Those Serbs and that Bosniakised Serb on TA are now butthurt we got Ilyrian/Thracian and they didn't , so now they make up some new theories xD
They are literally some of the most delusional creatures I have seen.
Holy crap, that is very close.Impressed big time, my results from MyTrueAncestry were spot on.
Even better than any gedmatch model I could find. I wonder how their model works and will probably upgrade to the archaeological map now.
1. Swedish (1.080)
2. Norwegian (2.856)
3. West_Norwegian (4.956)
4. North_Swedish (5.980)
5. North_Dutch (6.424)
6. Danish (7.272)
7. German_Central (8.821)
8. North_German (8.888)
And for fun: (also looks plausible)
Viking + Saxon (2.991)
Viking + Longobard (3.177)
Here's my updated map for Asia. I now get Rise 397 from the Armenian Bronze-Age. Which is consistent with the spread of ABA giving rise to groups like the Mycenaeans.
The Ostrogoth being Greek makes a lot of sense.
My results are still the same though, and it doesn't come up one the oracles.
The fact that they already have an update makes me feel more confident about my investment with this.
I hope they continue to let out a stream of new updates. They have a lot to work with:
In this admixture chart on line 550, it shows that the Ibiza_Phoenician sample's autosomal components looks very close to that of the Mycenaean. Let us see how things pan out in the final peer-reviewed version of the paper.
Here's another aspect of the paper I found to be intriguing:
The Reich paper states that it is plausible that the Caucasus-related ancestry reported in Ravenae et al is likely to have been there since the early or middle Bronze-Age. Thus it stands to reason that this makes Southern Italian mainlanders; especially SItaly3 (see figure G, below) are indeed different from Sicilians. But who knows how Reich would model them. This is just my observations and speculation. At any rate, here are examples of the difference, below. If the plausibility is indeed correct, than the mainland south owes a lot of it's ancestry to the early to middle bronze age. While Sicily took a different route to get where it is today (Perhaps with Messina being an exception).
Furthermore, I noticed that Anatolian_BA is also very similar to the Minoan and Mycenaean samples; More than it is to Levant_BA, as observed in the ADMIXTURE analysis below. One of the samples even overlaps with SItaly1
Do you think they compare the genomes directly, using just short IBD segments or some sort of statistics? I wonder if population genetic structure/drift could occasionaly inflate relatedness with IBD sharing, diverting us from the reality of ancestry. For example, if your father is Italian and your mother is half British and half Japanese, what IBDs and admixture would tell you, considering that Italian and British are much more similar to each other than to Japanese? F-statistics, for example, shows us Basques are the second more similar to the original EEF, but not admixture. Could admixture, in this case, be more informative for tracking their " ancestry" ? Not sure, but what MyTrueAncestry seems to be doing is a comparison of admixture results (using informative ancestral components); i.e., Oracle. Also, MyTrueAncestry's similarity list based on modern pops does resemble K15 Oracle. I wonder if it's a mere coincidence. If not, why using different methodologies for modern and ancient, if the goal is the same (identifying not just genetic similarity, but "true" ancestry)? That does seem a simple Oracle, rather than a complex calculation made by some native algorithm, which doesn't mean it's not good enough. The approach seems to work relatively well, as we could notice empirically.It seems that what this company has done is straight up run an individual's whole genome against the whole genomes of ancient samples, presumably ones that are high quality. What could be more accurate than that? I don't know what anyone else is doing, whether all the samples used are of high quality, whether the run was "supervised", etc. etc.
I think what it means is that particular sample is not really "Longobard", as in Germanic in origin. This is Hungary, and we know the "Celts" in a broad sense were present there. Many papers have posited that some of the "Celts" who came to Italy, i,.e. the Boi, came from Hungary.
As to the "Roman" samples in Szolad, i.e. Central Roman, Gallo Roman and Hellenic Roman, what they're talking about is the Roman inhabitants of Pannonia. If you go back to the Amorim paper you'll see that the authors are careful to consider the archaeology, and the settlement was built in an area known for its Roman forts and villas in the period preceding the arrival of the Langobards. I don't know why it would be surprising that descendants of those people would still be there. Of course, their fate is not enviable.
You might want to read about Roman Pannonia at this late date. The Keszthely is the culture that was present in that precise area. Now, the authors of the article say the people were "Romanized". I'm not sure. Archaeologists for the last 50 or more years haven't wanted to admit that people moved, and not just pots. These people are too "Italian" like, it seems to me, being variously Gallo-Roman, Central Roman, or Hellenic Roman, to be mostly of "local" ancestry, and as I said upthread, this is the precise area where there are the remains of Roman forts and villas, and which maintained, with great difficulty, its "Roman" culture into the 7th century, when all around them in Pannonia it had perished.
