New Tribes' Populations

[rainbow]

Oh wow Deirwha !

You have the best signature

[Deirwha]

thanks Rainbow



I like the additon of color!

[Maria_W]

Lowest test score?

I wonder how DNA Tribes comes up with its scores...
I was on their website looking at sample test scores. I was really stunned when it showed the top score of 1.91for Asia Minor on world region (no its not a mistake)for a Asian person who lived in Canada.. I will never feel bad about my scores again...

[Maria_W]

Heres got to be the record...

I stand corrected. I found a top world region score of 0.72 from a East Indian person living in Canada. There is 17 scores at and under 0.72. I can't even comprehend that score... How and why does this happen? Theres no where to go from there but down!

[tomcat]

New Tribes Digest

New Tribes digest just released; Genetic Relationships in Africa.

[rainbow]

New Tribes digest just released; Genetic Relationships in Africa.

Thanks. It was in my email and i just looked at it. There are Australian genes in Africa. And a lot of Levantine in Coptics. Portuguese in Noth Africa. Etc.

[derinos]

Ok, I'm not fully familiar with this, but can someone explain the value of these "tribes" tests when most people taking these tests aren't remotely close to any one specific group and when most modern countries, especially in Europe are a mix of migrated tribes all over the continent, blended over the course of centuries upon centuries?

To me, these "tribes" scores seem like some sort of artificial computation relevant, to, well, nothing. The "tribes" aren't based on historical, actual "tribes", and even if they were, no one is remotely close to any one, anyway.

But, maybe I'm wrong so feel free to educate me on this further...

Maybe its all part of Gracious Living. And it is very educational, making people look up ethnogeography and ancient history.

[katiecarol]

All they attempt to do is see where your markers are most frequent in the world,nothing more,nothing less.Nowhere do they indicate or assume that you belong to any particular group.I know when I see 'scots' score that I do not come from Scotland,but that I have markers more common to Scots [celtic-norse hybrids] than to [straight up celts] who would get Iberia/spain/portugal etc - that's why anyone who gets scotland gets norway too.Alot of Tribes results correlate with Mtdna and Y studies,they are not entirely useless yet. Until we've all done some study in molecular anthropology we can't really write them off.

Ok, I'm not fully familiar with this, but can someone explain the value of these "tribes" tests when most people taking these tests aren't remotely close to any one specific group and when most modern countries, especially in Europe are a mix of migrated tribes all over the continent, blended over the course of centuries upon centuries?

To me, these "tribes" scores seem like some sort of artificial computation relevant, to, well, nothing. The "tribes" aren't based on historical, actual "tribes", and even if they were, no one is remotely close to any one, anyway.

But, maybe I'm wrong so feel free to educate me on this further...

[katiecarol]

I'm all for STR markers,I was just highlighting that people expect their tribes results to adhere with their physical appearence,which is ridiculous because the dna they test doesn't code for appearence.

Does that really matter?
I just saw this posted on Rootsweb site:

"One thing you can say about the use of CODIS markers for biogeographical assays is that LD( linkeage disequilibrium) is not a problem there -- the CODIS set has a {lot} of information packed into each marker "

which I thought was a very good point by the poster.. I don't know how you can go wrong looking at the CODIS markers..there are thousands in the population databases..and still you need to make some assumptions.
I am glad and satisfied with what if have learned from DNA Tribes.It continues to evolve and for $25 I can have new samples run every time they get a bunch of new populations that are relevant in.

You always have to evaluate results in every test you take.There are NO crystal balls out there yet but many of us have taken our bits and pieces of results and made scholarly conclusions from them.
No magic wands though..

[Deirwha]

and a very good point

I'm all for STR markers,I was just highlighting that people expect their tribes results to adhere with their physical appearence,which is ridiculous because the dna they test doesn't code for appearence.

I don't know that I understood that. See, this forum does provide useful info all the time. Thanks.

[rainbow]

All they attempt to do is see where your markers are most frequent in the world,nothing more,nothing less.Nowhere do they indicate or assume that you belong to any particular group.I know when I see 'scots' score that I do not come from Scotland,but that I have markers more common to Scots [celtic-norse hybrids] than to [straight up celts] who would get Iberia/spain/portugal etc - that's why anyone who gets scotland gets norway too.Alot of Tribes results correlate with Mtdna and Y studies,they are not entirely useless yet. Until we've all done some study in molecular anthropology we can't really write them off.

I have a lot of Iberian/Portugal/Spain in my top 20. I guess that means I'm more straight up celt than the average Scot. I am part Scottish and expected Scotland or UK to be my top match, but it isn't even in my current top 20. I have a top 20 match to Denmark. Maybe Denmark represents my English side that may be mostly from Danish settlers (Jute & Norman, & Danelaw area, etc). Maybe my Portugual matches indicate more Brythionic English ancestry (old celt) than Danish English.

