Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Romanian test and calculator results--your comments

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex
    Omitted

    Romanian test and calculator results--your comments

    This is a thread for discussing any thoughts you might have on commercial testing company results or calculators you have tried out, as long as the discussion involves, in some way, attributions of Romanian ancestry. It is not restricted to 23andMe results.
    If you have any additional insight that you have gathered from researching information (...other than Wikipedia) that could shed light on your Romanian ancestry, please feel free to let us know.

  2. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex
    Omitted

    Comparing Geno 2.0 and FTDA on their mysterious Eastern European category

    Continuing the discussion of Eastern European in Geno 2.0, from another thread, here are a few more things, and a comparison with FTDNA’s East Europe cluster.

    Geno 2.0 description of Eastern European, from a customer's report:
    “the Eastern European component comes partially from the preagricultural population of Europe—the earliest settlers, who arrived more than 30,000 years ago during the Upper Paleolithic period.”

    I also looked at National Geographic’s Geno 2.0 description of the Eastern Europe component.
    This is what it says:

    "Eastern Europe:
    This component of your ancestry originates in the plains that extend from the Danube River and the Black Sea north to the Baltic Sea and east to the Volga River and the Ural Mountains of Russia. Your ancestors who lived in this region thousands of years ago were likely hunters and gatherers who gradually adopted agriculture from their neighbors to the south and west. Some scientists believe that it was in this region of the world where horses were first domesticated."
    https://genographic.nationalgeograph...ions-next-gen/

    Quelle salade!

    It continues:

    “Today, this part of the world is associated with Slavic and Baltic cultures, as well as Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, and German peoples.”

    The FTDNA category is not quite as expansive, but still mixes in way too much:
    “The East Europe cluster consists of an area encompassing present day Latvia, south to Ukraine, Romania, and the northern part of Bulgaria, west along the eastern edge of the Balkan states to Poland and the eastern half of Germany.”

    The colored blob FTDNA uses to represent the cluster shows that they include all of the Czech Republic, Hungary, most of Austria, and some of Croatia and Serbia.
    The description of the cluster continues with lengthy historical musings which, to be charitable, are best ignored.

    Any thoughts on Geno 2.0 and FTDNA components? Does anyone find them useful?

  3. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    17
    Sex
    Location
    Arizona
    Ethnicity
    romanian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    I-L621
    mtDNA
    H6A1A

    My thoughts are the same... there is so much diversity as far as language... but genetically, scientists finds us pretty similar... confusing (I'm still wrapping my head around it)...
    Maybe we are all the same people... but, throughout history, language changed in order to communicate within ourselves, and our neighbors...
    We see this phenomena as we speak... by the way, we all communicating in English in this forum...

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Dumidre For This Useful Post:

     euasta (04-19-2018)

  5. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Dumidre View Post
    My thoughts are the same... there is so much diversity as far as language... but genetically, scientists finds us pretty similar... confusing (I'm still wrapping my head around it)...
    Maybe we are all the same people... but, throughout history, language changed in order to communicate within ourselves, and our neighbors...
    We see this phenomena as we speak... by the way, we all communicating in English in this forum...
    There is much wisdom in these words.
    If I could reply in Romanian, I would. I have taught myself to read it to gain access to archaeological reports, but writing is a different matter.

    If you are on this board, it might be because, like me, you are interested in new possibilities for understanding history and prehistory, and not just family ancestry.
    Population genetics may offer new insights into thinking about a variety of peoples for whom history records are either inexistent, spotty, or written by a variety external observers who may have had conflicting interests. Population genetics together with systematic archaeological study could prove a potent combination in this regard. One of the areas in the world where that is likely to be true is Romania. And that is a very good thing.

    Coming back to the descriptor in Geno 2.0. It is possible that what Geno 2.0 means by “Eastern European” is a population with some Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)-rich Eastern Hunter Gatherer ancestry. If so, the cluster should include the British and the Irish, for instance, since they have higher ANE ancestry than Romanians. That’s one of the reasons I find the “Eastern European” category mystifying.
    Last edited by Fungene; 01-26-2018 at 06:35 PM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     Modernancientdna (01-27-2018)

  7. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    17
    Sex
    Location
    Arizona
    Ethnicity
    romanian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    I-L621
    mtDNA
    H6A1A

    Quote Originally Posted by Fungene View Post
    There is much wisdom to these words.
    If I could reply in Romanian, I would. I have taught myself to read it to gain access to archaeological reports, but writing is a different matter.