As for the "Illyrian" and "Thracian" samples, that's precisely what they are, and that's the context in which they were buried. It seems that what this company has done is straight up run an individual's whole genome against the whole genomes of ancient samples, presumably ones that are high quality. What could be more accurate than that? I don't know what anyone else is doing, whether all the samples used are of high quality, whether the run was "supervised", etc. etc.
This is also the Bronze Age we're talking about. I don't see anything unusual in "Illyrians", i.e. mixed Indo-European and Southeastern European MN farmers moving into both Dalmatia and Northeastern Italy. Since then there were obviously changes, but maybe in one place the incoming people were "more" different, and so the overall similarity to Illyrians dropped.
"The characteristic garb of women included earrings with basket-shaped pendants, disc brooches with early Christian motifs, and garment pins. The early Christian symbols include crosses, bird-shaped brooches and pins decorated with bird figures (one bird-shaped brooch bears an incised cross). The Romanized populace of Pannonia in general became ‘Avarized’, and their ‘island’ of late antique culture is documented only in the immediate vicinity of Keszthely, where their traditional costume was worn until the beginning of the 9th century."
"The name Keszthely (IPA [ˈkɛst.hɛj]) could be related to the Istriot–Venetian castei, which means "castle", and is probably an original word of the Pannonian Romance language, according to the Austrian linguist Julius Pokorny. He also posits that the word Pannonia is derived via Illyrian from a Proto-Indo-European root *pen- "swamp, water, wet". If true, that would suggest that the pre-Roman language of Pannonia was an Illyrian language.
Thanks! Exactly my thoughts regarding the difference between Sicilians and mainland South Italians.
It will be interesting to see what coastal western Anatolians looked like in the Bronze Age. My guess is that the Anatolians we have thus far have inflated CHG admixture, pulling them away from Europe.
I Used to be impartial about the Serbs, but now that I've found out that I’m probably related to them, I think they're amazing people. Sometimes they are also misunderstood. LOL
Modern South Slavs aren't the same people as the pre Slavic people that lived in the Balkans.
South Slavs also get Scythian on this which is basically East European like ancestry. Albanians mostly got Roman, Ancient Greek and Ilyrian/Thracian. Some South Slavs also got Roman but also Scythian, therefor it is unlikely that the people that live there today are the same as the ones that lived there during Roman times. This is backed up by plenty of other genetic tests. If this is what you mean ?
What you said also doesn't explain why some Albanians are only getting Roman and no Ilyrian/Thracian.
I find it unlikely that this Roman is actually Roman ancestry also.
Not sure what you mean by the rest. But Albanians are closer to ancient Balkan samples than South Slavs are and these ancient samples also carry Albanian yDNA markers.
This test didn't include Vucedol or Bronze Age Montenegro or old Thracians either which were even closer to us IMO.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I'm closer to one of the "Romans" in Szolad than I am to any modern Italian population. I think that means something.
Those people were "absorbed" in one generation in an area which we know maintained a Romano-Christian culture into the 7th century, spoke a Romance language, and where one can find many Roman villas and forts. We also know it was retaken by the Eastern Roman Empire for a good chunk of time. I'm not at all surprised some of the samples look like Greeks. Those forts would have been manned by Byzantium.
Now, I'm sure that most of Hungary was not like the area around Lake Balaton, but this area was indeed different.
One can also look at the Collegno graveyard. There are actual "Germanic" Langobards, some Gallic like women, which makes sense since France is so close, one "Tuscan" like person and a number of "Hellenic" like or Greek shifted people. Collego is in Italy. What else could those people be but late Antiquity Romans?
I know it goes against what some people have thought for so long, but it is what it is. The "locals" from Italy and from Szolad are very similar.
I'm not going into the minefield of Balkan genetics. I don't know why people from the western Balkans get lower "Illyrian" and "Thracian" than some Northern Italians. I just know that archaeology, linguistics, and now genetics confirm that these types of people also went to Northern Italy, particularly Northeastern Italy. Again, it is what it is.
It goes without saying that the people from Hungary today are very different from the ones of the 6th century. From what I can tell a lot of their ancestry is south German/eastern French like, probably the result of the great west to east migrations of later Medieval periods.
Ed. Whether these Romans are like the Romans of the Republic and the early Empire we will know when those ancient samples are released. I think it's suggestive, however, that from what the author has said, there were two groups, one northern Italian like, and one Southern Italian like. Doesn't that seem to be about what the Collegno and Szolad samples show?
This thread has been viewed 1171333 times.