MyTrueAncestry Mytrueancestry.com

My results with some of Duarte's and Carlos' results:
1. Central Roman (590 AD) (3.614) - SZ43 Duarte gets 19.45
2. Central Roman (670 AD) (4.508) - CL36 Duarte gets 16.92
3. Central Roman (590 AD) (6.771) - SZ36 Duarte gets 20.25
4. Medieval Iberian (670 AD) (9.671) - CL23 Not on Duarte's list at all so I tend to doubt it should be called Medieval Iberian. Carlos (14.53) It's northern It.
5. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) (9.698) - SZ28 Duarte gets 12.32 Carlos (13.99)
6. Hellenic Roman (670 AD) (9.734) - CL121 Duarte gets 24.4
7. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (10.06) - scy192 Duarte gets 12.23 Carlos (15.13)
8. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1200 BC) (10.28) - I3313 Duarte gets 11.54 Carlos (10.8)
9. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1100 AD) (10.29) - I2515 Duarte gets 11.49:ashamed2: Carlos (15.42)
10. Central Roman (590 AD) (10.83) - SZ32 20.24
11. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (10.85) - I7424 This is a real shocker: Duarte gets 19.44. Carlos (21.84) Was the mixture N.A. and more Italian like?
12. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1120 AD) (11.87) - I2514 Duarte 12.8 Carlos (16.75)
13. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (500 AD) (11.99) - I3981 Duarte 12.61 Carlos (17.63)
14. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (12.49) - I7425 Duarte 12.05 Carlos (16.63
15. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (12.6) - I4332 Duarte 12.38 Caros (16.47)
16. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) (12.6) - I5769 Duarte 12.38 Carlos (16.47)
17. Late Roman Iberia Granada (650 AD) - I3575- 13.51 Duarte gets 19.03
18. Central Roman / Mixed (590 AD) (13.55) - SZ19 Duarte gets 19.03
19. Iberian / Piedmont (670 AD) (14.25) - CL94 Duarte gets 8.625 Carlos (9.145)
20. Late Roman Iberia Granada (500 AD) (14.39) - I3581 Duarte gets 18.93. Carlos (22.0) Are some of these late Iberian samples Hispano-Roman types?
21. Medieval Piedmont (670 AD) (14.53) - CL57 Duarte 14.48 Carlos (13.48)
22. Late Roman Iberia Granada (500 AD) (14.83) - I3582 Duarte 14.21 Carlos 20.3
23. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (15.06) - I2644 Duarte 12.47 Carlos (16.53)
24. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (760 AD) (15.1) - I3585 Duarte 9. 921 Carlos (13.51)
25. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) (15.17) - SZ45 Duarte 16.59 Carlos(17.05)
26. Late Roman Iberia Granada (470 AD) (15.17) - I3576 Duarte 16.53 Carlos 21.55
27. Roman Iberia Granada (350 AD) (15.18) - I3983 Duarte 17.89 Carlos (22.96)
28. Roman Iberia Granada (300 AD) (15.42) - I3982 Duarte 13.39 Carlos (16.5)
29. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) (15.43) - SZ40 Can't find it
30. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (15.54) - I2649 Duarte 10.66 Carlos (14.63)
31. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (15.84) - I2647 Duarte 13.59
32. Medieval Frank (670 AD) (18.25) - CL63 Duarte 18.47 Carlos (17.96 ) Some "Frank" in all three but not good fits.
33. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (18.27) - I9033
34. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (18.7) - SZ18
35. Visigoth Mixed Slav Girona (550 AD) (18.79) - I12031 Duarte 22.8 Carlos (24.23)
36. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (515 AD) (18.88) - I3980 I don't see it.
37. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (18.95) - CL47 Duarte 17.25 Carlos (17.4)
38. Roman Soldier Germany (300 BC) (19.15) - FN_2 Duarte 6.896 Carlos 9.058
39. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (19.57) - DA199
40. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (19.81) - I9041
41. Sicily Beaker (2200 BC) (20.27) - I4930
42. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (20.79) - CL53
43. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (21.55) - I3808
44. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (21.94) - CL102 Carlos(22.0)
45. Ostrogoth Crimea (300 AD) (22.29) - Ker1
46. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (22.33) - SZ5
47. Gepid / Goth (450 AD) (22.66) - Vim2
48. Visigoth Germanic Girona (550 AD) (22.92) - I12163 Carlos (24.3)
49. Visigoth Iberian Girona (550 AD) (22.97) - I12034 Duarte 9.863 Carlos 8.771
50. Hellenic Roman / Cretan (670 AD) (23.75) - CL38
51. Roman Soldier Freiham-Nord Germany (300 BC) (24.02) - Duarte 10.39 FN_2 Carlos 9.038
52. Hellenic Roman / Dodecanese (670 AD) (24.06) - CL30
53. Hellenic Roman / Calabria (670 AD) (24.14) - CL25
54. Visigoth Germanic Girona (550 AD) (24.16) - I12032 Duarte18.81 Carlos (19.6)
55. Bronze Age Armenia (1500 BC) (25.18) - Rise397
56. Crete Armenoi (1370 BC) (25.28) - I9123
57. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (25.72) - SZ38
58. Trypillia (3500 BC) (25.94) - I1926
59. Scythian Moldova (300 BC) (25.98) - scy301
60. Guanche Canary Islands (960 AD) (27.01) - gun005

