Palazzo_Cianti
4.49402937R1290_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
4.91924791R122_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
4.94132573R49_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
4.96690044R64_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.28137293R56_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
5.77595879R117_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
6.07903775R131_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.10611169R52_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.12550406R113_Imperial_Era_Via_Paisiello_Necropolis
6.31027733R35_Late_Antiquity_Celio
6.31831465R59_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.32038765R47_Imperial_Era_Centocelle_Necropolis
6.33613447R65_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.55681325R1544_Imperial_Era_Necropolis_of_Monte_Agnese
6.83668048R58_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
6.91828013R107_Late_Antiquity_Crypta_Balbi
6.94813644R136_Imperial_Era_Marcellino_&_Pietro
6.96840728R436_Imperial_Era_Palestrina
7.00001429SZ40
7.03068275R1549_Imperial_Era_Monterotondo
7.06252788R36_Late_Antiquity_Celio
7.16297424ScythianSouthernMoldova_scy192
7.22136414R1283_Medieval_Era_Cancelleria
7.24803422R120_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
7.36417001R53_Medieval_Era_Villa_Magna
7.53431483R118_Late_Antiquity_S_Ercolano_Necropolis_Ostia
7.54746315R437_Iron_Age_Palestrina_Selicata
7.63191981CL110
7.92152132R32_Late_Antiquity_Mausole_di_Augusto
7.96730820SZ36
 
Maciamo said:
There is no doubt that the North Dutch are very close genetically to the Danes, while the South Dutch are close to the Belgians. That's common knowledge in population genetics. But that is not at all what I am referring to. I was talking about the origin of the Germanic component found among Belgians (and South Dutch). There is ample evidence that the Franks originated in Denmark. But they did not arrive in Belgium in a pure, unadmixed form. They mixed with West Germans tribes (including Saxons) along the way. So much is evident from the deep clades of Y-DNA haplogroups found in Belgium. About half of the Germanic Y-DNA appears Scandinavian (such as I1-L22 or R1b-Z9). I explained all this in my genetic history of the Benelux several years ago.

It's obvious that when a population like the Belgians is only 25% of Danish origin they are not going to look like pure Danes (or North Dutch) in autosomal comparisons.



You are using Vahaduo to calculate genetic distance based on a calculator's coordinates (percentages of admixtures). I was referring to actual genomic comparisons, comparing the genetic distance using hundreds of thousands or millions of SNP's. That is not comparable at all. You can get a GD of less than 0.1 using the former (admixture percentages like K12b) even with someone unrelated, but the only way you could get such a close distance with SNPs is with a close blood relative. The two are like comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...


My point is that the Franks or Belgians/South Dutch have no or less influx form NW Germany and Danmark!

the Belgians is only 25% of Danish origin
Click to expand...

Is IMO nonsens.The Ingvaeonic/ North Sea Germanic (in)flux was something above the Rhine not beneath.

The South Dutch and Belgians are more Rhenish IMO. A kind of Germanic but not necessarily (close) genetic connected to the Ingvaeonics/ North Sea Germans. There is no Germanic genetic unity. So the Franks don't need to be tight connected to the Saxons, Frisians etc.

When the Franks were an offshoot of the Ingvaeonic then they had to show up in this breakdown of mine, but nearly 2%. This is discutabel because my true ancestry made some assumptions in this respect. But still.
ggh7wwso47.12.56.png


But the breakdown of the modern population is more illustrating, Flemish, West Germany and South Dutch are a kind of Rhenish cluster IMO. Quite on distance from the Danes etc.

wjf44t0qasia.13.48.png
 
Last edited:
Maciamo said:
Yes, I consider a GD of 7 to be a close match. Among my family members the GD for the same samples can vary by several points. My (paternal) grandmother scores a GD of 2 for Franks, but my mother only 9.5. Yet both have all their genealogical ancestry from the same province of Belgium. Look at your own results. You've got a Saxon sample dated from year 720 with a GD of 5 and another Saxon from 780 with a GD of 7.5. And these are just your top matches. There are considerable variations in GD between individuals of the same ancient ethnic group. And we only have have a few samples from each ethnic group, among millions of people who lived in ancient times. So further sampling will inevitably improve everyone's score for genetic distance to single individuals. My closest match is also a Frank from Hungary, but that's because none have been tested from Belgium, the homeland of the Franks. I do not doubt that I will score closer to these, as they are my direct ancestors.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That was just the kind of explanation I was looking for (it's the reason I come to this site).
 
Jovialis said:
poBCPMN.png


HDfuGJ4.png
Click to expand...

Excellent work, Jovialis.

Is that "Phoenician" sample, the one very close to Mycenaeans the sample from the Spanish island?

Doesn't look very Levant like to me. They really shouldn't be using that sample for closeness to "Phoenicians".
 
Salento said:
you and your ancestor are obviously related to the Leader of the Free World. Congrats :)

... some of my ancestors:
M6x35Fl.jpg
Click to expand...

? Carlos Trump ?
 
Very basic question: the word "ancient" in the title of the post, how long in the past does it refer to?
 
Salento said:
you and your ancestor are obviously related to the Leader of the Free World. Congrats :)

... some of my ancestors:
M6x35Fl.jpg
Click to expand...
Yep, Salento. Gemini separated in the maternity :)

aTJKcRx.jpg

F1Whypr.jpg
 
Yes @Torzio, @Duarte got it too.

... my early Imperial Period:
PkP2aBl.jpg
 
Farstar said:
Very basic question: the word "ancient" in the title of the post, how long in the past does it refer to?
Click to expand...
imho:
Any group, tribe, civilization, kingdom, empire, ... you feel a connection to,
... about 3500 BC to 1400 AD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 296023 times.

Back
Top