Mytrueancestry.com

My overall genetic distance from ancient samples remains the same: Maybe I should refresh my recollection about the Illyrians. :)
Roman (3.568)
Roman + Illyrian (4.064)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (4.779)
Gallo-Roman (9.491)
Illyrian (10.35)

My new ten and unders: no change to my very top numbers, but the samples from Tuscany, and there are a lot of them, push down a lot of the rest. Interesting that I get what seems to be an Italo-Iberian convert to Islam, i.e. found in a Morisco context. So, all those speculations that some of the local population would have converted and remained faithful to their new religion were true.

Does anyone know if there are more to come?

1. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 3.614 - SZ43 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


2. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 4.508 - CL36 - ? (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


3. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 5.964 - R60 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


4. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) ..... 6.241 - R1 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


5. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 6.771 - SZ36 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


6. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 8.391 - R107 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


7. Tivoli Palace Late Renaissance (1650 AD) ..... 8.474 - R970 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


8. Roman Empire Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 8.697 - R1540 (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


9. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 9.528 - BSS31 (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


10. Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 9.549 - R1290 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


11. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 9.561 - R835 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


12. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.698 - SZ28 - ? (Click for more info)
Top
98
% match vs all users


13. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 9.734 - CL121 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


14. Scythian Southern Moldova (270 BC) ..... 10.06 - scy192 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


15. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 10.07 - NS3c - ? (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


16. Byzantine Roman Warrior (605 AD) ..... 10.15 - NS3b - ? (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


17. Illyrian / Dalmatian (1200 BC) ..... 10.28 - I3313 - (Click for more info)
Top
97
% match vs all users


18. Iberian Taifa of Valencia (1100 AD) ..... 10.29 - I2515 (Click for more info)
Top
97
% match vs all users


19. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 10.44 - R57 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


20. Spaniard Cordoba Caliphate (1050 AD) ..... 10.53 - I12515 - (Click for more info)
Top
97
% match vs all users


21. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1110 AD) ..... 10.6 - R64 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


22. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 10.68 - R59 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


23. Central Roman San Ercolano (100 AD) ..... 10.69 - R117 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users


24. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 10.83 - SZ32 - ? (Click for more info)
Top
98
% match vs all users


25. Morisco Italo-Iberian Andalusia (1550 AD) ..... 10.85 - I7424 - (Click for more info)
Top
99
% match vs all users

I m sorry Angela but you can't possibly have a 3.614 distance from an ancient Central Roman unless he was the founder of your village and all of you in the village have been marrying your first cousins. Just sayin...:LOL:
 
Imputation:

I downloaded from DNA.land my “Imputed VCF file (~39M SNPs)“, reformatted with “DNA Kit Studio”, the Results ??? :

(I think I know how they turned Elizabeth Warren into a Native American) :grin:

vzMZohf.jpg


ihq0hJv.jpg


MY0sfYo.jpg


aRAg21E.jpg


9pEZKaI.jpg


Large distances, and Obviously some of the results are unrealistic, I Think :)


... from my Normal raw-data results:
kIVJIcr.jpg

Good morning dear friend Salento. I always found the DNA.land results very weird. They seem to have deleted all the old raw data that was uploaded by users and are demanding a new registration and a new data upload. If their database was already small then it is now minimal. But I thought cool these matches with Native Americans and I was envy. Good envy, as they say here in Brazil. Cheers :)
 
I got more Roman matches after the latest update

[video]https://mytrueancestry.com/maps/qkhwlcr8mj_s_pca.mp4[/video]

1. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.14 -
Top
98
% match vs all users


2. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 11.11 -
Top
97
% match vs all users


3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 11.71 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


4. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 12.26 -
Top
97
% match vs all users


5. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 12.67 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


6. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 12.89 -
Top
95
% match vs all users


7. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) ..... 13.25 - ?
Top
94
% match vs all users


8. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 13.35 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


9. Hellenic Roman Marcellino (400 AD) ..... 13.36 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


10. Hellenic Seleucid Anatolia (165 BC) ..... 13.67 - ?
Top
99
% match vs all users


11. Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 13.77 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


12. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 13.96 - ?
Top
95
% match vs all users


13. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 14.01 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


14. Byzantine Roman Warrior (605 AD) ..... 14.35 - ?
Top
96
% match vs all users


15. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) ..... 14.63 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


16. Pontic Greek (300 AD) ..... 14.74 -
Top
99
% match vs all users


17. Central Roman San Ercolano (100 AD) ..... 14.86 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


18. Hellenic Roman / Dodecanese (670 AD) ..... 15.03 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


19. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 15.15 - ?
Top
92
% match vs all users


20. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 15.52
Top
94
% match vs all users

 
I m sorry Angela but you can't possibly have a 3.614 distance from an ancient Central Roman unless he was the founder of your village and all of you in the village have been marrying your first cousins. Just sayin...:LOL:

Well, I'm not walking around in a toga and "actually" demanding to be addressed as "Domina", you know, so nothing to be sorry about...

As to the 'all of you living in one village and marrying only cousins' thing, it's only true for my father's family. :)

All branches of his family can be traced back from the 1920s and 1930s to the Council of Trent of 1545 (after which all births, deaths, and marriages had to be recorded in the local parish church) to a group of a couple of extremely isolated villages high in the Northern Apennines of Italy. So, maybe not first cousins, but I would think definitely cousins, although parish priests did probably go back at least 100 years into the records and enforce the rules against marrying within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. Still, you could sometimes get dispensations.

That's why Cavalli-Sforza used these villagers for his seminal work on consanguinity and drift in the Italian peninsula. (Btw, he wondered why the IQ hadn't been depressed, which does happen in a lot of cases like this, along with decreased fertility. He should have asked more questions. Since the land was limited, and it was so difficult to leave for numerous reasons, only the fittest of the children were allowed to take over the land and get married, and the rest were more or less unpaid workers living on the property, and celibate unpaid workers for the most part. This was true in a lot of rural isolated communities of Europe. Marriage rates or even reproduction rates in rural areas were rather low until the 19th century, when conditions began to improve, nowhere near as high as they were in urban areas. Social controls deteriorated in the cities. Of course, the childhood death rates in urban areas were often high as well.)

Anyway, to get back to genetic testing...

Genetic distance calculations for ancient samples versus modern samples is a standard part of population genetics, and you can find the results in any of the academic papers we discuss.

Numerous people with their noses out of joint, perhaps because they didn't think of it themselves, have come on here to complain that all that mta is doing is running those programs using Eurogenes G25 coordinates. Ergo, individuals could do it for themselves and therefore we're stupid to pay mta to do it.

Now, the fact that they're Eurogenes' coordinates makes me a little skeptical, but the results should be roughly accurate. So, yes, I do think that the total genetic similarity numbers are pretty accurate for me.

The "Deep Dive" is more problematic. Those cm numbers seem extremely high. Also, it is VERY difficult to distinguish IBD segments from IBS segments. On the other hand, an academic paper found extraordinarily high IBD sharing between an ancient sample and an indigenous man still living in the same area. I'm therefore reserving judgment.

So, yes, it may be annoying, but....
 
I got more Roman matches after the latest update

[video]https://mytrueancestry.com/maps/qkhwlcr8mj_s_pca.mp4[/video]

1. Imperial Rome Empire Via Paisiello (100 AD) ..... 10.14 -
Top
98
% match vs all users


2. Tuscan Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 11.11 -
Top
97
% match vs all users


3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 11.71 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


4. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 12.26 -
Top
97
% match vs all users


5. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 12.67 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


6. Hellenic Roman Monterotondo (165 AD) ..... 12.89 -
Top
95
% match vs all users


7. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) ..... 13.25 - ?
Top
94
% match vs all users


8. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 13.35 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


9. Hellenic Roman Marcellino (400 AD) ..... 13.36 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


10. Hellenic Seleucid Anatolia (165 BC) ..... 13.67 - ?
Top
99
% match vs all users


11. Tuscan Medieval Cancelleria Basilica (1350 AD) ..... 13.77 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


12. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 13.96 - ?
Top
95
% match vs all users


13. Imperial Rome Centocelle (200 AD) ..... 14.01 -
Top
96
% match vs all users


14. Byzantine Roman Warrior (605 AD) ..... 14.35 - ?
Top
96
% match vs all users


15. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (1100 AD) ..... 14.63 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


16. Pontic Greek (300 AD) ..... 14.74 -
Top
99
% match vs all users


17. Central Roman San Ercolano (100 AD) ..... 14.86 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


18. Hellenic Roman / Dodecanese (670 AD) ..... 15.03 -
Top
94
% match vs all users


19. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 15.15 - ?
Top
92
% match vs all users


20. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 15.52
Top
94
% match vs all users


Are your prior matches included on here?

I'd like to compare our scores more precisely. Do you have the sample numbers for these matches?

Also, did you post all of your 60 matches?
 
Good morning dear friend Salento. I always found the DNA.land results very weird. They seem to have deleted all the old raw data that was uploaded by users and are demanding a new registration and a new data upload. If their database was already small then it is now minimal. But I thought cool these matches with Native Americans and I was envy. Good envy, as they say here in Brazil. Cheers :)

I see Imputation as a “Fill in the Blank Guessing Game”,

It would also explain the high Deep Dive and Q-Matching cM (especially if they use modern statistics to fill in the blanks. Imputation is an educated guess.

Being Ancient DNA deteriorated or incomplete, who knows how many times they use Imputation.

I'm a bit skeptical of the accuracy of most of of the 1000+ years old samples Autosomal Results.

My DNA is “fresh” :) and Imputation added Native American, and other inaccurate ethnicities.

None of my normal results show similarities with Sitting Bull :cool-v:

You have to give me an Indian name now, I’m obviously partially Lakota or Sioux :grin:

9pEZKaI.jpg


DNA.land is under New Management.
 
I see Imputation as a “Fill in the Blank Guessing Game”,

It would also explain the high Deep Dive and Q-Matching cM (especially if they use modern statistics to fill in the blanks. Imputation is an educated guess.

Being Ancient DNA deteriorated or incomplete, who knows how many times they use Imputation.

I'm a bit skeptical of the accuracy of most of of the 1000+ years old samples Autosomal Results.

My DNA is “fresh” :) and Imputation added Native American, and other inaccurate ethnicities.

None of my normal results show similarities with Sitting Bull :cool-v:

You have to give me an Indian name now, I’m obviously partially Lakota or Sioux :grin:

9pEZKaI.jpg


DNA.land is under New Management.

LOL I don't know the native languages ​​of North America, but it seems that the Sioux adopted the name of a native animal and a personal trait, such as Sitting Bull, for example. Romulus and Remus are, according to Roman mythology, two twin brothers adopted by a female wolf, one of whom, Romulus, was the founder of the city of Rome. You could adopt the name Son of the Wolves, parodying the movie “Dances with Wolves”, starring by Kevin Costner. :grin:(y)
 
f8Qxhxr.mp4

ahm9VYu.png

z2crxqU.jpg

Mytrueancestry top ten ancient samples is basically these two studies. Despite the fact that my first sample changed to 1548, my closest samples modeled two ways is still "Hellenic Roman" (SZ40)+"Roman" (CL121.)

8rQadHd.png

SUhtD8A.mp4

bO85lOU.png
 
LOL I don't know the native languages ​​of North America, but it seems that the Sioux adopted the name of a native animal and a personal trait, such as Sitting Bull, for example. Romulus and Remus are, according to Roman mythology, two twin brothers adopted by a female wolf, one of whom, Romulus, was the founder of the city of Rome. You could adopt the name Son of the Wolves, parodying the movie “Dances with Wolves”, starring by Kevin Costner. :grin:(y)

Very good Duarte.

The Ancient Name of my Town is LUPIAE (wolf)

Son of the Wolves it is, not to be confused with son of a b...h lol

Forza Lecce:

EWqZCWE.jpg
 
f8Qxhxr.mp4

ahm9VYu.png

z2crxqU.jpg

Mytrueancestry top ten ancient samples is basically these two studies. Despite the fact that my first sample changed to 1548, my closest samples modeled two ways is still "Hellenic Roman" (SZ40)+"Roman" (CL121.)

