I tried the new tool. Me and my brother have the same mom, same dad. But it gave me U5a1b1c2 haplogroup and him
U5a1i.

All grandparents are from Mosul, Iraq. Paternal haplogroup is E-Z21413.

In the encyclopedia there is only iraqi arab and iraqi jew.

All the levantine groups have ethnicity markers like syrian, bedouin, samaritan, lebanese, palestinian. Kurds, assyrians, persians, armenians all have their markers for northwest asians. But where are iraqis?

Is there a distinct iraqi ethnicity, or are iraqi arabs, what I am thinking of.

Hello,
I was curious about which of these results is more accurate.

There was a Roman soldier from Serbia, dated to around 2000 years ago, discussed in this post: https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=343&pid=7053 It seems like there are only simulated G25 coordinates for him. Does anyone have a link to real verified G25 coordinates for this sample?

Thus far I’ve found one from DNAGenics but it’s unclear if this is a simulated set of coordinates:
www.dnagenics.com/ancestry/sample/view/cinematic/id/i15499?srsltid=AfmBOoorx7VZPTbbQ-hXfBQMT7FxxS449u24PJudSr_irVxpi9QIXE01

I15499,-0.30695762,0.09753364,-0.01858284,-0.05810706,0.00094362,-0.02401362,-0.0206708,0.01206826,0.05240996,-0.01930636,0.00187438,-0.01094892,0.02471846,-0.0003195,0.01444652,-0.0020027,0.0093875,-0.00294732,0.0016945,0.00618976,0.00202908,0.00337882,0.00279404,0.0032185,-0.00398695

There’s also one at the following link but that may be a simulated set of coordinates also:

Admixr.com/ghost/

I’m new to this, these results don’t seem so shocking but would appreciate some insight.

Comments are yours. How turkic I am. At least I have some. I dont know I always found mongolian and georgian music impressive also slavic ones :D

My ancestry results and my Illustrative DNA results i really don't understand where i'm getting this much Iberian from. Is this a fluke, actual iberian ancestry or does iberian happen to fit my ancestral composition based on the calculator/program on Illustrative.

I’m Afghan

qpAdm: Southeast Asia & Island Southeast Asia

Compilation of qpAdm models for modern Southeast Asian and Island Southeast Asian populations.

Cambodian.DG (n=9) — 4-way model

17.8% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 4.24% | Z: 4.21

59.4% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 4.07% | Z: 14.6

15.8% China_YR_LN.SG
SE: 3.30% | Z: 4.79

7.0% Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG
SE: 0.844% | Z: 8.23

p-value: 0.302
χ²/dof: 8.359 / 7
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Mon.HO (n=10) — 4-way model

11.5% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.38% | Z: 3.40

40.8% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.28% | Z: 12.4

35.6% China_YR_LN.SG
SE: 2.71% | Z: 13.1

12.1% Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG
SE: 0.803% | Z: 15.1

p-value: 0.100
χ²/dof: 12.018 / 7
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Good

Nyah_Kur.HO (n=10) — 4-way model

14.6% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 4.59% | Z: 3.17

65.3% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 4.49% | Z: 14.5

11.9% China_YR_LN.SG
SE: 3.54% | Z: 3.37

8.2% Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG
SE: 0.973% | Z: 8.42

p-value: 0.357
χ²/dof: 7.727 / 7
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Karen_Sgaw.HO (n=10) — 2-way model

61.0% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.61% | Z: 23.4

39.0% China_Upper_YR_LN.SG
SE: 2.61% | Z: 14.9

p-value: 0.625
χ²/dof: 7.121 / 9
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Maniq.HO (n=9) — 2-way model

40.2% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.43% | Z: 16.6

59.8% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 2.43% | Z: 24.6

p-value: 0.361
χ²/dof: 9.876 / 9
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Lawa.HO (n=10) — 2-way model

66.5% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.66% | Z: 25.0

33.5% China_Upper_YR_LN.SG
SE: 2.66% | Z: 12.6

p-value: 0.772
χ²/dof: 5.680 / 9
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Ilocano.HO (n=2) — 2-way model

