LivingDNA Living DNA - Autosomal results

I find this results quite strange, as I would expect much more dispersed results....
how come are my relatives so concentrated in east balkan region for such a long time?
what would be the explanation for this?
I would really like to get some help to interpret this properly, as I have no idea....
I have both Y/mt DNA results done, but I`d rather keep them for now, in order to avoid some bias in interpretation...
offcourse, if these informations are important for explanation, I`ll provide them...
Thanks in advance
 
@ruskabajka, I am not sure that maps above represent your results. You should have maps with regions and percentages.
What part of Serbia are you from?
 
@ruskabajka, I am not sure that maps above represent your results. You should have maps with regions and percentages.
What part of Serbia are you from?
Maps might show some predictions where your ancestor lived in different periods of time, but again there have to be some other maps.
 
I have no other results, I also wonder why I didn`t got those results like x%A, y%B, z%C etc... but this is all I got from them...
maybe there are some other results which I couldnt find, but these maps are my results from "back in time" feature
 
I have no other results, I also wonder why I didn`t got those results like x%A, y%B, z%C etc... but this is all I got from them...
maybe there are some other results which I couldnt find, but these maps are my results from "back in time" feature

I have seen living dna results like this:
https://pp.userapi.com/c845521/v845521718/a2ef7/UZaH0zegusU.jpg

https://pp.userapi.com/c845521/v845521718/a2f01/N4KCT4FAOYw.jpg

https://pp.userapi.com/c845521/v845521718/a2f29/ROek30adMtc.jpg
 
zemljaci!! :)

hey, just found out there is + to click to get regions/subregions with percentages....
both complete/standard modes look more or less the same:


Europe (East) 63.5%


East Balkans 43.7%
Baltics 8.1%
West Balkans 7.1%
Finland and Western Russia 1.9%
Northeast Europe 1.5%
Pannonia 1.2%


Europe (South) 23.6%


Tuscany 13%
North Italy 4.9%
Aegean 4.7%
Iberian Peninsula 1%


Europe (North and West) 7%


France 4.2%
Scandinavia 2.8%
Great Britain and Ireland 1.9%
England and Wales 1.9%


Near East 4%


North Turkey 2.4%
Levant 1.6%

what puzzles me here is cautious mode, where my baltic component goes high dramaticaly to 53%, and balkan goes down to 13%, wonder how these results are so different
 
so, these numbers from previous post show ancestry from last 10 generations, which is something like 200-300 years, but this really doesn`t answer my first question related to the maps from previous page, which I extracted from "Your ancestry through history" feature
 
Thanks for sharing ! Here are mine for comparison:

Code:
[COLOR=#333333]Complete - SubRegions:[/COLOR]


[COLOR=#333333]East Balkans- 22.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]West Balkans - 11%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Pannonia - 10.1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Northeast Europe - 5.6%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Mordovia - 3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Baltics- 2.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]South Italy-12.9%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Tuscany-10.9%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]North Italy-3.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Aegean-3.1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Germanic-8.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Pashtun-4.5%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Kurdish-2.3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]..................[/COLOR]


[COLOR=#333333]Standard - Sub Regions:[/COLOR]


[COLOR=#333333]East Balkans- 22.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]West Balkans - 11%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Pannonia - 10.1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Northeast Europe - 5.6%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]South Italy-12.9%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Tuscany-10.9%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Germanic-8.4%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Europe Unassigned-11.9%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Pashtun-4.5%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]World Unassigned-2.3%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]............[/COLOR]


[COLOR=#333333]Cautious - Regional (this is the lowest level in this mode):[/COLOR]


[COLOR=#333333]Northeast Europe-related ancestry - 49.1%(EastBalkans included)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Tuscany-related ancestry-32.1%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Europe unassigned-11.9%(some WestBalkans...+some of the "Germanic" perhaps...)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]Pashtun related ancestry- 4.5%[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]World unassigned- 2.3%[/COLOR]

My "Ancestry through History "charts are exact replica of yours(to be expected). I'd pay no attention to the "10 generations ancestry" claim though...
LDNA decided to pack into "Northeast Europe" a territory from Western Thrace to the Baltic Sea and from Central Austria to the Russian borders+Mordovia(?..yep..)
 