It just got too tedious, so after 30 I just spot checked the differences for somehow Iberian related samples. I added Carlos' results up to his number 30.

What fits did Balkan people get for the Illyrians, Thracians and Scythians? I seem to get a slightly better fit than Carlos and Duarte.

I'd like to see CL23 run against Parma Beakers and later Italian samples from the north when they come out. I think some of the CL samples may be mislabeled as Iberian, when I'm closer to them than an Iberian.

The Medieval Valencia samples are all over the place. So are the "Moriscos". I have to go back and look at individual samples for both groups, because they all varied. Add the "Visigothic" ones. From what I remember, some of them are very "local Iberian" like.

For Italian Bell Beaker Carlos gets 15.69, but it doesn't appear at all on mine. I have to see which one it was, ie more steppic or less steppic ones. Do other Italian posters get it? Maybe some of the comments I saw that Parma Beaker wasn't the "more northern" mixing agent everywhere in Italy is correct.

Carlos gets a lot of Bell Beaker samples I don't get at all. He also gets some of the Gladiators. I don't get any at all.

I seem to be closer to Gallo Roman and Cisalpine Gaul than these two Iberians, but I think I remember Stuvane might have been closer?

Stuvane, if you see this, could you compare with your list?

In fact, if it isn't a lot of bother, does someone have a program or app that could just collate all our posted scores and give fits per sample by name? If I knew how to do it I would. That would be terrific.
 
@Angela: this is my new list

1. Central Roman (590 AD) (6.538) - SZ43
2. Central Roman (590 AD) (7.299) - SZ36
3. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (7.647) - I7424
4. Central Roman (670 AD) (8.839) - CL36
5. Medieval Iberian (670 AD) (8.938) - CL23
6. Hellenic Roman (670 AD) (11.0) - CL121
7. Gallo-Roman (590 AD) (11.39) - SZ28
8. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1200 BC) (11.77) - I3313
9. Central Roman (590 AD) (12.78) - SZ32
10. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1100 AD) (13.34) - I2515
11. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1120 AD) (13.7) - I2514
12. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (500 AD) (13.83) - I3981
13. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (13.93) - I7425
14. Late Roman Iberia Granada (650 AD) (14.23) - I3575
15. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (14.48) - scy192
16. Late Roman Iberia Granada (500 AD) (14.85) - I3582
17. Medieval Piedmont (670 AD) (15.0) - CL57
18. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (15.56) - I2644
19. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (760 AD) (15.62) - I3585
20. Roman Iberia Granada (300 AD) (15.8) - I3982
21. Central Roman / Mixed (590 AD) (15.81) - SZ19
22. Late Roman Iberia Granada (500 AD) (16.04) - I3581
23. Cisalpine Gaul (590 AD) (16.55) - SZ45
24. Iberian / Piedmont (670 AD) (16.57) - CL94
25. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (16.58) - I4332
26. Thracian Bulgaria (450 BC) (16.58) - I5769
27. Late Roman Iberia Granada (470 AD) (17.34) - I3576
28. Visigoth Mixed Slav Girona (550 AD) (18.22) - I12031
29. Hellenic Roman (590 AD) (18.63) - SZ40
30. Medieval Frank (670 AD) (18.91) - CL63
31. Roman Iberia Granada (350 AD) (18.98) - I3983
32. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (19.21) - SZ18
33. Early Medieval Iberia Granada (515 AD) (19.37) - I3980
34. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (19.84) - I2649
35. Medieval Iberian Valencia (1200 AD) (19.94) -



Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
following...

36. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (20.74) - I9041
37. Morisco Andalusia Iberia (1550 AD) (21.12) - I3808
38. Frankish-Gaul / Lombardy Italy (670 AD) (21.26) - CL47
39. Mycenaean (1350 BC) (21.27) - I9033
40. Roman Soldier Germany (300 BC) (21.53) - FN_2
41. Ostrogoth Crimea (300 AD) (22.03) - Ker1
42. Medieval Hungary / Balkan (1244 AD) (22.3) - DA199
43. Medieval Tyrolian (590 AD) (22.54) - SZ5
44. Sicily Beaker (2200 BC) (22.55) - I4930
45. Medieval Tyrolian (670 AD) (22.58) - CL53
46. Gepid / Goth (450 AD) (22.74) - Vim2
47. Crete Armenoi (1370 BC) (23.37) - I9123
48. Hellenic Roman / Dodecanese (670 AD) (23.94) - CL30
49. Swiss Germanic (670 AD) (24.15) - CL102
50. Hellenic Roman / Calabria (670 AD) (24.69) - CL25
51. Visigoth Germanic Girona (550 AD) (24.96) - I12163
52. Hellenic Roman / Cretan (670 AD) (25.34) - CL38
53. Visigoth Iberian Girona (550 AD) (25.37) - I12034
54. Bronze Age Armenia (1500 BC) (26.07) - Rise397
55. Roman Soldier Freiham-Nord Germany (300 BC) (26.33)- FN_2
56. Visigoth Germanic Girona (550 AD) (26.7) - I12032
57. Frankish / Hungary (590 AD) (26.76) - SZ38
58. Scythian Moldova (300 BC) (27.1) - scy301
59. Hittite Anatolia (1875 BC) (27.61) - MA2208
60. Guanche Canary Islands (960 AD) (27.78) - gun005


Sent from my SM-J730F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
I'd like to see CL23 run against Parma Beakers and later Italian samples from the north when they come out. I think some of the CL samples may be mislabeled as Iberian, when I'm closer to them than an Iberian.
.

Of course it is mislabelled. In K36 Ancient it is Northern Italian.

Here on PCA in north Italian cluster. And Italians here all have it as hight fit.

BTW nobody notice that you have Roman Soldier FN_2 sample two times on the list on different positions... FN_2 is sample ID, it can't be used twice.
Bez-nazwy-1.png
 
Maybe all from Roman and medieval period for Europe which are in last big Reich dataset (and from Olalde Spanish dataset).
I must add Swat Valley / Indian samples too.

could you add the two illyrians?
 
Of course it is mislabelled. In K36 Ancient it is Northern Italian.

Here on PCA in north Italian cluster. And Italians here all have it as hight fit.

BTW nobody notice that you have Roman Soldier FN_2 sample two times on the list on different positions... FN_2 is sample ID, it can't be used twice.
Bez-nazwy-1.png

Yes, I remember your PCA and where the samples plot among modern people. They're clearly more modern "North Italian" shifted than Iberian shifted by a lot. I don't know why they labeled them "Iberian". I mean, yeah, they're more Iberian shifted than the southern Italian ones, but that's a different story. Are they assuming the more Iberian like affinity came later as a result of admixture. I'd have to go back to the paper and look at the uniparentals to make sure, but who is to say these were just another group of people living in northern Italy at that time. The Romans sent a lot of people from the south north, and not just in colonia.

There may be a fundamental misunderstanding of those results.

Btw, where did SZ43 go?