    If you are on this board, it might be because, like me, you are interested in new possibilities for understanding history and prehistory, and not just family ancestry.
    Population genetics may offer new insights into thinking about a variety of peoples for whom history records are either inexistent, spotty, or written by a variety external observers who may have had conflicting interests. Population genetics together with systematic archaeological study could prove a potent combination in this regard. One of the areas in the world where that is likely to be true is Romania. And that is a very good thing.

    Coming back to the descriptor in Geno 2.0. It is possible that what Geno 2.0 means by “Eastern European” is a population with some Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)-rich Eastern Hunter Gatherer ancestry. If so, the cluster should include the British and the Irish, for instance, since they have higher ANE ancestry than Romanians. That’s one of the reasons I find the “Eastern European” category mystifying.
    Same here.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Dumidre For This Useful Post:

     Fungene (01-26-2018)

  9. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    17
    Sex
    Location
    Arizona
    Ethnicity
    romanian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA
    I-L621
    mtDNA
    H6A1A

    About the Eastern European category: A lot of people see Eastern European=Slavic. Some consider (Geno 2.0 also) Romanians having an average of 48% Slavic DNA because of that. Romanians were called Daco-Romans for centuries... Unfortunately, we don't have any DNA readings from Dacians because they were cremating their dead ones... I know that Dacians did not just evaporate; Romanians and people from the Balkans carry their genes... because of no remains, we don't know which ones though...
    About the Slavic DNA makeup: the main difference between North Slavs and South Slavs is the percentage of I-L621 yDNA and the subsequent subclades in their genes. The South Slavs have lot more I-L621 than the one in the North. Is it because they mixed with the Dacians/Thracians... very plausible, but because we don't have any dacian samples, we don't know for sure. If we would, the 44% "Slavic" DNA in Romanians would probably shrink to 20% maybe, and that would be consistent with 18-20% Slavic influence in the Romanian Language. Just my opinion...
    Last edited by Dumidre; 01-27-2018 at 01:27 AM.

  10. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,366
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA
    T1a2b- Z19945
    mtDNA
    H95a- Ostrogoth

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Austria Tirol Australia Eureka
    Quote Originally Posted by Dumidre View Post
    About the Eastern European category: A lot of people see Eastern European=Slavic. Some consider Romanians having an average of 44% Slavic DNA because of that. Romanians were called Daco-Romans for centuries... Unfortunately, we don't have any DNA readings from Dacians because they were cremating their dead ones... I know that Dacians did not just evaporate; Romanians and people from the Balkans carry their genes... because of no remains, we don't know which one though...
    About the Slavic DNA makeup: the main difference between North Slavs and South Slavs is the percentage of I-L621 yDNA and the subsequent subclades in their genes. The South Slavs have lot more I-L621 than the one in the North. Is it because they mixed with the Dacians/Thracians... very plausible, but because we don't have any dacian samples, we don't know for sure. If we would, the 44% "Slavic" DNA in Romanians would probably shrink to 20% maybe, and that would be consistent with 18-20% Slavic influence in the Romanian Language. Just my opinion...
    The key to who are the dacian/romanian is in finding out what they spoke before learning Latin

    European = 99.2%............Central Asian = 0.8% .............Yfull - 1460BC
    Father's Mtdna .........T2b17
    Grandfather's Mtdna .......T1a1e
    Sons Mtdna .......K1a4
    Maternal Grandfather paternal......I1d-P109...CTS6009
    Wife's Ydna .....R1a-Z282

    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS54+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, Y70078+ )

    The main negatives = ( M193-, P322-, P327-, Pages11- , L25- , CTS1848- )

  11. #8
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Dumidre View Post
    About the Eastern European category: A lot of people see Eastern European=Slavic. Some consider (Geno 2.0 also) Romanians having an average of 48% Slavic DNA because of that. Romanians were called Daco-Romans for centuries... Unfortunately, we don't have any DNA readings from Dacians because they were cremating their dead ones... I know that Dacians did not just evaporate; Romanians and people from the Balkans carry their genes... because of no remains, we don't know which ones though...
    About the Slavic DNA makeup: the main difference between North Slavs and South Slavs is the percentage of I-L621 yDNA and the subsequent subclades in their genes. The South Slavs have lot more I-L621 than the one in the North. Is it because they mixed with the Dacians/Thracians... very plausible, but because we don't have any dacian samples, we don't know for sure. If we would, the 44% "Slavic" DNA in Romanians would probably shrink to 20% maybe, and that would be consistent with 18-20% Slavic influence in the Romanian Language. Just my opinion...
    You are right to bring up the Dacian connection. Here are just a few thoughts:

    There are Dacian-era remains. Here is an accessible source, written in English.
    http://hiperboreeajournal.com/wp-con...7/Pogacias.pdf

    The issue of Dacian remains is incidental to the article, but it does, indirectly, point to different places one could start looking for samples to analyze. There are bones available from a Dacian necropolis in Hunedoara (52 individuals) and a Getic settlement near Brad, Moldavia (4 individuals).
    Most of the 12 males identified in the Hunedoara necropolis had “very poor inventory.” Yet they were buried in the center, while the remains of 10 individuals identified as female, whose grave inventory was also poor, were located at the periphery of the necropolis.
    Isotopic analysis could give information about mobility and nutrition status; the latter can be used to infer social class.

    Part of the problem for Dacian studies is that “Dacian” is used as a catch-all term for anybody living north of the Danube who was not Roman. It then gets extended in popular accounts in Romania to practically any culture that exhibited steppe-like characteristics, leading to the “Dacomania” one sees in some quarters of the popular press in Romania: anything remotely Indo-European is Dacian, so Dacians conquered the world, and Dacia was the center of the universe.
    No serious Romanian scholar believes this. But the view was helped along by well-meaning archaeologists of earlier ages. The bulk of Vasile Parvan’s GETICA (1926), suggests that the Dacians and the Scythians were actually quite similar. But then, Parvan summarily asserts, without evidence, that the Dacians were autochthonous and the Scythians foreign. The Dacians are “us,” the Scythians are “not-us.” Let me repeat this. That Dacians are autochthonous in the current territory of Romania is a bare assertion.

    Coming back to genetics, it would be easy to show how similar or not the Dacian warrior class was to their competitors, the Scythians. If I were to guess, I would think that one could tie the Dacians to the Andronovo horizon, just to the east of the Srubnaya. If so, Dacians would have higher steppe ancestry than the autochtonous population in the current territory of Romania they came to dominate for a few centuries.
    It looks like we don’t have the remains needed to test this hypothesis; my guess is that one could direct resources strategically to do so. If it often said that there are no remains from Cucuteni culture; yet I find reports that do identify them. The same would go for Dacian remains, or at least Dacian-era remains. More might be identifiable with proper effort.

    It is possible that the remains at Hunedoara are those of individuals not belonging to the Dacian warrior or warrior-religious caste, but somehow in their service. Perhaps they were of mixed ancestry. (Dacian men were notoriously polygynous.) If so, one would expect these remains to have somewhat lower steppe ancestry in comparison with Scythian samples (which is something we have), but higher in comparison with the average modern Romanian. It is quite possible that the infant remains from this necropolis, especially, could have relatively high steppe ancestry in comparison with modern Romanians.

    If Romanians are really serious about Dacian studies, they would need to analyze these and similar samples. The results would at least give us material to disprove some hypotheses (including the ones I suggest here) and produce new ones, rather than repeat old saws about Dacians.

    Oh, and BTW, I haven’t even begun to address the mess of terminology: Dacian, Thracian, etc. (Former Romanian president Ion Iliescu’s claim to fame will forever be his unforgettable explanation to Americans, in equally unforgettable English, “The ducks come from the trucks.”)

    On Dacian-era remains, a reference to follow up would be:
    Valeriu Sirbu, S. A. Luca. 2007. Vestigiile dacice de al Hunedoara.
    http://bjiasi.ebibliophil.ro/carte/v...petru-asezarea
    Last edited by Fungene; 01-27-2018 at 07:20 PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     Dumidre (01-29-2018)

  13. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    285
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    The key to who are the dacian/romanian is in finding out what they spoke before learning Latin
    That’s also an important element to the discussion. The more one digs into an issue, the more one finds that things that people thought were settled might be open for discussion.

    A case in point: beliefs about the evolution of the Romanian language. The most up-to-date, extensive work in this area is Mihai Vinereanu’s:
    Mihai Vinereanu’s Dictionar Etimologic (2008) and his Radacini Nostratice in Limba Romana (2010) are available as e-publications.

    The first work is the only complete etymological dictionary of Romanian based on more recent research on the reconstruction of Indo-European languages. The earlier attempts by Alexandru Cihac , Alexandru Cioranescu, Heimann Hariton Tiktin, and Sextil Puscariu are quite a bit older and are perhaps more the efforts of dilettantes.

