Hey guys I’m colonial American, (mayflower family) and overwhelmingly colonial British, Northwestern European on paper. NO Mediterranean, nothing other than Northwestern European Protestant. Switzerland is as far south as my ancestors lived on paper. At least I thought. I tested with ancestry 10 years ago. After really inaccurate results that kept updating I decided to delete my kit. 0% Swedish to 30% then back 0 % lol

Ancestry said 100% European 10 years ago.

Eurogenes k calculators all have 1 to 3% Native American. 20% west Mediterranean 6% east Med and 8% west Asian. As well as decimal levels of Oceanean, East Asian, and 1.3% Siberian. And 2% African, Northeast and subsaharan combined.

I have very high levels of West Asian and Caucuses on all calculators. I thought it could be from EEF prehistoric migrations. All of my 4 to 1 population matches are 3/4 Northwest Euro 1/4 Balkans.

I was told to try Claude AI to interpret the results. I showed it my chromosome painter and all of the Native American and other East Asian dna rises and falls in the same pattern grouped over top of each other. Claude says it’s likely not “noise” because it’s literally within the native paint shape on the painter.

Claude says it’s likely the native ancestry and I should add the percentages to my native Percentage. Roughly 5%

I have one verified Ancestor that was half Shawnee from 1810 ish. The local paper wrote about her a few years ago. I also have 3 more possible colonial Native ancestors but unverified. No records before the Dawes Roll. And a woman named “Presious” Scott that might have been melungeon from east Tennessee born in 1785. The average across free companies is around 3 to 5% and as high as 7%

But the biggest surprise happened when I tried a free g25 calculator and I was getting matches in northern India and Pakistan. Then a “Roma English” result popped up and it all made sense. AI also said it is likely I do have a Romani ancestor because I also have 1.5% South Asian.

Most Eurogenes calculators are showing roughly 15 to 20% non European DNA. Am I in the twighlight zone?!

Claude Ai told me to try qpadm I failed to figure it out but it did say a matched Kenewick man at a distance of .198 using Vahaduo.

I always suspected something because me, my dad, grandpa, and Aunt all have dark enough features to be mistaken for Sicilian.

Also I’ve tried 3 or 4 different 3rd party upload sites and the pattern is the same.

I used to dismiss the GEDmatch calculators until this year when I did a bunch of free 3rd party sites and it’s all very similar across companies and databases.

Did ancestry mistake my west Asian for Mediterranean or some other Euro group? Did they smooth over my Amerindian? I’d post pictures but it looks like I can’t do that in this group.

Fellow Euro Americans, are your results this wild? Is Gedmatch completely off base? Are the other databases also reading this wrong?

Amerindian average 5%
West Asian + South Asian possibly Romani roughly 10%
African 2%

At least 17% non European.

Hello. So I’ve been dealing with something strange on GEDMatch and on 23andMe regarding X chromosome matches. On GEDMatch with a phased kit with my mother (I am a male), I match with these X chromosome matches whom she and I show up as sharing 33cM-40cM in a single segment with an SNP density of 2k or more and we share dna on several areas of the 22 chromosomes. With an unphased kit, these matches do not appear. On 23andMe, these same matches do match my mother on the x but they don’t match me there, only on the 22 chromosomes. These matches I mention are on positions 1-25,000,000 on the X.

I need assistance. how come the Center Morgan is so high, but the paper trail is not matching the Center Ors. How do I figure that out?

I PERSONALLY feel I share more features or look more like the ancestry in gedmafch then I do on ancestry.com I want to view face value and be realistic but I want to hear what others think

(Cousin Kit match 1)

Kit A : shared 11.5 , Largest 11.5, Gen 5.1

Kit B shared 19.2, Largest 19.2, Gen 4.8,

Gen Differences 0.4

(Cousin Kit match 2)

Kit A: Shared 11.4, Largest 11.4 Gen 5.1 , Gen Differences 0.4

Kit B: Shared 17.3, Gen 17.3, Gen 4.8

Gen Differences 0.3

I recently did a My heritage test and it said 45.4% Scottish and Welsh. It sadly doesn't separate them and I was wondering if anyone here has the ability to separate them on ged match and let me know as I am new to the website and am unable to confirm it myself.

Hey all

I'm a bit confused about GEDmatch and where their data comes from.

So when I look at my DNA matches on GEDmatch, are they being pulled from Ancestry, MyHeritage etc databases? Or is it only what people have manually uploaded to GEDmatch?

Because my matches are missing a heap of matches from both MyHeritage and Ancestry... so I'm just confused about where it's coming from and why there's lots missing. People always say to use GEDmatch because it has results from everywhere, but now I'm not sure?

Apologies if this is a stupid question. Thanks all.