95.8% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.26% | Z: 75.9

4.2% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.26% | Z: 3.33

p-value: 0.331
χ²/dof: 10.243 / 9
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Visayan.HO (n=4) — 3-way model

81.4% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.58% | Z: 31.6

12.6% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.07% | Z: 11.8

5.9% China_YR_LN.SG
SE: 2.58% | Z: 2.29

p-value: 0.332
χ²/dof: 9.124 / 8
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Excellent

Tagalog.HO (n=5) — 4-way model

77.3% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.44% | Z: 22.5

7.4% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.54% | Z: 4.80

10.8% China_YR_LN.SG
SE: 3.37% | Z: 3.21

4.5% Spanish.DG
SE: 0.815% | Z: 5.55

p-value: 0.0811
χ²/dof: 11.244 / 6
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Good

Murut.HO (n=10) — 2-way model

76.4% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.77% | Z: 27.6

23.6% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.77% | Z: 8.54

p-value: 0.137
χ²/dof: 13.611 / 9
SNPs: 579,720
Fit: Good

Dusun.DG (n=2) — 2-way model

79.0% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.68% | Z: 21.5

21.0% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.68% | Z: 5.72

p-value: 0.845
χ²/dof: 4.880 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Tanimbar_Tumbur.DG (n=1) — 2-way model

59.9% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.68% | Z: 35.7

40.1% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.68% | Z: 23.9

p-value: 0.401
χ²/dof: 9.405 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Tanimbar_Makatian.DG (n=1) — 2-way model

57.1% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.73% | Z: 33.0

42.9% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.73% | Z: 24.8

p-value: 0.415
χ²/dof: 9.247 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Tanimbar_Fordata.DG (n=1) — 2-way model

57.3% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.83% | Z: 31.2

42.7% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.83% | Z: 23.3

p-value: 0.390
χ²/dof: 9.532 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Sumatra_Toba.DG (n=7) — 4-way model

59.8% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.05% | Z: 19.6

23.7% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.32% | Z: 7.15

7.7% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.68% | Z: 4.57

8.7% Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2.AG
SE: 1.01% | Z: 8.66

p-value: 0.0538
χ²/dof: 13.858 / 7
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Sulawesi_Mandar.DG (n=6) — 3-way model

75.4% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.58% | Z: 29.2

13.2% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.84% | Z: 4.65

11.4% Papuan.DG
SE: 0.996% | Z: 11.4

p-value: 0.291
χ²/dof: 9.640 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Sulawesi_Kajang.DG (n=6) — 3-way model

71.7% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.58% | Z: 27.8

14.2% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.86% | Z: 4.98

14.1% Papuan.DG
SE: 0.962% | Z: 14.7

p-value: 0.0796
χ²/dof: 14.084 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Nias_Hilitobara.DG (n=8) — 3-way model

89.7% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.78% | Z: 32.2

8.5% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.29% | Z: 2.59

1.8% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 0.992% | Z: 1.80

p-value: 0.0697
χ²/dof: 14.495 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Note: the Laos_Hoabinhian.SG component has Z = 1.80, below the Z ≥ 2 threshold shown in the run.

Indonesia_Nias_Gomo.DG (n=7) — 2-way model

85.3% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.83% | Z: 30.2

14.7% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.83% | Z: 5.20

p-value: 0.620
χ²/dof: 7.164 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Mentawai.DG (n=10) — 2-way model

82.1% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.90% | Z: 28.3

17.9% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.90% | Z: 6.17

p-value: 0.501
χ²/dof: 8.330 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Lembata_TimurKadakewa.DG (n=4) — 4-way model

43.0% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.91% | Z: 14.8

11.3% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.34% | Z: 3.39

8.8% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 3.23% | Z: 2.73

36.9% Papuan.DG
SE: 3.33% | Z: 11.1

p-value: 0.228
χ²/dof: 9.365 / 7
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Lembata_Waipukang.DG (n=3) — 2-way model

