| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Achievements:
Awards:
The only samples where I get such high IBD are...
Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC
R1
mtDNA: U5a2b
Total cM=63.76
Largest segment=48.54 cM (2 shared. Sample quality: 94) - (Sample is too new for user comparison)
Chr. 8
15.22 cM
Chr. 16
48.54 cM
My second highest is...
Scythian Moldova
290 BC
scy311
mtDNA: T2b
Total cM=25.04
Largest segment=12.0 cM (6 shared. Sample quality: 23) - Your raw DNA is99% closer than other matching users
Chr. 3
2.57 cM
Chr. 5
6.38 cM
Chr. 6
1.95 cM
Chr. 16
12.0 cM
Chr. 17
2.13 cM
I have to say, though, that I'm a little leery of getting such high, familial like levels of IBD with such ancient samples.
Overall genetic distance is different. I think it's quite possible to be fairly close to a sample even 3000 years old in some countries.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci
Achievements:
My highest matches. Even one 100% compared to other users. Now when I publish I can see even better how they share segments on the same chromosomes.
Achievements:
Awards:
You may have missed it. I said I'm leery of these IBD numbers, although they're clearly related to genetic similarity.Originally Posted by roalex
I have more confidence in the distance estimates. Now, the numbers may not be exact, but they make absolute sense given my ancestry and everyone else's whose results I've seen, whether from northwestern, eastern, or southern Europe.
Achievements:
On the ground basis. On the basis that although there is currently a super population, we logically descend from tribes, ethnic groups with fewer members. And on the basis of art since a relative of mine who I am sure did not know what Cogotas carved bulls with the same stop and style as the ancients. I made elementary rams myself for a portal in Bethlehem with 9 years with the same stop as the old ones, the teacher asked me if I had made them.
And for more inri we have a toponymic surname of the area where Cogotas was. And those bulls and cockles were not imported.
I sincerely believe it. I will not go into the minute because it is not my thing, but if I saw something strange or incredible I would have enough intuition to detect it, and all this I believe, there is truth in all of it
And the final question if this is denied, where would it descend from? Of the Australians, Eskimos? Is it more incoherent and hard to believe stepping on the ground than floor that descends from Cógotas, isn't it?
I hope you have a good evening
Very kind, he greets you carefully this is:
Carlos
Achievements:
Awards:
All my direct matches on MTA:
My highest matches. Even one 100% compared to other users. Now when I publish I can see even better how they share segments on the same chromosomes.
All my direct matches on MTA:
“Às vezes ouço passar o vento; e só de ouvir o vento passar, vale a pena ter nascido”.
Fernando Pessoa
Y-DNA haplogroup: R1b > M269 > L23 > L51 > P310 > L151 > P312 > DF27 > ZZ12 > ZZ19 > Z31644 > BY2285 > BY25634 > FGC35133
Achievements:
^^^^
Duarte
We agree in more than 95% I would say. But my list is not complete I had based on the highest percentages that have coincided with Etruscans and Iberians. I will have a job now with so many kits to rejoin all segments and not lose any. BUF.
Achievements:
It is more before the end of the year I will get a new sample with an approximation of approximately four and you will stay with your mouth open.
Achievements:
It depends on studies. I'm a bit tired by all these variations in admixtures labellings occurred since the beginnings.
We have mixes of true populations with "pure" preceding componants themselves formed on older populations mixes, when they are not less drifted ones.
And every scientists team or every paper has its proper references to distinguish "basic"components.
But as a whole I think the older* the references pops, the better the sketch concerning allover auDNA distances, but it says little about historical pops moves of already mixed people, without other tools. *: but with pops of roughly the same time -
Achievements:
Awards:
I understand that the downvote was getting abused, but ... it kept members like you and me more considerate and conscious of the impact that our Posts could have on others.
I share DNA Segments with these samples from the Moots Ancient-Roman Paper:
from the top, 3 samples only:
got many more: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post590486
fyi Since my Grandma’s name was Eva, my cM are absolutely real
Achievements:
Awards:
In regards to the introduction of Steppe-like ancestry in Ancient Rome:
The paper says that due to the lack of data from between the copper age and Iron age, they are unable to determine when it arrived. Though they suggest it may have arrived through genetic exchange, via intermediary groups, and was supplemented by later migrations. By the Iron-Age, it could be modeled in qpAdm as a 30%-40% genetic-shift. I should also add, that a jump in Iran Neo (separate from the ancestry brought by Steppe Eneolithic), was also accounted for in this period. Furthermore, the Iron age is when the genetic approximation of modern Mediterranean populations had taken place.
I think this is especially interesting considering the non-Indo-European speaking Etruscans possibly brought steppe-ancestry with them too. Perhaps they were one of these intermediary or supplemental groups for steppe ancestry.
Achievements:
Awards:
The Reich Lab didn't do a very good job on Sardinian genetics in their Fernandes et al paper, imo. They just assumed that the ancestry they saw in Late Antiquity had a big effect on Sardinian genetics.
The paper by Marcus et al imo did a better job.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/583104v1
We discussed it here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...al%3A+Sardinia
"First off, it's a much better organized and written paper than the one from the Reich Lab by Fernandes. Second, it pays much better attention to the details of the substructure in Sardinia.
It's true that they don't have an Iron Age sample or four Late Antiquity samples, like the Reich Lab has, but I think the Reich Lab may be inferring too much from those samples in terms of the effect on modern Sardinian populations. I'm thinking particularly of the fact that this paper finds more "Levantine" in the southwest where we find evidence of Phoenician settlement, and more "northern" ancestry including Tuscan ancestry, in Olbia in the northeast and the large city of Sassari, while there is the least change in Ogliastra."
This is the Fernandes/Reich paper:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1
This is the discussion thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...an+genetics%3F
I sure hope the Reich Lab doesn't get it wrong again, which they might, since Fernandes got it wrong.
Achievements:
I understand that the downvote was getting abused, but ... it kept members like you and me more considerate and conscious of the impact that our Posts could have on others.
I share DNA Segments with these samples from the Moots Ancient-Roman Paper:
from the top, 3 samples only:
got many more: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post590486
fyi Since my Grandma’s name was Eva, my cM are absolutely real
I guess you have to pay for this.
This is best i can get out of free acc:
1. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 7.945
Top99% match vs all users
3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.299
Top99% match vs all users
5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) ..... 10.31
Top98% match vs all users
7. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 11.78
Top98% match vs all users
9. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 12.57
Top95% match vs all users
11. Visigoth Mixed Slav Girona (550 AD) ..... 13.84
Top89% match vs all users
13. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 14.56
Top94% match vs all users
15. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 15.04
Top96% match vs all users
17. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) ..... 15.27
Top77% match vs all users
19. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) ..... 15.35
Top92% match vs all users
Roman (7.945)
Gaul + Roman (8.253)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (8.802)
Gallo-Roman (12.57)
Gaul (15.27)
Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC
[Upgrade for sample details]
mtDNA: [Upgrade to see]
Total cM=127.08
Largest segment=53.86 cM (6 shared. Sample quality: 94) - (Sample is too new for user comparison)
Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon
mtDNA Haplogroup: V19
Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2a
Genetic Distance: 18.843
Sample Match! 92% closer than others users
Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon
mtDNA Haplogroup: T2
Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2c2
Genetic Distance: 17.005
Sample Match! 97% closer than others users
Ptolemaic Egypt
mtDNA Haplogroup: U6a2
Y-DNA Haplogroup: E1b1b1a1b2-V22
Deep Dive Match! 79% closer than others who share this deep dive sample
Achievements:
Awards:
Did they give you sample numbers?I guess you have to pay for this.
This is best i can get out of free acc:
1. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 7.945
Top99% match vs all users
3. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.299
Top99% match vs all users
5. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) ..... 10.31
Top98% match vs all users
7. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 11.78
Top98% match vs all users
9. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 12.57
Top95% match vs all users
11. Visigoth Mixed Slav Girona (550 AD) ..... 13.84
Top89% match vs all users
13. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 14.56
Top94% match vs all users
15. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 15.04
Top96% match vs all users
17. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) ..... 15.27
Top77% match vs all users
19. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) ..... 15.35
Top92% match vs all users
Roman (7.945)
Gaul + Roman (8.253)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (8.802)
Gallo-Roman (12.57)
Gaul (15.27)
Protovillanovia Martinsicuro
930 BC
[Upgrade for sample details]
mtDNA: [Upgrade to see]
Total cM=127.08
Largest segment=53.86 cM (6 shared. Sample quality: 94) - (Sample is too new for user comparison)
Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon
mtDNA Haplogroup: V19
Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2a
Genetic Distance: 18.843
Sample Match! 92% closer than others users
Crusader Knight Tuscan / Lebanon
mtDNA Haplogroup: T2
Y-DNA Haplogroup: R1b1a2a1a2c2
Genetic Distance: 17.005
Sample Match! 97% closer than others users
Ptolemaic Egypt
mtDNA Haplogroup: U6a2
Y-DNA Haplogroup: E1b1b1a1b2-V22
Deep Dive Match! 79% closer than others who share this deep dive sample
Anyway, here are mine, half Emilian and half Eastern Ligurian/Tuscan so you can compare:
Roman (3.568)
Roman + Illyrian (4.064)
Gallo-Roman + Roman (4.779)
Gallo-Roman (9.491)
Illyrian (10.35)
These are the ones which are ten and under in terms of fit:
1. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 3.568 - SZ43 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
2. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 4.975 - CL36 - ? (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
3. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 6.017 - R60 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
4. Protovillanovia Martinsicuro (930 BC) ..... 6.279 - R1 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
5. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 7.029 - SZ36 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
6. Late Roman Empire Crypta Balbi (500 AD) ..... 8.294 - R107 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
7. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) ..... 9.491 - SZ28 - ? (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
8. Byzantine Roman Warrior (605 AD) ..... 9.723 - NS3b - ? (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
9. Imperial Rome Marche CN (165 AD) ..... 9.778 - R835 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
10. Medieval Italy Abbadia SS Plague (1348 AD) ..... 9.816 - BSS31 (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
11. Scythian Southern Moldova (270 BC) ..... 9.865 - scy192 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
12. Central Roman (670 AD) ..... 10.07 - CL121 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
13. Illyrian / Dalmatian (1200 BC) ..... 10.35 - I3313 - (Click for more info)
Top97% match vs all users
14. North Roman Warrior (590 AD) ..... 10.45 - NS3c - ? (Click for more info)
Top98% match vs all users
15. Iberian Taifa of Valencia (1100 AD) ..... 10.51 - I2515 (Click for more info)
Top97% match vs all users
16. Spaniard Cordoba Caliphate (1050 AD) ..... 10.68 - I12515 - (Click for more info)
Top97% match vs all users
17. Central Roman (590 AD) ..... 10.77 - SZ32 - ? (Click for more info)
Top98% match vs all users
18. Imperial Rome San Ercolano (100 AD) ..... 10.85 - R117 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
19. Medieval Villa Magna Italy (905 AD) ..... 10.87 - R59 - (Click for more info)
Top99% match vs all users
Achievements:
No sample numbers just this info i posted here.
However we match almost the same samples just you have much closer matches. GD 3.5 and 4.9 are really close matches, i match these same samples so Central Romans but GD 7 being my closest.
I think any match closer then GD 10 is somewhat close. Your two Central Roman samples are really close.
I wonder how your Modern PCA Plot looks like, we should essentially not be too far one from another. I match Kosovars at GD 3.5 which is fairy close and normal.
I would like that their Modern PCA Plot map had more nationalities included in picture.
Achievements:
Awards:
There's no Kosovan or Greeks or Bulgarians on mine because they really zero in, so it's hard to tell.
I'm north of Tuscans and south of Bergamo Lombards if that helps.
I plot exactly concordant with geography: between Spaniards and Balkanites/Greeks.
Achievements:
Awards:
Has anyone uploaded the samples from this paper to Gedmatch yet?
Achievements:
Awards:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/pritc...DNA/index.html
Is it me, or does the link not work?
Achievements:
Awards:
The genotype-data download link is NOT working (Object not found!)
Achievements:
Awards:
Maybe the server limits the number of visitors/downloads.
if that’s the case try again later.
Achievements:
contribution to dream (or to nightmare)
Etruscans Italics
It's partially off topic 'spite evocated in this very thread) but I think Etruscans could have been pre-IE Central Europeans (Balkans?). This position could explain possible moves towards West (Italy at Urnfields/IA times, maybe Switzerland/Baviera), along diverse Italics tribes, and towards East (Sth-Balkans, where they could have been in contact to people like Dardani who passed into West Anatolia). The list of the Sea People is confusing because it mixes names of tribes (maritime/coastal for the most) we find TODAY linked to central-western Mediterranean as well as Egea Sea and coastal western Anatolia. Plus the "tribes" cited among the Sea People were in fact only mercenaries bands and not complete ethnies. ATW, it seems « Egyptian » 'shardana' were from W-Syria by origin, near Ugarit, and we can think that Trs, Teresh, Tiruisha, Tyrsenoi were the same one people, not ‘Shardana’ but Etruscans maybe, people situated by Hittits north to Assuwa, close to Troiad. Troyans were Dardani (at least for a big part), supposed to be of Moeso-Dacian origin as today Albanians and based in Sth-Central Balkans (Sth Serbia) but who colonized W-Anatolia. Concerning Shardana as well as Tyrsenoi, it’s possible their settlements in coastal Anatolia-Near-East were only counters, how to be sure ? But my above (timid) hypothesis of an inland presence in Sth Balkans is not completely basurd, at least with the poor knowledge I have.
An amateur’s work made by an Anthrogenica « boarder », made on G-25 autosomes groupings, spite not scientific, is interesting nevertheless, spite very often the differences ar tiny :
1- The Bulgarian IA person a bit closer to modern Greeks and Southern Italians than to North Italians, when the Croatian IA person is a bit more akin to North Italians, and at a lower level, closer to Iberians as a whole, but more to Eastern Iberians.
2- The Proto-Villanovan person seems very close to the Croatian IA one. The distance from East-Balkans and Carpathians, Romania, Bulgaria) seems less than in subsequent stages.
3- The Villanovan person shows greater differences : he(she) is the closest to modern Corsicans and Iberians, mostly to Nth-Nth-East Castile Spanyards and to Valencia Spanyards ; in Italy, it peaks in Toscane Latium, Veneto and Peri-Tyrol regions (+ parts of Switzerland), all that in a spotty way, without too soft gradiants; some links with Southern France appear too. As a whole he/she shares less ties with Southern Italians and Greeks, and is more Iberia oriented. All the way, he/she seems less « Italian » than 1, 2 & 4 !!!
4- the Etruscan or so called person shows in return a more conventional set of affinities with preceding periods, coming back closer to Southern Italians, to Greeks spite an evident preference for Northern and North-Central Italy, the gradiants are smoother ; it remains that some proximity to Spanyards is still here, but more general and level, not so spotty, and again some proximity to France.
5- The Ardea Latini IA person is not too far from the Etruscan, but it gets away a bit from Southern Italians and Greeks, and shows same attraction towards Northern Italians, Southern French people and Iberians, even a bit stronger.
Concerning Sardigna, the distances are always great. The Proto-Villanovan appears the most distant from the dominant regions of Italy, spite it seems very « pan-Italian », Sicily comprised in the sketch. The Ardea Latini IA person is the LESS far from modern Sardinians. This last case could be explained by a beginning of colonization by continental Romans ?
How can we link all this to History ? (if we rely on this amateur ‘s work accuracy for details, what I do in some part and because it’s easier to me than studying detailed data of scientific works)
- It seems he IA Bulgarian is less ‘old-EEF’ than IA Croatian, as he is geographically closer to Anatolia roads and post-neolithic new partial inputs of CHG or ‘iranianlike’ elements. BTW he’s a bit closer th modern Alabnians than to Greeks, what is not in contradiction.
- The allover ressemblance of IA Croatian and Proto-Villanovan is striking ! Both seem ‘PAN-ITALICS’ ! The Villanovan could be the most Etruscan, It doesn’t exclude some contacts with Italian BB’s.
- The Villanovan is the black swan in the game : very more Western, less « common » in general ; curiously, no stronger ties elsewhere, only a bit more with Balts and Bela-Russians, a little bit with Sardinians, and at the opposite, less ties with modern Anatolians (Turcs) and Yougoslavs - some kind of Central Europe pop with some drift by relative isolation rather than by geographical distance, maybe caused by langage barriers ? ! Could he be the true proto-Etruscan, or just an outlier with a curious mix ? The so called Etruscan is rather on the way to IA Ardea Latini : what remains is some similarity with what will be the Northern Italians : weight of Spanyard-like affinities, less affinities to Greece and lesser affinities to Anatolia than preceding times. Maybe the result of Etruscans mixing with Italics and Pre-Italics ?
A striking contrast with Rome Imperial times !
It think the Proto-Villanovan person could be the closer to Italics tribes : if Italics made Rome, and their descendants present in every part of the Republic, he is the best candidate (confirmed by presence even in Sardigna, spite weak). And he proximity to IA Croatian seems a confirmation of the supposed history of Italics, at least the ones who came first into Italy.
The not too strong differences between IA Bulgarian and IA Croatian plaids for Balkans as a shaker of ethnies at those times ; when we know the exogenic matings of IE elites (and surely some females grabbing of commoners), we can imagine some tribes having kept the males lineages habits (Y-haplo’s) when their autosomal makings were arrived almost level, before subsequent times.
