MyTrueAncestry Mytrueancestry.com

I feel as though the AncestryDNA raw data paints a fuller picture, than the 23andme raw data. For example, I do not get Sicily beaker in Living DNA, or 23andme. But It comes up with the AncestryDNA, as well as the combined raw data file.
I posted the 23andme v4, I should have specified that.
I chose the v4 because the v5 missed the Ostrogoths too. :)

Premium Maps: 23 vs Anc.
Roman, Hellenic Roman, and Illyrian differences.

23 v4:
RgcrP8N.jpg

Anc.
7jwR2BW.jpg




Complete Archeological Maps. 23 vs Anc.:

23 v4
AXpUaY7.jpg

Anc.
a3SHt6q.jpg
 
Can someone explain to me what these genetic distances are?
 
Can someone explain to me what these genetic distances are?
The smaller the Number, the closer you are related.

From the website:

Genetic distance measures how close you are to a given sample.

10 means this is your ancient ancestry

20 means this is part of your ancestral link

30 means possibly related to your ancestry
 

Thanks for the information. I find it hard to believe I'm that closely related to those ancient populations. Some of you are related to much older populations, so those distances make sense. So taking those numbers into account, I'm directly descended from those dirty barbarians. We're to blame for the Dark Ages. Will I need to make reparations for Rome?!

I assume those archaeogentic matches are from grave sites or archaeological discoveries in the region? It's interesting that my closest match is a "Pict" and I've associated those with ancient Scotland but this site is in northern Italy per the map. What gives??

Your closest Ancient populations

Longobard + Saxon (3.065)
Celt + Longobard (3.315)
Longobard (5.104)
Celt (6.764)
Saxon (7.239)

Your closest Archaeogenetic matches

1. Pict (670 AD) (4.452)
- CL83
2. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (5.104) - CL92
3. Bronze Age Celt England (1000 BC) (5.469) - I5383
4. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (5.941) - SZ15
5. Celtic Briton (0 AD) (6.126) - Hinxton 4
6. Celtic/Viking Iceland (1000 AD) (6.764) - VDP-A6
7. Nordic-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (6.875) - 6DRIF-18
8. Late Medieval Gotlander (1600 AD) (7.22) - Unknown
9. Anglo Saxon (700 AD) (7.239) - Hinxton HS3
10. Bell Beaker Southern France (2050 BC) (7.539) - I3875
11. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.546) - SZ12
12. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.637) - CL146
13. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.64) - SZ14
14. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.847) - CL145
15. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (7.95) - AED_249
16. Briton Gladiator York (250 AD) (8.037) - 6DRIF-23
17. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (8.04) - CL84
18. Alemannic Bavaria (465 AD) (8.084) - NW_255
19. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (8.12) - SZ4
20. Ireland Copper Age (1880 BC) (8.14) - Rathlin2
 
The rest of my family gets almost the same exact results as me. Including my mother and father, who have a map almost identical to mine. With some different samples of Hellenic Romans, Romans, etc. But are in the same general grouping.

@Salento, they get a similar complete archaeological map to the ones you have.
 
Last edited:

Thanks for the information. I find it hard to believe I'm that closely related to those ancient populations. Some of you are related to much older populations, so those distances make sense. So taking those numbers into account, I'm directly descended from those dirty barbarians. We're to blame for the Dark Ages. Will I need to make reparations for Rome?!

I assume those archaeogentic matches are from grave sites or archaeological discoveries in the region? It's interesting that my closest match is a "Pict" and I've associated those with ancient Scotland but this site is in northern Italy per the map. What gives??