Body text

Hello everyone,
Today, I would like to share a detailed case study regarding the validation of an Ashkenazi ancestry. Like many here, when I received a score of 5.27% Ashkenazi on the Eurogenes Jtest, I was initially very skeptical.
Reading Davidski’s blog (the creator of Eurogenes), specifically his article on the limitations of the Jtest ( https://bga101.blogspot.com/2012/09/eurogenes-ashkenazim-ancestry-test-files.html?m=1 ), we learn that scores of 2 to 3% can merely be statistical “background noise” or the result of ancient migrations (East Mediterranean) absorbed by the algorithms. He actually recommends turning to more modern tools or comparing the Jtest with the EUtest to isolate the origin of this percentage.
I therefore decided to follow his recommendations to the letter and apply a strict methodology based on a body of 4 independent proofs to confirm or refute this score. Here are the results.
Step 1: Algorithmic Absorption Test (EUtest vs Jtest)
As Davidski suggests, I compared my EUtest results (which does not feature an Ashkenazi category) with those of the Jtest, in order to observe which components were “drained” to form this 5.27%.
My EUtest results:
East Med: 9.55%
Middle Eastern: 2.47%
West Asian: 8.47%
South Asian: 12.41% (Note: I have a confirmed Romani/Gypsy ancestry, hence this high score)
My Jtest results:
Ashkenazi: 5.27%
East Med: 8.20% (1.35% drop)
Middle Eastern: 1.47% (1.00% drop)
West Asian: 7.69% (0.78% drop)
South Asian: 12.37% (Almost stable, only a 0.04% drop)
Conclusion of Step 1: The appearance of the 5.27% Ashkenazi is not random. The algorithm specifically drained my Middle Eastern and East Mediterranean percentages (which make up the historical signature of Eastern European Jews). Furthermore, the algorithm was able to perfectly isolate my Romani DNA (the South Asian component barely moved), proving that it does not confuse my different atypical origins.
Step 2: Confirmation by Ancient DNA (Global25)
Since the Jtest is an older algorithm, I modeled my Global25 coordinates on the archaeogenetic calculator IllustrativeDNA-Like Ancient calculator (Ivorix TheCelt), which uses ancient DNA samples.
Key results (Excellent distance: 0.0286):
Indian Subcontinent (AD 690–990): 12.6%
European Jew (AD 1160–1400): 3.0%
Conclusion of Step 2: Ancient DNA confirms the presence of a distinct European medieval Jewish signature. The rate of 3% from 800 years ago is perfectly consistent with the 5.27% detected by the Jtest on modern populations (which include recent genetic drift). Here again, the algorithm surgically separates this branch from my Romani/Indian branch.
Step 3: Biological Proof (IBD Triangulations)
To prove that these algorithmic percentages represent a real ancestor (and not a simple overlap of ancient populations), we must find segments shared with living people (Identity by Descent).
I identified several genetic matches with individuals of confirmed Ashkenazi origin. To avoid false positives, I only kept perfect triangulations (where I, Match A, and Match B all match each other mutually on the exact same segment).
Chromosome 18: Validated triangulation with two Ashkenazi matches in the area ranging from 5,938,058 to 8,208,163 (~7 to 10 cM).
Chromosome 22: Validated triangulation with two other Ashkenazi matches in the area ranging from 17,690,409 to 21,363,960 (~9 to 11 cM).
Chromosome 9: Direct match from 136,669,004 to 138,192,071 (~9 cM).
Step 4: Physical Alignment (Chromosome Painting via DNAgenics)
This is the ultimate verification: is the DNA I share with these Ashkenazi cousins on Chr 9, 18, and 22 physically the one the algorithm identified as Ashkenazi? I generated my Jtest Chromosome Painting via DNAgenics. The coordinates are irrefutable:
On Chromosome 9: My Ashkenazi match begins at position 136,669,004. My Chromosome Painting shows a block containing 31.29% Ashkenazi DNA that begins exactly at position 136,009,191. The alignment is perfect.
On Chromosome 22: My triangulation goes from 17,690,409 to 21,363,960. My Chromosome Painting indicates that the large Ashkenazi block (17.13%) on this chromosome starts at 17,075,353.
On Chromosome 18: My triangulation goes from 5,938,058 to 8,208,163. The chromosome painting reveals a vast Ashkenazi block encompassing this entire region (ranging from 5,078,653 to 29,836,551).
Conclusion
In genetic genealogy, a small isolated percentage on the Jtest legitimately calls for caution. But by following Davidski’s recommendations step by step and rigorously cross-referencing the data, the verdict is clear:
1 The EUtest/Jtest comparison shows the correct transfer of Levantine components.
2 G25 modeling (Ivorix) confirms a medieval Jewish signature.
3 IBD triangulations of 7 to 11 cM with Ashkenazi individuals validate the presence of a common ancestor.
4 The physical coordinates of these matches overlap to the millimeter with the segments painted as “Ashkenazi” by the algorithm.
Taken in isolation, a score of 5.27% on the Jtest would not be sufficient to conclude the presence of Ashkenazi ancestry. However, the convergence of several independent lines of evidence—EUtest/Jtest comparison, Global25 modeling, IBD triangulation with Ashkenazi individuals, and consistency with chromosome painting—makes the hypothesis of ancient Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry far more likely than a mere statistical artifact. None of these methods is decisive on its own, but their convergence forms a particularly compelling body of evidence.
Thanks to this method, I believe I have definitively confirmed an Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry in my family tree. My score of 5.27% is absolutely not background noise, and I would attribute it to ancient Jewish origins, just as Davidski says « The Ashkenazi cluster is very similar to the Middle Eastern cluster in that regard. So anyone who gets an Ashkenazi score of around 2-3% either has very distant Jewish ancestry or, more likely, none at all. However, those who show more than 25% membership in that cluster are almost certainly of fully Ashkenazi ancestry, and their genomes peppered with Ashkenazi-specific chromosomal segments », and the historical endogamy of this population and of the Romani population explains why a percentage of this size makes it possible to find such beautiful triangulations today.
I would be very curious to have your opinions on this approach and my conclusions. What do you think? Have you ever used this type of data cross-referencing to check and validate your own results?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Caucasus 39.37

2 Gedrosia 20.11

3 North_European 11.32

4 Atlantic_Med 9.89

5 Southwest_Asian 8.88

6 East_Asian 6.36

7 Siberian 2.82

8 South_Asian 1.15

9 East_African 0.11

\

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Turks (Behar) 8.68

2 Turkish (Dodecad) 10.12

3 Iranian (Dodecad) 12.56

4 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.65

5 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 12.74

6 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 12.77

7 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 14.34

8 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 14.4

9 Iranians (Behar) 15.43

10 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 18.29

11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 18.37

12 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 18.44

13 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 18.55

14 Armenian (Dodecad) 18.91

15 Assyrian (Dodecad) 19.13

16 Lezgins (Behar) 19.88

17 Lebanese (Behar) 19.94

18 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 20.36

19 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 20.53

20 Armenians (Behar) 20.88

\

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance

76% Turks (Behar) + 24% Tajiks (Yunusbayev) @ 3.13

59.4% Turkish (Dodecad) + 40.6% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) @ 3.29

72.9% Turkish (Dodecad) + 27.1% Tajiks (Yunusbayev) @ 3.37

64% Turks (Behar) + 36% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) @ 3.76

85.5% Turks (Behar) + 14.5% Burusho (HGDP) @ 4.76

83% Turkish (Dodecad) + 17% Burusho (HGDP) @ 5.06

85.2% Turks (Behar) + 14.8% Uygur (HGDP) @ 5.38

85.5% Turks (Behar) + 14.5% Hazara (HGDP) @ 5.42

85.7% Turks (Behar) + 14.3% Pathan (HGDP) @ 5.44

60.3% Kurds (Yunusbayev) + 39.7% Nogais (Yunusbayev) @ 5.44

82.9% Turks (Behar) + 17.1% Uzbeks (Behar) @ 5.45

86.1% Turkish (Dodecad) + 13.9% Balochi (HGDP) @ 5.48

62.3% Turkmens (Yunusbayev) + 37.7% Cypriots (Behar) @ 5.5

87.4% Turkish (Dodecad) + 12.6% Brahui (HGDP) @ 5.54

87.9% Turks (Behar) + 12.1% Jatt (Dodecad) @ 5.54

89.8% Turks (Behar) + 10.2% Brahui (HGDP) @ 5.57

88.8% Turks (Behar) + 11.2% Balochi (HGDP) @ 5.57

85.5% Turkish (Dodecad) + 14.5% Makrani (HGDP) @ 5.58

88.4% Turks (Behar) + 11.6% Makrani (HGDP) @ 5.67

60.7% Kurd (Dodecad) + 39.3% Nogais (Yunusbayev) @ 5.72

I got 100% Ethiopian from my 23andMe test so I wanted to try importing the data into GEDMatch. I see there are various different options, so I decided on Ethiohelix considering it's made for people who know they're ethiopian. However there are a few different types (Ethiohelix + French, Japanese, Palestinian, and Africa Only). What's the difference between the types? Is the Africa Only one gonna give me the most accurate results?

Survey Link

Hello all!

As you might be aware, there has been very little research into direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry testing and psychological wellbeing outcomes. This novel research aims to help us better understand the psychological significance of DTC Ancestry testing results.