Čestitam zemljak!

I hope there will be more results from south/east Serbia
 
Hi, here are my livingdna autosomal results

I find this results quite strange, as I would expect much more dispersed results....
how come are my relatives so concentrated in east balkan region for such a long time?
what would be the explanation for this?

I would really like to get some help to interpret this properly, as I have no idea....
I have both Y/mt DNA results done, but I`d rather keep them for now, in order to avoid some bias in interpretation...
offcourse, if these informations are important for explanation, I`ll provide them...
Thanks in advance

That is the area of the initial spread of Orthodox Slavs (Serbs, Bulgarians) including Vlachs who later moved north to the territories of present day Romania.

The borders of Bulgarian Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bulgaria_Simeon_I_(893-927).svg

Here is the division line between Catholic and Orthodox lands in 12th century:

https://cdn.britannica.com/300x300/38/196138-004-982D2CE5.jpg

You can compare these maps with the maps of your ancestry, and, I think, you'll see some similarities.

IMO, the genetic landscape of southeast Europe was formed in the early middle ages and hasn't changed much ever since.
 
hey Wonomyro, thanks for your opinion...

division between east and west balkan regions goes across middle of Serbia, I`m even not sure where Belgrade falls...my wife got results with strong concentration in west balkans, though not that strong as mine, and she is from western Serbia... now we descend from different regions only because of livingdna`s silly divisions of regions...


I am ortodox slav, but I don`t find this explanation convincing when looking at these maps...
how come do I have relatives with common ancestor in Spain and Italy in 300 BC? that just doesn`t make sense
 
hey Wonomyro, thanks for your opinion...

division between east and west balkan regions goes across middle of Serbia, I`m even not sure where Belgrade falls...my wife got results with strong concentration in west balkans, though not that strong as mine, and she is from western Serbia... now we descend from different regions only because of livingdna`s silly divisions of regions...

About the division. It seems that they formed regions according to the genetic clustering rather then cultural, political or linguistic one. Data indicate that Serbs from Serbia usually group closer to Bulgarians and Romanians. I don’t know if the western Serbia is included in the western cluster, but it is possible because of recent migrations from Bosnia and Herzegovina into the western parts of Serbia. However the fact is that the genetic gap, between these two regions, is much bigger than the geographical proximity suggests.


I am ortodox slav, but I don`t find this explanation convincing when looking at these maps...how come do I have relatives with common ancestor in Spain and Italy in 300 BC? that just doesn`t make sense

It makes sense, because your ancestors are not only Slavs but also the inhabitants of Roman Empire who lived in present day Serbia. That's probably your “Vlach” part of ancestry. As you can see on the maps that show more recent periods, the quantity of genes, that you share with Italy and Spain, decreases. That is because Roman Empire collapsed and there was no more significant “gene exchange” between those parts and your homeland. Your ancestry shared with other Slavic countries also fades away because the Slav migrations ended and no more gene flow occurs between East Europe and Serbia.
 
now, this explanation makes more sense, connecting me with pre-slavic balkan population, whatever the tribe is, whether vlachs, thracians, dacians or some other illyrian tribe, that makes those maps more convincible....

As you can see on the maps that show more recent periods, the quantity of genes, that you share with Italy and Spain, decreases.
well....yes and no....shadings on maps do show decrease, but my numbers for Italy are pretty much high, Tuscany alone is 13%, and north Italy is 5%, so it is almost 20% combined, and if you add agean component of 5%, it is almost a quarter of my relatives within last 10 generations....and we are talking about regions that were never the target for balkan people to immigrate....nor did italians migrate to balkans...
so, this is a good point to start speculations, as I can`t resist to speculate about my ancient relation to Tuscany, which is actually ancient Etruscan.....how cool would it be to connect myself to ancient Etruscans :)
 
now, about livingdna`s divisions....
you might be right about genetic divisions between east and west in periods before last few centuries...but there are some events that happened in last few centuries which had to change entire genetics in Serbia....
first, you have so called "carnojevic migrations" which happened in 18th century, serbs escaped massively from serbian territory into A-H empire, and turks found themselves as rulers of fertile land without population to take taxes from....then turks repopulated these lands with population from Montenegro and BH...now we even have funny saying in Serbia "ako nisi crnogorac, onda mora da si hercegovac" (if you`re not Montenegrian, than you gotta be Herzegovinian")
second, Belgrade is on the edge between these regions, it is not even clear where it belongs.......according to livingdna`s maps, I would say that it belongs to east balkans, but that`s just my guess...
Belgrade, as capital, was center of migration for entire Yugoslavia, and it is still center of migration today, not just for Serbia, but for BH and Montenegro as well....it grew from 20k population 100 years ago, to almost 2mil population today, by receiving people from all over Yugoslavia....how realistic is it to put it in either east or west balkan group?
 
now, this explanation makes more sense, connecting me with pre-slavic balkan population, whatever the tribe is, whether vlachs, thracians, dacians or some other illyrian tribe, that makes those maps more convincible.... well....yes and no....shadings on maps do show decrease, but my numbers for Italy are pretty much high, Tuscany alone is 13%, and north Italy is 5%, so it is almost 20% combined, and if you add agean component of 5%, it is almost a quarter of my relatives within last 10 generations....and we are talking about regions that were never the target for balkan people to immigrate....nor did italians migrate to balkans...

The links with Italy and Spain may be a signal of Roman colonists. However the shading is much stronger in Greece, Moesia and Macedonia which indicates mostly the local origin. These percentages are probably the cummulative values of all time periods.

so, this is a good point to start speculations, as I can`t resist to speculate about my ancient relation to Tuscany, which is actually ancient Etruscan.....how cool would it be to connect myself to ancient Etruscans :)

Tuscany is here just a proxy. It would be more precise to say "Tuscan like" population. Before the Great Migrations the both side of Adriatic were probably genetically similar, so the "Tuscan like" population could be Moesians or Thracians as well. On the other hand, present day Tuscans do not necessarily represent ancient Ertuscians...
 
now, about livingdna`s divisions.... you might be right about genetic divisions between east and west in periods before last few centuries...but there are some events that happened in last few centuries which had to change entire genetics in Serbia.... first, you have so called "carnojevic migrations" which happened in 18th century, serbs escaped massively from serbian territory into A-H empire, and turks found themselves as rulers of fertile land without population to take taxes from....then turks repopulated these lands with population from Montenegro and BH...now we even have funny saying in Serbia "ako nisi crnogorac, onda mora da si hercegovac" (if you`re not Montenegrian, than you gotta be Herzegovinian") second, Belgrade is on the edge between these regions, it is not even clear where it belongs.......according to livingdna`s maps, I would say that it belongs to east balkans, but that`s just my guess... Belgrade, as capital, was center of migration for entire Yugoslavia, and it is still center of migration today, not just for Serbia, but for BH and Montenegro as well....it grew from 20k population 100 years ago, to almost 2mil population today, by receiving people from all over Yugoslavia....how realistic is it to put it in either east or west balkan group?
That is a good question. I don't know how exactly that regions are formed, but I recognize that the regions pretty much follow the autosomal clustering that I saw in papers. That means that the geographical borders are not that important and the map is not meant to be accurate in that regard.
 
Vlad82 These links you posted as an example are actually my results. I am from Kozara region in Krajina.
 

This thread has been viewed 20747 times.

Back
Top