Your closest Ancient populations

Longobard + Saxon (3.065)
Celt + Longobard (3.315)
Longobard (5.104)
Celt (6.764)
Saxon (7.239)

Your closest Archaeogenetic matches

1. Pict (670 AD) (4.452)
- CL83
2. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (5.104) - CL92
3. Bronze Age Celt England (1000 BC) (5.469) - I5383
4. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (5.941) - SZ15
5. Celtic Briton (0 AD) (6.126) - Hinxton 4
6. Celtic/Viking Iceland (1000 AD) (6.764) - VDP-A6
7. Nordic-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (6.875) - 6DRIF-18
8. Late Medieval Gotlander (1600 AD) (7.22) - Unknown
9. Anglo Saxon (700 AD) (7.239) - Hinxton HS3
10. Bell Beaker Southern France (2050 BC) (7.539) - I3875
11. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.546) - SZ12
12. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.637) - CL146
13. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.64) - SZ14
14. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.847) - CL145
15. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (7.95) - AED_249
16. Briton Gladiator York (250 AD) (8.037) - 6DRIF-23
17. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (8.04) - CL84
18. Alemannic Bavaria (465 AD) (8.084) - NW_255
19. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (8.12) - SZ4
20. Ireland Copper Age (1880 BC) (8.14) - Rathlin2

Dear matty.
The Pict people was celts that lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde, and spoke the Pictish language, which was closely related to the Celtic Brittonic language spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them.
After the Roman conquest of Britain in the 1st century, a Romano-British culture emerged, and Latin and British Vulgar Latin coexisted with Brittonic. During and after the Roman era, the Britons lived throughout Britain. Their relationship with the Picts, who lived north of the Firth of Forth, has been the subject of much discussion, though most scholars now accept that the Pictish language was related to Common Brittonic, rather than a separate Celtic language (Reference: English Wikipedia).
We can especulat that this ancient pict man may be related to Romanized Britons who must have passed through the northwest of Italy, I do not Know :)
 
Can someone explain to me what these genetic distances are?
They must run the user's and ancient's data in a certain calculator and then set the distances based on the differences for each cluster, as a common Oracle. Just a guess.
While it may provide clues on real ancestry or shared ancestry, in my opinion it should not be taken too literally.
 
Here is mine
36ffce9d91035e3bfbc0398d0008d19a.jpg


Sent fra min Moto G (5) Plus via Tapatalk
 

Thanks for the information. I find it hard to believe I'm that closely related to those ancient populations. Some of you are related to much older populations, so those distances make sense. So taking those numbers into account, I'm directly descended from those dirty barbarians. We're to blame for the Dark Ages. Will I need to make reparations for Rome?!

I assume those archaeogentic matches are from grave sites or archaeological discoveries in the region? It's interesting that my closest match is a "Pict" and I've associated those with ancient Scotland but this site is in northern Italy per the map. What gives??

Your closest Ancient populations

Longobard + Saxon (3.065)
Celt + Longobard (3.315)
Longobard (5.104)
Celt (6.764)
Saxon (7.239)

Your closest Archaeogenetic matches

1. Pict (670 AD) (4.452)
- CL83
2. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (5.104) - CL92
3. Bronze Age Celt England (1000 BC) (5.469) - I5383
4. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (5.941) - SZ15
5. Celtic Briton (0 AD) (6.126) - Hinxton 4
6. Celtic/Viking Iceland (1000 AD) (6.764) - VDP-A6
7. Nordic-Celtic Gladiator York (250 AD) (6.875) - 6DRIF-18
8. Late Medieval Gotlander (1600 AD) (7.22) - Unknown
9. Anglo Saxon (700 AD) (7.239) - Hinxton HS3
10. Bell Beaker Southern France (2050 BC) (7.539) - I3875
11. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.546) - SZ12
12. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.637) - CL146
13. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (7.64) - SZ14
14. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (7.847) - CL145
15. Alemannic Bavaria (500 AD) (7.95) - AED_249
16. Briton Gladiator York (250 AD) (8.037) - 6DRIF-23
17. Nordic Lombard (670 AD) (8.04) - CL84
18. Alemannic Bavaria (465 AD) (8.084) - NW_255
19. Nordic Lombard (590 AD) (8.12) - SZ4
20. Ireland Copper Age (1880 BC) (8.14) - Rathlin2

In the Collegno graveyard there were people who were more Celtic like than Longobard like. They might be descendants of people who were picked up along the Longobard journey from northern Germany. Picts are also Celts. That's why this company chose that name. I don't think it was necessarily a wise choice. It just confuses people.
 