I want to see the CL23 and some of the other "Iberian" labeled samples here compared to Parma Beaker.
 
CL23 (y T-L446):

1 North-Italy 27.39
2 Portugal&GaliciaAzores 19.61
3 Spain North&East 19.33
4 Spain Central&South 19.02
5 East-Balkan 14.65

67AgSTj.png


Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_Italian @ 6.318764
2 Spanish_Extremadura @ 10.215214
3 Portuguese @ 10.481634
4 Tuscan @ 10.846835
5 Spanish_Galicia @ 11.515195
6 Spanish_Andalucia @ 11.734688
7 Spanish_Murcia @ 11.924896
8 Spanish_Cataluna @ 12.378675
9 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 12.674054
10 Spanish_Valencia @ 12.895143
 
Yes, I remember your PCA and where the samples plot among modern people. They're clearly more modern "North Italian" shifted than Iberian shifted by a lot. I don't know why they labeled them "Iberian". I mean, yeah, they're more Iberian shifted than the southern Italian ones, but that's a different story. Are they assuming the more Iberian like affinity came later as a result of admixture. I'd have to go back to the paper and look at the uniparentals to make sure, but who is to say these were just another group of people living in northern Italy at that time. The Romans sent a lot of people from the south north, and not just in colonia.

There may be a fundamental misunderstanding of those results.

Btw, where did SZ43 go?

I want to see the CL23 and some of the other "Iberian" labeled samples here compared to Parma Beaker.

No one can exclude it has partly Iberian ancestry but judging from people results, not even my PCA, this sample has more affinity to north Italy than Iberia. That's a fact.
 
Duarte, do you know why you're given Gallo-Roman (6.896) as your closest ancient population when your closest fit to one of them is 12.32? Is it just they haven't gotten around to updating that section?

Hello Angela.

In principle, looking at my "TIMELINE and for" TIMELINE of Carlos, as well as looking at my archeological map, the proximity to the populations (Gallo-Romans, Visigoths, Ilyrians) is calculated from an algorithm that considers all distances with all populations with which I relate and not the relative distance with a single sample of an individual from that group. IMO. Big Hug (y):wary2:
 
Hello Angela.

In principle, looking at my "TIMELINE and for" TIMELINE of Carlos, as well as looking at my archeological map, the proximity to the populations (Gallo-Romans, Visigoths, Ilyrians) is calculated from an algorithm that considers all distances with all populations with which I relate and not the relative distance with a single sample of an individual from that group. IMO. Big Hug (y):wary2:

If that were true, Duarte, why would they give you a genetic fit number for each individual ancient sample. It would be a useless endeavor.

Also, that time line is linked to a specific dated sample, and your closest ancient populations page gives fits which relate to specific identified samples. You can find them on your genetic samples map.The Central Rome which appears as my closest fit on that is SZ43. I can tell because the fit numbers are identical.b

I think that by mislabeling some of the Collegno samples they are misleading people. They also should re-label that Ostrogoth sample, which is really Anatolian or Aegean like, and a lot of the Visigothic Spanish samples, a lot of which aren't very Germanic.

Not everybody has followed all the details.
 
No one can exclude it has partly Iberian ancestry but judging from people results, not even my PCA, this sample has more affinity to north Italy than Iberia. That's a fact.

As I said, I know that.

What I want to know is if some of these CL samples are actually just Northern Italian samples of that era, i.e. before the arrival of the Langobards etc. That would then indicate that then as now there were more "northern" as well as more "southern" people living in Italy at that time, i.e. not homogeneous.
 
If that were true, Duarte, why would they give you a genetic fit number for each individual ancient sample. It would be a useless endeavor.

Also, that time line is linked to a specific dated sample, and your closest ancient populations page gives fits which relate to specific identified samples. You can find them on your genetic samples map.The Central Rome which appears as my closest fit on that is SZ43. I can tell because the fit numbers are identical.b

I think that by mislabeling some of the Collegno samples they are misleading people. They also should re-label that Ostrogoth sample, which is really Anatolian or Aegean like, and a lot of the Visigothic Spanish samples, a lot of which aren't very Germanic.

Not everybody has followed all the details.