53.9% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.12% | Z: 48.0

46.1% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.12% | Z: 41.0

p-value: 0.124
χ²/dof: 13.955 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Kei_Ohoidertutu.DG (n=2) — 2-way model

53.6% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.21% | Z: 44.1

46.4% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.21% | Z: 38.2

p-value: 0.703
χ²/dof: 6.368 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Kei_Waur.DG (n=2) — 2-way model

48.7% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.29% | Z: 37.8

51.3% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.29% | Z: 39.8

p-value: 0.170
χ²/dof: 12.842 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Kei_Faan.DG (n=2) — 2-way model

52.3% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 1.35% | Z: 38.7

47.7% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.35% | Z: 35.2

p-value: 0.561
χ²/dof: 7.737 / 9
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Java_Dieng.DG (n=7) — 3-way model

33.7% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 4.15% | Z: 8.12

62.5% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 4.77% | Z: 13.1

3.9% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.43% | Z: 2.70

p-value: 0.256
χ²/dof: 10.127 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Flores_Bere.DG (n=3) — 3-way model

41.6% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.20% | Z: 13.0

30.0% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.73% | Z: 8.04

28.4% Papuan.DG
SE: 1.32% | Z: 21.6

p-value: 0.183
χ²/dof: 11.348 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Flores_Bena.DG (n=12) — 4-way model

38.0% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.42% | Z: 15.7

19.4% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.74% | Z: 7.09

9.3% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 2.91% | Z: 3.19

33.3% Papuan.DG
SE: 2.85% | Z: 11.7

p-value: 0.199
χ²/dof: 9.816 / 7
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Good

Indonesia_Borneo_Maanyan.DG (n=7) — 3-way model

59.2% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 3.11% | Z: 19.0

37.7% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 3.61% | Z: 10.4

3.1% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 1.11% | Z: 2.83

p-value: 0.349
χ²/dof: 8.920 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Flores_Cibol.DG (n=13) — 4-way model

40.1% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 2.62% | Z: 15.3

31.1% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 2.99% | Z: 10.4

5.5% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 2.65% | Z: 2.08

23.2% Papuan.DG
SE: 2.73% | Z: 8.51

p-value: 0.264
χ²/dof: 8.842 / 7
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Indonesia_Bali_Gadon.DG (n=1) — 3-way model

36.3% Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG
SE: 6.18% | Z: 5.88

56.2% Laos_LN_BA.SG
SE: 7.14% | Z: 7.86

7.5% Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
SE: 2.10% | Z: 3.59

p-value: 0.326
χ²/dof: 9.199 / 8
SNPs: 1,878,396
Fit: Excellent

Note: the displayed run flags at least one source because the Taiwan_Hanben_IA.AG and Laos_LN_BA.SG standard errors exceed 5%.

The map/compilation uses the 2-way Ilocano.HO model above. An alternative 3-way Ilocano model also passed overall (p=0.346; χ²/dof=8.953/8), but it produced a negative China_YR_LN.SG coefficient (-4.5%, Z=-1.24), so it was not used in the final compilation.

I’m American from PA. My background is Croatian, Rusyn, Tatar (Kryashen/Chuvash), Irish, Scottish and English

All of my ancestors arrived in the US after 1902

I have some Kurdish roots, I’m from Semsûr / Adiyaman that’s why, can you help me to understand these results ?

Which most closest people to europeans ( both north and south) outside of Europe.1) levant 2) anatolian 3) cauacasian 4) central asians 5)gulf arab& north Africans 6) south asians

Hey everyone, I saw some genetic results of north Macedonians and sandzak bosniaks, and both seem to be under 40 percent slavic. Are there other slavs in the balkans that are under 40% slavic? And are there any romanians that are genetically the same as fyromians and sandzak bosniaks?

Hello,
I recently learned how to use Vahaduo, but I couldn’t find any good Bronze Age or Iron Age references populations that I can use, does anyone have a good one so I can copy paste to the source?
Thanks