The rest of my family gets almost the same exact results as me. Including my mother and father, who have a map almost identical to mine. With some different samples of Hellenic Romans, Romans, etc. But are in the same general grouping.

@Salento, they get a similar complete archaeological map to the ones you have.

In a general sense we could represent the Apulian's genetic makeup.

As I have in common similarities on the maps, your closest relatives are definitely Great People, Very Smart, and Really Good-Looking. :)
 
This is me. I'm of full northern italian ancestry. Question: might the scythian "ancestry" be real somehow?

[h=3]Your closest Ancient populations...[/h]Gallo-Roman + Roman (2.919)
Roman (4.68)
Scythian + Roman (4.763)
Gallo-Roman (7.774)
Scythian (10.0)


Your closest Archaeogenetic matches...

1. Central Roman (590 AD) (4.68)
2. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (4.79)
3. Central Roman (670 AD) (5.554)
4. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (7.774)
5. Central Roman (590 AD) (9.168)
6. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (9.941)
7. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (10.0)
8. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (10.07)
9. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (11.0)
 
This is me. I'm of full northern italian ancestry. Question: might the scythian "ancestry" be real somehow?

Your closest Ancient populations...

Gallo-Roman + Roman (2.919)
Roman (4.68)
Scythian + Roman (4.763)
Gallo-Roman (7.774)
Scythian (10.0)


Your closest Archaeogenetic matches...

1. Central Roman (590 AD) (4.68)
2. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (4.79)
3. Central Roman (670 AD) (5.554)
4. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (7.774)
5. Central Roman (590 AD) (9.168)
6. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (9.941)
7. Scythian Moldova (270 BC) (10.0)
8. [Hidden] - upgrade your account (10.07)
9. Illyrian / Dalmatia (1600 BC) (11.0)

I got it too, although not as close a score as yours. I'm not sure what to make of it. It also showed up on Kurd's ancient calculator. I think at that time I concluded that it might just be a trace of a slightly more "eastern" steppe strain.
 
I decided to compare their results (modern pops) with GedMatch's. Mine, father's, mother's... You all can do the same. And guess what? Their Oracle resembles the EUtest V2 K15 Oracle. Just the numbers are slightly different, also because the references may differ a bit. Still...
So it must function roughly the way I described.

Anyway, using existing tools or not, they must have had a lot of work. The page is very well built, and the test is useful. It'll be probably improved soon, as more ancient DNAs are available. Congrats to the authors!
 
I decided to compare their results (modern pops) with GedMatch's. Mine, father's, mother's... You all can do the same. And guess what? Their Oracle resembles the EUtest V2 K15 Oracle. Just the numbers are slightly different, also because the references may differ a bit. Still...
So it must function roughly the way I described.

Anyway, using existing tools or not, they must have had a lot of work. The page is very well built, and the test is useful. It'll be probably improved soon, as more ancient DNAs are available. Congrats to the authors!

I really do like this calculator too, I hope they do add to it as time goes on. I really appreciate the way they link the specific samples back to the papers they come from.
 
I decided to compare their results (modern pops) with GedMatch's. Mine, father's, mother's... You all can do the same. And guess what? Their Oracle resembles the EUtest V2 K15 Oracle. Just the numbers are slightly different, also because the references may differ a bit. Still...
So it must function roughly the way I described.

Anyway, using existing tools or not, they must have had a lot of work. The page is very well built, and the test is useful. It'll be probably improved soon, as more ancient DNAs are available. Congrats to the authors!

I agree. I would never have attempted to compare my genome with all of these ancient samples.

I have to say it's a little strange for me to think that I'm closer genetically to an ancient sample from Roman Pannonia in 590 AD, than to any modern Italian population. My best scores are usually a 4 or a 5 to Bergamo and Tuscany, or Tuscany and Bergamo, depending on the calculator, and here I got a 3.614 to a single Roman sample. Even with the Piedmont/Ligurian sample, my score is 4.73 and everything else is higher (MDLP K23b).