Hi Angela,
In my case, the Gallo-Roman @ 6,896 is equivalent to the Roman Soldier Gemany FN_2 @ 6.896. I saw in another forum (theapricity) that this soldier would be from the south of France, probably Aquitaine. I am assuming that from this hypothesis born the classification of the Roman Soldier as Gallo-Roman. I also received the email below that explains how the updates will be happen from now on:

fXpQSSU.png
 
Maybe all from Roman and medieval period for Europe which are in last big Reich dataset (and from Olalde Spanish dataset).
I must add Swat Valley / Indian samples too.


Excellent. What can you tell me about RISE577? It seems to be consistently my closest match.
 
Hi Angela,
In my case, the Gallo-Roman @ 6,896 is equivalent to the Roman Soldier Gemany FN_2 @ 6.896. I saw in another forum (theapricity) that this soldier would be from the south of France, probably Aquitaine. I am assuming that from this hypothesis born the classification of the Roman Soldier as Gallo-Roman. I also received the email below that explains how the updates will be happen from now on:

fXpQSSU.png

OK.

Looking at your list of sample matches:

Gallo Roman SZ28 12.32

Roman soldier FN 6.896

Are you saying that on the page where they give you a couple of "closest" Ancient populations they have Gallo Roman 6.896? The one with the ancient picture?

If that's the case, then I think they are confusing things up for people. What makes Roman soldier FN a Gallo-Roman? If anything maybe an Iberian.

Also, if Lukas is right and there aren't two Roman soldier in Germany samples, then why do I get two on my list with two different fits?

Do you get two as well? Are the fits the same?

@Lukas, where does the Roman soldier plot? Both/one?
 
Perhaps the Roman soldier is Celtiberian so he could be named as a Gallo. Maybe the page does not yet have Celtiberians.

If MytrueAncestry does not yet have the Celtiberian definition, my results will enter Gallo for that of familiarity.


My results on yourdnaportal




[h=3]Closest population distances[/h]
PopulationDistance
i3759_Celtiberian_IA1.333519
I2462_Bronze_Age_England_Kent1.423613
I3759_Celtiberian1.501593
i3758_Celtiberian_IA1.550354
BA_Hungary_RISE3731.567452
I3874_Beaker_South_France1.608371
I10892_Catalonia_medieval1.650611
SZ45_Pannonian1.751551




 
They should include the Egyptian mummies if they haven't already.
 
OK.

Looking at your list of sample matches:

Gallo Roman SZ28 12.32

Roman soldier FN 6.896

Are you saying that on the page where they give you a couple of "closest" Ancient populations they have Gallo Roman 6.896? The one with the ancient picture?

If that's the case, then I think they are confusing things up for people. What makes Roman soldier FN a Gallo-Roman? If anything maybe an Iberian.

Also, if Lukas is right and there aren't two Roman soldier in Germany samples, then why do I get two on my list with two different fits?

Do you get two as well? Are the fits the same?

@Lukas, where does the Roman soldier plot? Both/one?

@Angela,

Yes. I have two matches with the Roman Soldier:

1. Roman Soldier Germany FN_2 @ 6.896 and
5. Roman Soldier Freiham Nord Germany @ 10.39.

It should be noted that in the French application that compares old samples with the results of the GEDmatch Eurogenes K36 calculator, this sample (Roman Soldier FN2) which is also my best match in this GEDmatch associated application (81 - totally red) is dated 300 AD and not 300 BC as MTA says. The dating of 300 AD is correct, as I have seen in several forums. Perhaps they have two samples, one Gallo-Roman and another of a Roman Soldier and use a unique nomenclature for both , as well as the dating, that are incorrect. They have to see this in an upcoming update.
Hugs :)
 
They should include the Egyptian mummies if they haven't already.


On yourdnaportal K37 are. Hey you know who they were, they were family, who is it about?



Egyptian_mummy_III_jk2911_0.2
Egyptian_mummy_II_JK2134_0.2
 
From the lombard paper
CEU + GBR = Central europe and the balkans is representd by TSI + IBS........let me know if balkans ID is something else, please
 

This thread has been viewed 1301823 times.

Back
Top