I'm all for STR markers,I was just highlighting that people expect their tribes results to adhere with their physical appearence,which is ridiculous because the dna they test doesn't code for appearence.

OK. I don't think I look like my world region top matches of North African & Mediterranean. I think I look English/Scottish.

[derinos]

Brythonic English = Britons=Welsh

I have a lot of Iberian/Portugal/Spain in my top 20. I guess that means I'm more straight up celt than the average Scot. I am part Scottish and expected Scotland or UK to be my top match, but it isn't even in my current top 20. I have a top 20 match to Denmark. Maybe Denmark represents my English side that may be mostly from Danish settlers (Jute & Norman, & Danelaw area, etc). Maybe my Portugual matches indicate more Brythionic English ancestry (old celt) than Danish English.



OK. I don't think I look like my world region top matches of North African & Mediterranean. I think I look English/Scottish.

Response:
And they (the Brythons or Welsh) inhabited Southern Scotland for a long time:
"Strathclyde evolved from the former Damnonian territories and was centred on Dumbarton Rock, which was known as Ar Clwydd, on Clyde. Its extent reached from Loch Lomond across to Stirlingshire, down lower Clydeside and North Ayrshire. It is the only one of the North British kingdoms that lies wholly within Scotland. AP Smythe (35) states that "The Clyde valley under the Dumbarton Britons never fell to the Angles" and that Strathclyde remained British until the formation of the Kingdom of Scotland. Kenneth Jackson (in Celt and Saxon, 31) tells us that "there can be no reasonable doubt that Strathclyde was a Christian country" The annals of 750CE tell us of the Picts and the Northumbrians working together to take Dumbarton rock. The hold it for a mere nine days before the Britons reclaim it. This might of the Strathclyders is shown by Nora Chadwick (Celtic Britain, 39) who reports that "Bede implies the strength of the old British kingdom of Dumbarton when he refers to it as

[Maria_W]

DNA Tribes World Region....

This is my World Region Report from Jan 19, 2008. Forgot to post it...

1. Eastern European: 400.78 (.66) Slavic speaking regions
2. Northwest European: 320.44 (.56) Celtic and Germanic speaking regions
3. Finno Ugrian: 290.34 (.59) The Uralic speaking regions
4. Mediterranean: 92.33 (.44) The romance speaking regions
5. Aeagen: 11.21 (.21) The eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia region and modern day Turkey, Greece,Italy and Sicily.
6. North African 8.76 (.13) Atlas Mountains and the Sahara Desert.
7. Mesopotamiam 3.95 (.11) Iran, Iraq and nearby territorries.
8. Levatine 1.46 (.5) Populations along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

My known ancestry for the last 400 years is: Potowomecke from Colonial Virginia, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, France, Germany and Switzerland.

Maria

[rainbow]

This is my World Region Report from Jan 19, 2008. Forgot to post it...

1. Eastern European: 400.78 (.66) Slavic speaking regions
2. Northwest European: 320.44 (.56) Celtic and Germanic speaking regions
3. Finno Ugrian: 290.34 (.59) The Uralic speaking regions
4. Mediterranean: 92.33 (.44) The romance speaking regions
5. Aeagen: 11.21 (.21) The eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia region and modern day Turkey, Greece,Italy and Sicily.
6. North African 8.76 (.13) Atlas Mountains and the Sahara Desert.
7. Mesopotamiam 3.95 (.11) Iran, Iraq and nearby territorries.
8. Levatine 1.46 (.5) Populations along the coast of the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

My known ancestry for the last 400 years is: Potowomecke from Colonial Virginia, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, France, Germany and Switzerland.

Maria

Thanks for posting your world region matches. Why on earth would you get Eastern European as your top match when you don't have any Eastern European ancestry?

I see you also have a match to North African, although it is low. That one is my top match. I have no ancestry from there.

Atlas Mountains and Sahara Desert?

I'm guessing that maybe the last glacial refuge, or whatever it was called was actually on land near Gibraltar or the Atlas Mountains, and the area flooded, or whatever, and then the masses of people moved up into Iberia. Or most went up into Iberia, and some went down into the Atlas Mountains. Just an idea. My mtdna H1 is most common in Iberia, but can be found in North Africa too.

Sounds like the story of Atlantis, doesn't it?

[katiecarol]

The slavs were used/sold as slaves in the 9th/10th century by vikings and were taken/sold across europe and probably to the isles,they were also sent to the middle east.There has also been a migration of poles and other slavs to Britain prior to the 19th century.

Celts have also lived across eastern europe and may have intermarried with the slavs
there. The celts left sometime around the 1st century.

Hidden jewish ancestry sometimes results in some levantine and eastern european scores.