    That Thraco-Illyrian-Dacian was an Indo-European language belonging to the Italo-Celtic group is the guiding hypothesis of Vinereanu’s dictionary (his first book). With this hypothesis, he can more comprehensively account for the etymology of Romanian words than rival accounts, which see Romanian as being derived from Latin. Under that rival hypothesis, the majority of words (over 85%) would be derived from other languages. That would make Romanian a creole (like Haitian.) But Romanian syntax suggests that Romanian is not a creole.

    That’s the outline of his general argument (the conclusion is obvious). The Dictionar is the go-to resource that Romanian linguists ought to be debating. As for anything, there is sure to be room for serious debate. Not much is happening on that front.

    A few points. This work should not be put in the same category as revisionistic attempts to argue that French and Spanish are not derived from Latin. Vinereanu’s work is independent of these efforts. Also, his work can be read even if one brackets the author’s personal beliefs that Indo-European languages were brought to Europe with the process of Neolithization and that Indo-European languages are part of a larger Nostratic macrofamily of languages.

    In fact, if ever find time, I will write a few comments on why I think Radacine, Vinereanu’s second work, is particularly intriguing in spite of his erroneous belief about the Neolithic in Europe.
    Last edited by Fungene; 01-27-2018 at 07:28 PM. Reason: st

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Fungene For This Useful Post:

     vettor (01-27-2018)

  15. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,366
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA
    T1a2b- Z19945
    mtDNA
    H95a- Ostrogoth

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Austria Tirol Australia Eureka
    Quote Originally Posted by Fungene View Post
    That’s also an important element to the discussion. The more one digs into an issue, the more one finds that things that people thought were settled might be open for discussion.

    A case in point: beliefs about the evolution of the Romanian language. The most up-to-date, extensive work in this area is Mihai Vinereanu’s:
    Mihai Vinereanu’s Dictionar Etimologic (2008) and his Radacini Nostratice in Limba Romana (2010) are available as e-publications.

    The first work is the only complete etymological dictionary of Romanian based on more recent research on the reconstruction of Indo-European languages. The earlier attempts by Alexandru Cihac , Alexandru Cioranescu, Heimann Hariton Tiktin, and Sextil Puscariu are quite a bit older and are perhaps more the efforts of dilettantes.

    That Thraco-Illyrian-Dacian was an Indo-European language belonging to the Italo-Celtic group is the guiding hypothesis of Vinereanu’s dictionary (his first book). With this hypothesis, he can more comprehensively account for the etymology of Romanian words than rival accounts, which see Romanian as being derived from Latin. Under that rival hypothesis, the majority of words (over 85%) would be derived from other languages. That would make Romanian a creole (like Haitian.) But Romanian syntax suggests that Romanian is not a creole.

    That’s the outline of his general argument (the conclusion is obvious). The Dictionar is the go-to resource that Romanian linguists ought to be debating. As for anything, there is sure to be room for serious debate. Not much is happening on that front.

    A few points. This work should not be put in the same category as revisionistic attempts to argue that French and Spanish are not derived from Latin. Vinereanu’s work is independent of these efforts. Also, his work can be read even if one brackets the author’s personal beliefs that Indo-European languages were brought to Europe with the process of Neolithization and that Indo-European languages are part of a larger Nostratic macrofamily of languages.

    In fact, if ever find time, I will write a few comments on why I think Radacine, Vinereanu’s second work, is particularly intriguing in spite of his erroneous belief about the Neolithic in Europe.
    thank you
    https://limbaromana.org/en/introduct...nian-language/

    i will read the above

    European = 99.2%............Central Asian = 0.8% .............Yfull - 1460BC
    Father's Mtdna .........T2b17
    Grandfather's Mtdna .......T1a1e
    Sons Mtdna .......K1a4
    Maternal Grandfather paternal......I1d-P109...CTS6009
    Wife's Ydna .....R1a-Z282

    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS54+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, Y70078+ )

    The main negatives = ( M193-, P322-, P327-, Pages11- , L25- , CTS1848- )

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Half Romanian Jew/half German results.
    By Myth in forum DNA.Land
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-11-2017, 10:27 PM
  2. My first own ADMIXTURE calculator - K4 World test:)
    By lukaszM in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-26-2017, 01:10 AM
  3. Another new calculator - K12 World (beta test)
    By lukaszM in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 11-23-2017, 10:22 PM
  4. Calculator in Gedmatch to test for Greenlandic Inuit
    By Virginian Norseman in forum Open-Source Projects
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2016, 06:49 PM
  5. Calculator to test for Negrito admixture?
    By shazou in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-20-2016, 06:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •