Mytrueancestry.com

Angela I quate my true ancestery site
This there description not mine ...

Well, that's a shocker. I thought they were better informed than that, since they claim all this academic expertise. I don't expect much historical knowledge from population geneticists, but nobody told them about the upcoming paper on the Etruscans?

Someone should give them a head's up. It sounds like history via theapricity.

I take that back. It's not a shocker. A lot of their original descriptions for the ancient samples were completely misleading. It was only when we complained about it here that they started cleaning that up.

I also think they owe people the explanation that some of these "similarities" with ancient samples, i.e. the genetic distances, are HUGE.
 
1.png


2.png


3.png


4.png


5.png
 
Below I've taken screen shots of the seven samples I match first with on Mytrueancestry, compared to my own results, using Dodecad K12b
1. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) (8.423) - SZ40
2. Hellenic Roman / Cretan (670 AD) (10.28) - CL38
3. Hellenic Roman (670 AD) (11.21) - CL121
4. Hellenic Roman / Dodecanese (670 AD) (12.02) - CL30
5. Hellenic Roman / Calabria (670 AD) (12.48) - CL25
6. Central Roman / Mixed (590 AD) (13.58) - SZ19
7. Central Roman (590 AD) (14.03) - SZ36
8. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (14.4) - I9033
9. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (14.49) - I9041
10. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (15.17) - I9006
11. Central Roman (590 AD) (15.2) - SZ43
12. Ostrogoth Crimea (300 AD) (15.25) - Ker1
13. Central Roman (590 AD) (15.84) - SZ32


Fal3oJj.png

P6WhWey.png

2cvqBn6.png

gZl53w6.png

lbxgG3g.png

aNGySwk.png

t1pA0qf.png

I10pmSZ.png



Posted this in another thread, but it is relevant here as well.
 
Posted this in another thread, but it is relevant here as well.

Thanks for sharing. Can't believe they still haven't corrected the description for the Crimean Ostrogoth sample to indicate that genetically he's Eastern Greek like.

Does show how inclusive the Goths were, however, compared to the Langobards, for example. He was the "big" chief, wonderful burial goods.
 
Ashkelon Samples have been added:
xxTVvsd.png
I think ultimately my connection to all of them further down the list is because of Anatolian Copper age, which I get as my 14th entry. Which seems relatively high considering it is in with more recent samples.

As well as later Greek and Italic influences, for ones that make sense for it.
 
I think ultimately my connection to all of them further down the list is because of Anatolian Copper age, which I get as my 14th entry. Which seems relatively high considering it is in with more recent samples.

As well as later Greek and Italic influences, for ones that make sense for it.

Hi, Jovialis.
Very interesting the inclusion of samples of philistines.
I know you're already aware of this, but MTA geneticists adopt more flexible distances for matches with old samples, and they themselves make a point of explaining:

W9HEvSD.png


And this is quite logical since very old samples with very small distances from modern individuals would be difficult to find.
In this sense I believe that their distances with the Philistines are quite reasonable, especially considering that the articles that have been published on the subject point to a great similarity of the philistine DNA with the DNA of ancient skeletons found in burials on the Greek island of Crete :)
A big hug.
 
Hi, Jovialis.
Very interesting the inclusion of samples of philistines.
I know you're already aware of this, but MTA geneticists adopt more flexible distances for matches with old samples, and they themselves make a point of explaining:

W9HEvSD.png


And this is quite logical since very old samples with very small distances from modern individuals would be difficult to find.
In this sense I believe that their distances with the Philistines are quite reasonable, especially considering that the articles that have been published on the subject point to a great similarity of the philistine DNA with the DNA of ancient skeletons found in burials on the Greek island of Crete :)
A big hug.

Well, not to be a naysayer, Duarte, but my top matches are to two Szolad "Central Romans" : 3.4 and 4.6. That's closer than I get on calculators to any modern Italian populations. All of my top ten matches are under 10, and the next ten are between 11 and 13. I don't pay much attention to the rest. It shows broad similar ancient ancestry in my opinion, but not much more than that.
 
Well, not to be a naysayer, Duarte, but my top matches are to two Szolad "Central Romans" : 3.4 and 4.6. That's closer than I get on calculators to any modern Italian populations. All of my top ten matches are under 10, and the next ten are between 11 and 13. I don't pay much attention to the rest. It shows broad similar ancient ancestry in my opinion, but not much more than that.

I do not disagree with your reasoning, Angela. You always bring reason and balance when it seems that a particular theme on a thread is drifting off course. You always bring the shock of reality that, in my understanding, is very important. In fact, as you pointed, small distances mean close proximity. From 1 to 4 my matches have distances less than 10, and these matches seems logical to me, and from 5 to 17, my matches have distances less than 13. Except for matches with Dalmatian Illyrians (2x), Scythians from Moldova (2x) and Thracians from Bulgaria (1x), which seems to me very strange, - all these last three inferiors to distance of 13 and superiors to distance of 10, the other matches, even the superior ones to the distance of 13, seems logical to me. I believe that, in fact, matches with great distances have a great bias of inaccuracy, but can count as a reference to be considered, in the absence of closer samples. In this respect, those with northern parentage benefit from a higher number of samples that also have a better level of quality due to the preservation of DNA because of the colder climate. It is visible that all those with North-European ancestry have distances that are less than 13 until the proximity of the sample of number 60.
Thanks and a big hug :)
 
So Duarte do you think that with a Big Y 700 file would obtain better results for example for these old samples and in general?

By the way I have a new one
93. Viking Saxon Iceland (1150 AD) (24.71) - TSK-A26
 
PQCd64Rh.jpg
Longobards?!!
 

Attachments

  • PQCd64Rl.jpg
    PQCd64Rl.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 48
So Duarte do you think that with a Big Y 700 file would obtain better results for example for these old samples and in general?

By the way I have a new one
93. Viking Saxon Iceland (1150 AD) (24.71) - TSK-A26
Hello Carlos. I understand that the complete knowledge of the Y-DNA tree is an excellent auxiliary tool for anyone who has already done auDNA. It is very interesting to know your deep Y-DNA and in what regions it is more frequent. The price is salty, but if you're willing to pay, I think it's worth it. Hugs:)


https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna#/compare

Kn0w22m.jpg
 
115hI1Wh.jpg

I thought this was quite interesting for my father-in-law.
 
So Duarte do you think that with a Big Y 700 file would obtain better results for example for these old samples and in general?

By the way I have a new one
93. Viking Saxon Iceland (1150 AD) (24.71) - TSK-A26
Carlos, BigY700 tests just your Y chromosome.
 
Well, not to be a naysayer, Duarte, but my top matches are to two Szolad "Central Romans" : 3.4 and 4.6. That's closer than I get on calculators to any modern Italian populations. All of my top ten matches are under 10, and the next ten are between 11 and 13. I don't pay much attention to the rest. It shows broad similar ancient ancestry in my opinion, but not much more than that.

I think for me, the SZ40 sample would be the most salient in regards

Nevertheless, it is only at (8.423)

However, I score a better fit when it is combined with a "Central Roman":

Hellenic Roman + Roman (5.803)

I think if they used Ancient samples from a region closer to mine, I would get better fit.
 
Last edited:
Carlos, BigY700 tests just your Y chromosome.

Yes I know, that's where I come from, but I think it will be even more complete and with more markers than the 67 test.
 
I think for me, the SZ40 sample would be the most salient in regards to my

Nevertheless, it is only at (8.423)

However, I score a better fit when it is combined with a "Central Roman":

Hellenic Roman + Roman (5.803)

I think if they used Ancient samples from a region closer to mine, I would get better fit.

Come to think of it, "Hellenic Roman + Roman", is a better fit than what I get with Italian populations on Gedmatch.

#Population (source)Distance
1C_Italian (Dodecad)6.78
2S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad)6.85
3Sicilian (Dodecad)7.04
4Greek (Dodecad)7.18
5O_Italian (Dodecad)8.24
 
Last edited:
Yes I know, that's where I come from, but I think it will be even more complete and with more markers than the 67 test.
I see. Notice that IBD sharing and matching, in MTA, use Autosomal + X, so BigY700 would not make any difference here.
Companies don't use Y for it, generally, because it doesn't recombine. Y matches are in separated tools.
I mean, there is crossing over between Y and X, but it's limited to the pseudoautosomal regions PAR1 and PAR2, with abt. 30 genes so far. So, for example, a female can inherit, yes, an allele from the Y of her father, but just from those specific little regions.

Anyway, BigY700 is a nice test, of course. It's great to help in the Y phylogenetic tree building. No comparison with a Y67. The only "problem" is the price, je je je.

So Duarte do you think that with a Big Y 700 file would obtain better results for example for these old samples and in general?
 

This thread has been viewed 1250033 times.

Back
Top