I don't know if this is the same Eurogenes calculator you're discussing, but these are my scores:

#Population (source)Distance1Tuscan5.032North_Italian6.053Italian_Abruzzo10.054West_Sicilian10.515Spanish_Murcia11.936Spanish_Extremadura11.977Spanish_Andalucia11.988Greek12.419Portuguese12.5610Greek_Thessaly12.711Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon12.8912Spanish_Cataluna12.9813Spanish_Valencia13.0114East_Sicilian13.6115Central_Greek13.6416Spanish_Galicia13.7817Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha13.9218Bulgarian14.2319South_Italian14.8620Romanian14.91

I'm pretty sure the higher Sicilian than Southern Italian scores are because of the "Lombard", actually all of Northwestern Italy, migration to Sicily in the Middle Ages to "reclaim" it for Latin Christianity.
 
I decided to compare their results (modern pops) with GedMatch's. Mine, father's, mother's... You all can do the same. And guess what? Their Oracle resembles the EUtest V2 K15 Oracle. Just the numbers are slightly different, also because the references may differ a bit. Still...
So it must function roughly the way I described.

Anyway, using existing tools or not, they must have had a lot of work. The page is very well built, and the test is useful. It'll be probably improved soon, as more ancient DNAs are available. Congrats to the authors!

Yeah my results are pretty close.
 
Dear friends.
I was able to note in many of the comments of this thread the strangeness of some regarding the presence of ancient samples of Illyrians, Scythians, and Thracians in the results of Iberians, French and North Italian.
In that sense I upgraded my MyTrueAncestry account and now appear which were the ancestral samples that were used in the comparison.
In order to collaborate, I share these results of my ancestry so that the specialists of the Forum can make a more detailed analysis of these ancient samples of Illyrians, Scythians, and Thracians, verifying the accuracy of the presented results.
Hugs to all.

dxOJcD-KH3Q_9AjUq1rn1-3QWY7r7u3y9RlCvYkuNM452-KtYq0Oxv2TfwAXJ4NXK4y5z6iFwuXCxOlcj116U7KhSN_6JJ3pHVgYtIveHYjxHETNxSGfdVJkuy66PdkhIN-ATEmtIoYxp8OR0utP3ADaOHyYM5cyVI4hWwFBYCfSkSrFetz9U6TT_ItY0pw5hy--KE_2rHgySidbEMCr43xhngMdRqrWptCjaddnuU5ClDj6SAi4G6aV0oRklWMS64gfZ_XW1boTC0jjzlRRgU57jnrygEZEGDoOfPnsHuD6ZU66cudUeUqwX6CMIiGSu6tUG79p_O6ciJARqAd9zb0Y35hmSYpZtdkmNoTrqmkAaS5nZr-WZbUQ9E_7LBiCNVHPytzkyNv5jeCVpiAjERPPVjV9azvW5C2b-n_yk4KQBly3YwDgQEtcjF8KxwPpq8OrELtz3QOfP65Zv0xBkgK-eCFvRK2JHSDJH6bifmINwehmWZUGJvzHHPp3l1af1IwulfQ-uEAkFkkpfHc_bxKk_LKUqtcPqrqXTKEsPePtinLTgh8ZTKYH9J01mlDrIfx_VbEQr1CvOTd2dcT6SLRAIKZ2Hcy9AxNzMsx-plhJJ3809ks-G9-j2R9vOWxgRKfxPrvd45Ro7yBEB6Ht1yoy6Iz5MmE=w1157-h684-no


OASsGBQoSkagaIupWqZlfxEL4EBS9JXJSBebuL6I4c9lwNUJZr_yvkWiLMn96KnSLE6BLyz3kJDhcNllCGPYhUCdm7_b6KcRp60C9CcsuA2fGmEJ8UhxP4PvKAGueB8kZKZ1AOMMohtS04vFBCUSY50Rc6yZRp_Jax8mRY5FlbnDQA6xqJSEN5wOyuDwTt6ylT8Pylx6VGaaEIWWcQYzUQZuBjvFkGNOklyCiVGIBbRj7nTbtx_54IMfTGIIkDEqveEdVAgcbVnN-L1jg6duIjf2IBn9i41GJLAfT6ENPnXlDxQu9jeHUIo6rNSMSwyW-OICaKWhKD2PehSWMdHEopUqdwYoIltzt3BVUCZOWC6QtsgumsRoRfEndm2NNBR6dpVVNl1uvnZo2MIj4SsA0rzHT_CW26iLOzg30ONqgNTRPh22bXaDGs2IBEmImGZWgELt-UsijTsvRk1fOeGBFo2qIY5pX0RW6Ji4yiORcLLv1JYUSpyOyXg4Q5-hnx8eRnzWZFW3PwLDjZHCIa-dvzd6xLtrbCn8KgHoFggTGQ6bul3cx4Xbo4bYwYzwRucD8gr1XzN-E4AJWFPZ3DTztrYbKOCeaT83L-Ts-esqgw573cjvQqk8Mn4DwLDC-iJJ9OAUsQ5u7K-6Gz9K0ZokLGZ8Qu-yqwk=w488-h495-no


iYINkf8ebDQ7me0uB6IsVtqrgLtGQ7s1fhT1ZNefm720UTPg5Sy3ek_1XYNR9iBrocE4zA7o0C7ENyrr78nZQxhVJtkDST1Ju7cTLc4tdb8yhRrJTC0cqzzo9s9rIN1U6kaBCCjGRABel3j1V07me81Qf4epnNjAeQQUTD6pYfazoDjyS3iws-jJbz77KfsbRwT3shrYf7KbiaUr6aDiZYeZ4eLUoeqledkDttJWrVk-KcsoD3zw5uvGTUubPdNP-Qr16GmxCArmZa_U8IFBS705-fWOHTLHtCo1YxCDHASOlaqEiEO7NNf9XX2VnstEXLzDs07NrH1OHCNeg1CTTJn7ArHmIO8lQW1thbQaPtgndXe6w1MZ55YgTTzGyUjrFQkP64FL-U2Lns7eWV6PH4yP1YFeDFKRUwWIX-4qg0YkqJoy-OCerQIlIpahsqhh5WRPsDKZKjafmwHn5khvwS3xOPD8xCrhWxTbQteKpVs26TXYHAdgDQgtP8OnedL7-ZjWzCu1gmQz0ZjqwR-OgX-OoJHlJHd2ScqbNHrJ0Imtre-Z4jIrnpix7Byf5FPtKxc2pOkVl-i6x1K8OH1smexSevwn9gJmi45LWGgfEAHapkN-553kqQgsiWza1q2JR4x7JP2yCGjJcasVrEj2AjCEauHUEOg=w521-h463-no


bQQ4XINmvYZP5Y-f2XyTUX2PDGNm7rX8Vhu864Tbqpy6EhWFqgVUFvBeJNfzFyknDEwCE0WrhOR-9oShpq7Ow14KRE6u6fbWLA1g4pG1Q2EmVFWYMSn7EYTNWXzLuYBiV-QAGDpGivrKHhAWe2ISarxmfA71mKGz2FzfcslJWDs8NksCyYsXMMSeDWqWfeDVPoMLdJiq25-ozfhiH78h9wwdZwnPy7OL3tYTpGk1oejdh1mTg_SpOUeMsmJMGfl_L2mj-GNx6hzLAiURMZx_hgvaCZngbFF47InaUa5OVLh-Uw3yczWMrbEfRBjZ5OwjT31Hbi-46vzMLuCw0xbnBqIs9zr8DimqU5gZkikT6SlDgtuMKM6ETxErie_gs3b8DhixMJKOVixJrrq-ZSn_s3Vo5Bxp2yVO6M7F8Lk-dRQOfEtgW5oZ-nwJvVWGy1dtkknLY5XH1FxqGgeaaRU2_Fuuct0m2IjWo_QVzu1EC-hf_fa2eNQbAl1mCeXr5W0hrZHe_Sl6EUNwn1ILS4fZtvCNc7CR8lshDc0UbuSE8K32BS47_VAHh0x098oH46sigS1M9VOVWT9tLI3CC7viMRVCgrWjqSCVB9EV_5GVIOWUGlf2cV4B7A8m__BpEa9EuydzJOrSNteqMmHi1iTmZvtzDj-zWAM=w562-h249-no
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 1263599 times.

Back
Top