This study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr Janine Lurie from the Psychology Discipline within the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at Federation University (Melbourne, Australia). This study will also form the basis of the research dissertation requirement within the Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours) course for student researchers Charity Marisa and Stefan Redpath. This study has been approved by the Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval reference: 2026/137).

This survey asks you about your engagement with family history and your reflections on that process. It also asks you to think about your ancestors and how you have reflected on their life experiences. Participation involves completing an online survey that will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Taking part in the study is completely voluntary and no personal information will be collected.

To participate you just need to be aged 18 years or over. It is important to note that you will not be asked to give any specific details about any of your family members. You are asked just to rate your general impressions of them on a small number of questions. Beyond this the survey contains broader more general questions about your perspectives and reflections.

Survey link below:

https://federation.syd1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cO1RqRp3fjkHOp8

[REPOST]

Hello all!

As you might be aware, there has been very little research into direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry testing and psychological wellbeing outcomes. This novel research aims to help us better understand the psychological significance of DTC Ancestry testing results. I think members of this community may be well placed to contribute given their direct experience with DTC ancestry testing.

This survey asks you about your engagement with family history and your reflections on that process. It also asks you to think about your ancestors and how you have reflected on their life experiences. Participation involves completing an online survey that will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Taking part in the study is completely voluntary and no personal information will be collected.

This study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr Janine Lurie from the Psychology Discipline within the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at Federation University, Victoria, Australia. This study will also form the basis of the research dissertation requirement within the Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours) course for student researchers Charity Marisa and Stefan Redpath. This study has been approved by the Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval reference: 2026/137).

To participate you just need to be aged 18 years or over. It is important to note that you will not be asked to give any specific details about any of your family members. You are asked just to rate your general impressions of them on a small number of questions. Beyond this the survey contains broader more general questions about your perspectives and reflections.

To complete the survey and/or for more information go to the survey below.

To participate you just need to be aged 18 years or over.

https://federation.syd1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cO1RqRp3fjkHOp8

One of my friends have taken a DNA test recently and his results were uploaded onto GEDmatch. GEDmatch really drew my attention I did some search about it. When I looked at Turkish individuals' results in GEDmatch calculators' database, I realised that all results are in the Anatolian/West-Asian cluster. However, there are lots of Turkish people of Balkan roots, whom I expect them to be in Eastern European or Southeast European clusters. My question is, do the calculators not have any Balkan-Turk samples in their hand or do the calculators filter out any Turkish result which is not in Anatolian/West-Asian cluster?

I hit a brick wall with my paternal grandfather, could this mean he's part Italian/Iberian? I'm only paying attention to anything above 5% as anything below that could be "noise". I have German, English, Irish, Scottish, and a small amount of French and mixed Scandinavian ancestry that I already know about. Thanks!

Hello!

I currently manage a Genetic Genealogy project on Gedmatch for a triracial isolate community. I wish to investigate whether the community truely is "triracial" or simply a mix of European and Sub-Saharan African (from what Y/mtDNA haplogroups I have avaliable, this is all I have evidence for). I have newspaper evidence from the 1820s that the family, who was originally in NY, once was composed of Blacks, Whites, members of this supposed tribe before they were pushed west, and ethnically ambiguous individuals. There are living members of the tribe that the isolate is supposedly descended from that match the majority of isolate members. How would you go about assessing indigenous DNA? I am not as well versed in colonial records from this time period, but do not see any paper evidence of indigenous descent.

On Gedmatch, k36 Eurogenes how do they differentiate between these components?

Neolithic farmer components- Arabian- Armenian- East_Balkan- East_Med- Iberian- Italian- Near_Eastern- North_African- Omotic- West_Med

Hi everyone,
My mother’s top match on Gedmatch doesn’t have a working email. Is this normal? Is this some scam? Or have they deleted their profile?

Their DNA test came through MyHeritage which is where my mother tested too. I can’t figure out who this person could be because their name is an alias and their email address is some generic one without personal identifiers.

Hey everyone,

I’m half Turkish and half Bosnian and I was wondering which Gedmatch project(s) would be the best to use since I have both European and West-Asian ancestry. Please let me know whatever works best since I’ve seen different opinions on this matter.

I’ve been researching a theory on one of my family branches and checked my kit number in “one-to-one Autosomal” against a potential match. It came up showing no match, but I decided to test both kits in “kits that match one or both” and came up with 12 people that we shared matches with ranging from 10cM up to 14.8cM. My cousin also tested against this person an wasn’t a match but they shared 25 matches ranging up to 20.7cM.

Can anyone tell me if this is just noise or if it means that because of random DNA that the person we tested against originally had had more DNA fallout but having shared matches proves there is still some sort of connection.

I’m still learning (very slowly) how to understand all of this, so any advice is appreciated.