The IA pop of Italy (I know I have’nt the allover Italy pop here), Greek colonies kept aside, a bit more « northern » but mostly more « western » (EEF remnants) than today Italy mean. If Etruscans were come from Hungary or Balkans, pushed by IE tribes, thay had already a mix close enough to these North-Balkans/Central Danube IE descendants. If they had kept the « philosophy » of ancient Tell pops of farmers-southeastern bronzers origin, they would have accepted more diverse foreign male lineages (so Y-haplo’s) than did the clannic pops of steppic origin, I think.
Aside but not completley out of topic, it seems Hallstatt is today divided into three groups : 2 options : Italics cut down a Celtic-Illyrian group of exchanges, or Illyrians cut down a Celtic-Italic contact. It seems the last solution would have more supporters. Perhaps the Venetics are the last para-Italics members to join N-E Italy after the rupture caused by supposed Illyrians ?
OR as we know now that true, Illyrians were settled more southwards, what was called the « Illyrians » in Austria was in fact the para-Italics (Venetics) come from North, some of them stayed in S-W Poland to form the Lusacian culture ?.
Just a bunch of bets for people who cannot sleep in the evening. A game, when new facts are not yet come to distroy imagination.
Phillistins : para-Italics ! Sea people also !
Achievements:
Very interesting read.
Do you mind sharing the Anthrogenica data (graphs, maps whatever they may be) that you base the above paragraphs on?
“Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”
― Franz Kafka
Achievements:
I don't want to be offensive, but it's a very amateurish work that confuses and doesn't clarify. It is impossible to see all these indications in Etruscan and Latin samples, using Global 25 or any other amateur tool.
The ones about Sea People are just fantasies.
Even if we admit that the Etruscans were one of the Sea People, their results strongly exclude a provenance from Bronze age Anatolia.
Achievements:
You didn't readd accutely.
My words:
'contribution to dream (or to nightmare) ...
... Just a bunch of bets for people who cannot sleep in the evening. A game, when new facts are not yet come to distroy imagination.'
No pretention to scientific value.
But the Sea People is a reality, an obscure one, but one.
I don't accept four or five hazardous coincidence in people names, found in two or three languages speaking of the same period and place. My pleasant (?) hypothesis was an amateurish post (by me) based on partly amateurish work or rather map representation (of another).
Where did you read I ever said Eruscans were from recent or BA Anatolia extraction? I was trying to link them to Villanovans by opposition to proto-Villanovans (even if this opposition is not total), and I spoke of their proximity to Iberians! Not to more recent Anatolians: they were even less close to Anatolians than Bulgarian IA. In my disgression about Sea People, I precised we cannot be sure of the geographical origin of some of them we (perhaps) see after in Central-Western Mediterranea, and that even their previous geographical origin is not clear because we had (in my opinion) to deal with mercenaries, I add here: surely good seafarers.
My point was an origin of Etruscans in Central Europe and the possibility to have forked into two directions; hypothesis only. We can also imagine Etruscans had only a basis, in Italy, but were good sailors, and colonized after some places of the Mediterranean shores (see Lemnian). The Villanovan DNA put on map seems showing spotty ties with some today pops, unleven, and this could be the mark of partial isolation and drift; some ties in N-W Alps too (interesting: some tribes of Rhaetia?).
I don't abuse of these personal hypothesises and put it here as a matter of reflexion, for the fun and because it has to do with Italy story.
Just a word: DO read more seriously the posts. Without contemption: it occurs to me sometimes to pass to quickly on posts, but before answer, the most of the time, I re-read.
Achievements:
Have you a mail address I could send (skan) the maps (I have not graphs) I based my analysis on them (amateurish work on G25, made by an Anthrogenica forumer)?. It's to do without to congest this thread.
Let's keep in mind these maps cannot say us all we need about pops relations. They help a bit, only this.
Achievements:
I have a question, i have a read a lot about " Amateur " tools especially going against Anthrogenica or Eurogenes. But how actually Amateurs can know whether Amateur or Professionnal Tools are Corrects? This would make them Professionnals right?
I really hate that situation where only the " Professionnals " can be right, it makes me think to the middle-ages where only a Cleric was right on Religious matters, and his words mattered too much. What if Professionnals are wrong in their logic or the interpretation / use of their own tools? What about Bias? What about Cheating even? Can we really just blindly accept things because it's " professionnal science "? Science is right, but a Scientific is not always right nor he always says the truth or his truthfull with himself. If it was the case, all studies on a said subject would always bring the same results.
All roads lead to Rome.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