8rQadHd.png

SUhtD8A.mp4

bO85lOU.png

Same with me, samples come and go, but the “Your closest Ancient populations...” stays constant.
 
My distance of affinity to 850, and 437 is comparable to my affinity to the Myceneans. From what I've seen from other users, for these samples, this is relatively close:

34. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 14.52 - I9041 -
Top 98% match vs all users

35. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 14.54 - I9033 -
Top 98% match vs all users

43. Mycenaean (1350 BC) ..... 15.26 - I9006 -
Top 98% match vs all users

45. Latin Prenestini Tribe Inland PS (300 BC) ..... 15.26 - R437 -
Top 98% match vs all users

49. Latin Tribe Ardea (650 BC) ..... 15.82 - R850 -
Top 96% match vs all users
 
Well, I'm not walking around in a toga and "actually" demanding to be addressed as "Domina", you know, so nothing to be sorry about...

As to the 'all of you living in one village and marrying only cousins' thing, it's only true for my father's family. :)

All branches of his family can be traced back from the 1920s and 1930s to the Council of Trent of 1545 (after which all births, deaths, and marriages had to be recorded in the local parish church) to a group of a couple of extremely isolated villages high in the Northern Apennines of Italy. So, maybe not first cousins, but I would think definitely cousins, although parish priests did probably go back at least 100 years into the records and enforce the rules against marrying within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. Still, you could sometimes get dispensations.

That's why Cavalli-Sforza used these villagers for his seminal work on consanguinity and drift in the Italian peninsula. (Btw, he wondered why the IQ hadn't been depressed, which does happen in a lot of cases like this, along with decreased fertility. He should have asked more questions. Since the land was limited, and it was so difficult to leave for numerous reasons, only the fittest of the children were allowed to take over the land and get married, and the rest were more or less unpaid workers living on the property, and celibate unpaid workers for the most part. This was true in a lot of rural isolated communities of Europe. Marriage rates or even reproduction rates in rural areas were rather low until the 19th century, when conditions began to improve, nowhere near as high as they were in urban areas. Social controls deteriorated in the cities. Of course, the childhood death rates in urban areas were often high as well.)

Anyway, to get back to genetic testing...

Genetic distance calculations for ancient samples versus modern samples is a standard part of population genetics, and you can find the results in any of the academic papers we discuss.

Numerous people with their noses out of joint, perhaps because they didn't think of it themselves, have come on here to complain that all that mta is doing is running those programs using Eurogenes G25 coordinates. Ergo, individuals could do it for themselves and therefore we're stupid to pay mta to do it.

Now, the fact that they're Eurogenes' coordinates makes me a little skeptical, but the results should be roughly accurate. So, yes, I do think that the total genetic similarity numbers are pretty accurate for me.

The "Deep Dive" is more problematic. Those cm numbers seem extremely high. Also, it is VERY difficult to distinguish IBD segments from IBS segments. On the other hand, an academic paper found extraordinarily high IBD sharing between an ancient sample and an indigenous man still living in the same area. I'm therefore reserving judgment.

So, yes, it may be annoying, but....

Oh, I forgot to mention something.

That 3.4 match ancient sample was compared to modern 1000 genomes populations (which includes Tuscans but not northern Italian samples) in the academic paper, and the closest description they could come up with was "Tuscan like". There was a paper that discussed Iron Age populations in the Balkans and found some to be "Tuscan like". My second highest match, 4.5, from the same paper, when placed by the authors on a modern PCA, is between North Italians and Tuscans.

Every modern genetics test I've ever taken shows me to be between the North Italian Bergamo samples and the Tuscan samples.

By no means am I implying direct descent or anything. What this program using Eurogenes G25 ,and, therefore, mta seem to be showing, however, is that there were people pretty close to me in general autosomal make up living about 1500 years plus ago, and even earlier, into the Iron Age, and the academic papers agree.

The one that is extraordinary to me is my match, the Proto-Villanovian one, from 930 BC. I'm at 6.2, Stuvane from Emilia Romagna is at 6.0. I'm sure there will be Italians who are even closer. That group of people might have given birth to the Eastern Italic tribes.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention something.

That 3.4 match ancient sample was compared to modern 1000 genomes populations (which includes Tuscans but not northern Italian samples) in the academic paper, and the closest description they could come up with was "Tuscan like". There was a paper that discussed Iron Age populations in the Balkans and found some to be "Tuscan like". My second highest match, 4.5, from the same paper, when placed by the authors on a modern PCA, is between North Italians and Tuscans.

Every modern genetics test I've ever taken shows me to be between the North Italian Bergamo samples and the Tuscan samples.

By no means am I implying direct descent or anything. What this program using Eurogenes G25 ,and, therefore, mta seem to be showing, however, is that there were people pretty close to me in general autosomal make up living about 1500 years plus ago, and even earlier, into the Iron Age, and the academic papers agree.

The one that is extraordinary to me is my match, the Proto-Villanovian one, from 930 BC. I'm at 6.2, Stuvane from Emilia Romagna is at 6.0. I'm sure there will be Italians who are even closer. That group of people might have given birth to the Eastern Italic tribes.
Is it based on G25 or K15?

Well, it's just one more tool for clues anyway, not a "given truth". :)
We discussed these "convergences" before. It's not that we're living fossils of ancient people (I'm myself very close to an ancient sample according to MTA), but this convergence, even if in part accidental, may point to some relevant (shared) ancestry. It'd work roughly like an Oracle, as far as I can see. Still, if they really use K15, I wonder why they haven't chosen K36, with so many more clusters. The similarity tool based on K36 looks good, perhaps the only exception being more drifted pops such Sardinians (West Med) and Basques. Clusters and pop references too close here.

As for 1000 Genomes and Tuscany, the samples would came all from FI?
https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/how-representative-are-1000-genomes-samples/
(...)
"The Tuscan sample from Italy was collected in a single small town, hence is biased towards rural people of a specific town. Similarly, the British sample is rural, although scattered around a wider area."
(...)
"TSI (Toscani in Italia): These cell lines and DNA samples were prepared from blood samples collected in a small town near Florence in the Tuscany region of Italy. All of the samples are from unrelated individuals who identified themselves as having at least three out of four Tuscan grandparents."

Notice also that only three Tuscan grandparents were mandatory, not four. This info may be confirmed in the following link, related to one of the samples:
https://www.coriell.org/0/Sections/Search/Sample_Detail.aspx?Ref=NA20536&PgId=166
"Remarks: 'At least three out of four grandparents were born in Tuscany'"

Don't know if any of them had an "outsider" grandparent. Still...
 
Is it based on G25 or K15?

Well, it's just one more tool for clues anyway, not a "given truth". :)
We discussed these "convergences" before. It's not that we're living fossils of ancient people (I'm myself very close to an ancient sample according to MTA), but this convergence, even if in part accidental, may point to some relevant (shared) ancestry. It'd work roughly like an Oracle, as far as I can see. Still, if they really use K15, I wonder why they haven't chosen K36, with so many more clusters. The similarity tool based on K36 looks good, perhaps the only exception being more drifted pops such Sardinians (West Med) and Basques. Clusters and pop references too close here.

As for 1000 Genomes and Tuscany, the samples would came all from FI?
https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/how-representative-are-1000-genomes-samples/
(...)
"The Tuscan sample from Italy was collected in a single small town, hence is biased towards rural people of a specific town. Similarly, the British sample is rural, although scattered around a wider area."
(...)
"TSI (Toscani in Italia): These cell lines and DNA samples were prepared from blood samples collected in a small town near Florence in the Tuscany region of Italy. All of the samples are from unrelated individuals who identified themselves as having at least three out of four Tuscan grandparents."

Notice also that only three Tuscan grandparents were mandatory, not four. This info may be confirmed in the following link, related to one of the samples:
https://www.coriell.org/0/Sections/Search/Sample_Detail.aspx?Ref=NA20536&PgId=166
"Remarks: 'At least three out of four grandparents were born in Tuscany'"

Don't know if any of them had an "outsider" grandparent. Still...

Yes, that's why I posted the following in the post to which you're responding:

By no means am I implying direct descent or anything. What this program using Eurogenes G25 ,and, therefore, mta seem to be showing, however, is that there were people pretty close to me in general autosomal make up living about 1500 years plus ago, and even earlier, into the Iron Age, and the academic papers agree.

I doubt that unusual standard for the TSI samples changed much: on every calculator test I run I'm between Bergamo and Tuscans. In the early Dienekes runs where he included all the Tuscan samples, they all appear in a row, and with extremely similar fits.

Plus, we can see where at least the SZ and CL samples plot on a PCA by looking at the Langobard paper. Jovialis helpfully posted it upthread. My two very close ones are SZ43 and CL36.

What ancient sample was very close to you in genetic distance? I don't have a copy of your results in my files, and this thread is REALLY long. :)
 
Is it based on G25 or K15?

Well, it's just one more tool for clues anyway, not a "given truth". :)
We discussed these "convergences" before. It's not that we're living fossils of ancient people (I'm myself very close to an ancient sample according to MTA), but this convergence, even if in part accidental, may point to some relevant (shared) ancestry. It'd work roughly like an Oracle, as far as I can see. Still, if they really use K15, I wonder why they haven't chosen K36, with so many more clusters. The similarity tool based on K36 looks good, perhaps the only exception being more drifted pops such Sardinians (West Med) and Basques. Clusters and pop references too close here.

As for 1000 Genomes and Tuscany, the samples would came all from FI?
https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/how-representative-are-1000-genomes-samples/
(...)
"The Tuscan sample from Italy was collected in a single small town, hence is biased towards rural people of a specific town. Similarly, the British sample is rural, although scattered around a wider area."
(...)
"TSI (Toscani in Italia): These cell lines and DNA samples were prepared from blood samples collected in a small town near Florence in the Tuscany region of Italy. All of the samples are from unrelated individuals who identified themselves as having at least three out of four Tuscan grandparents."

Notice also that only three Tuscan grandparents were mandatory, not four. This info may be confirmed in the following link, related to one of the samples:
https://www.coriell.org/0/Sections/Search/Sample_Detail.aspx?Ref=NA20536&PgId=166
"Remarks: 'At least three out of four grandparents were born in Tuscany'"

Don't know if any of them had an "outsider" grandparent. Still...

MTA is based on K15.

"Tuscan sample from Italy was collected in a single small town, hence is biased towards rural people of a specific town"

It depends on which small town, the province of Florence is very large. Many small towns nearby Florence are nothing more than suburbs of Florence, with many migrants coming from outside the region.

If they have declared that it is based on at least 3 grandparents out of 4 born in Tuscany it means it is true. Of course not all of them are mixed, many results seem perfectly in line with the Tuscans, but there are some outliers in fact which goes much further southeast.

It is now frequently seen, and I do not speak of TSI specifically, many academic samples are not completely accurate.


I doubt that unusual standard for the TSI samples changed much: on every calculator test I run I'm between Bergamo and Tuscans. In the early Dienekes runs where he included all the Tuscan samples, they all appear in a row, and with extremely similar fits.


TSI is a huge sample over 100. So it is possible that when average is calculated outliers are diluted by those who are not. TSI on Gedmatch is only in Diekenes's Dodecad, and Dodecad uses Metsapalu's TSI30. About thirty TSI individuals used by Metsapalu for his studies, and maybe he removed those that seemed outliers to him.
 
Yes, that's why I posted the following in the post to which you're responding:
By no means am I implying direct descent or anything. What this program using Eurogenes G25 ,and, therefore, mta seem to be showing, however, is that there were people pretty close to me in general autosomal make up living about 1500 years plus ago, and even earlier, into the Iron Age, and the academic papers agree.
I doubt that unusual standard for the TSI samples changed much: on every calculator test I run I'm between Bergamo and Tuscans. In the early Dienekes runs where he included all the Tuscan samples, they all appear in a row, and with extremely similar fits.
I believe it explains it. Thanks.
Also, Florence must be a good "average" for Tuscany.

Plus, we can see where at least the SZ and CL samples plot on a PCA by looking at the Langobard paper. Jovialis helpfully posted it upthread. My two very close ones are SZ43 and CL36.
What ancient sample was very close to you in genetic distance? I don't have a copy of your results in my files, and this thread is REALLY long. :)
No problem. It's below (there are more results in page 3). This Illyrian is so close that the first place won't change soon, I guess. I'd have to re-check my parents' now, with all these new samples. :)




Your closest Archaeogenetic matches...
1. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1200 BC) (3.516)
2. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (5.833)
3. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (6.048)
4. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) (7.505)
5. Iberian / Piedmont (670 AD) (8.346)
6. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (9.844)
7. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (9.868)
8. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (11.12)
9. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (11.49)
10. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) (11.49)
11. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (11.74)
12. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (12.02)
13. Central Roman (590 AD) (13.6)
14. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (13.64)
15. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (13.73)
16. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (14.27)
17. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (14.98)
18. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (15.28)
19. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (15.74)
20. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (16.75)
Your closest genetic modern populations...
1. North_Italian (7.993)
2. Spanish_Cataluna (9.178)
3. Spanish_Extremadura (9.460)
4. Spanish_Murcia (9.659)
5. [Hidden] - upgrade your account
6. [Hidden] - upgrade your account
7. [Hidden] - upgrade your account
8. [Hidden] - upgrade your account
 
I believe it explains it. Thanks.
Also, Florence must be a good "average" for Tuscany.

No problem. It's below (there are more results in page 3). This Illyrian is so close that the first place won't change soon, I guess. I'd have to re-check my parents' now, with all these new samples. :)

Yes, I get Illyrians at pretty high levels too, although not as high as you, and Thracians and Scythians. I did NOT expect that. :)
 
MTA is based on K15.

"Tuscan sample from Italy was collected in a single small town, hence is biased towards rural people of a specific town"

It depends on which small town, the province of Florence is very large. Many small towns nearby Florence are nothing more than suburbs of Florence, with many migrants coming from outside the region.

If they have declared that it is based on at least 3 grandparents out of 4 born in Tuscany it means it is true. Of course not all of them are mixed, many results seem perfectly in line with the Tuscans, but there are some outliers in fact which goes much further southeast.

It is now frequently seen, and I do not speak of TSI specifically, many academic samples are not completely accurate.
Thanks for the infos.

It's said the source is a small town "near" Florence. But in theory a single one non-Tuscan grandparent would be allowed. Don't know if it explains the outliers.
 
I believe it explains it. Thanks.
Also, Florence must be a good "average" for Tuscany.

Florence is too eastern. We know that in Italy there are two clines, one north-south, and the other more difficult to understand, and even less investigated so far, west-east. My opinion is that a good average would be something further west than Florence, but obviously no further north. Of course we're talking about small differences. Also considering that the vast majority of Tuscans live in the northern part of the region. Which is also the part that has attracted many more recent migrations, but this would be irrelevant with fully accurate academic samples.

xuh9LiY.png



Thanks for the infos.

It's said the source is a small town "near" Florence. But in theory a single one non-Tuscan grandparent would be allowed. Don't know if it explains the outliers.

We'll never know, since sampling is covered by privacy. But we know that in the last 80 years the great majority of migratory flows are from south to north, in Italy.
 
I don't know about some of this.

I used to share with two people from Massa. They were more "southern" than TSI, and it had nothing to do with admixture. I do think that the Roman Era had some impact on many of the Tuscan and Northern Italian genomes as well, in the particular case of that part of Italy it being the establishment of Luni and then the dispersal of those people with the dislocations caused by the fall of Rome.

I do agree that western Tuscans have more ties, perhaps, to the western Med than to the Adriatic side.

All of these speculations would need a detailed genetic analysis of samples from all over Toscana, I think.
 

This thread has been viewed 1249778 times.

Back
Top