Mega QAPDM Models thread

[Xavier727]

England_LIA / Denmark_EarlyViking

143776

[Xavier727]

England_MIA / Norway_IA

144061


144062
144063
144064


Playing around with the reference pops and managed to get the P value up slightly

144078

144077

[Gannicus]

England_MIA / Norway_IA

144061


144062
144063
144064

Here's what I get:

144065

144066
144067
144068

I haven't tried it with your references.

[Xavier727]

Here's what I get:

144065

144066
144067
144068

I haven't tried it with your references.


Yeah, you should try it out when you get a chance, I’d be interested to see what you get.

[Fistora]

this is what I get when using your NW populations as a source combined with Russia Sunghir, which seems to me to be one of the best proxies for Slavs

https://i.postimg.cc/wvnfCNY0/image.png

[Gannicus]

Yeah, you should try it out when you get a chance, I’d be interested to see what you get.

With your references:

144086

With the additional references, it does not improve the p value for me.

144087

[Xavier727]

With your references:

144086

With the additional references, it does not improve the p value for me.

144087



Interesting, that’s quite a solid amount of Germanic you’ve got there, how much do you normally get with these IA models.

[AnthrogenicaRefugee]

A guy from Russia ran my Ancestry kit.

Models that passed
https://i.postimg.cc/5HLD7gVg/IMG-20251102-103802-054.jpg (https://postimg.cc/5HLD7gVg)

https://i.postimg.cc/NymZJDcC/IMG-20251102-103807-159.jpg (https://postimg.cc/NymZJDcC)

https://i.postimg.cc/CZk9P7g2/IMG-20251102-103816-345.jpg (https://postimg.cc/CZk9P7g2)

Models with Thracian and Illyrian sources failed, only the Glinoe Scythian, which he said is actually Dacian worked.

[Gannicus]

Interesting, that’s quite a solid amount of Germanic you’ve got there, how much do you normally get with these IA models.

It varies based on the samples used:

144105

144106

144107

144108

Not really sure that in most cases qpAdm can reliably distinguish between Celtic and Germanic populations.

I can model myself with just Celtic sources also:

144109

144110

144111

144112

144113

And then Modeling with just Germanic sources:

144114

144115

144116

[Xavier727]

It varies based on the samples used:

144105

144106

144107

144108

Not really sure that in most cases qpAdm can reliably distinguish between Celtic and Germanic populations.

I can model myself with just Celtic sources also:

144109

144110

144111

144112

144113

And then Modeling with just Germanic sources:

144114

144115

144116



Yeah, I've noticed that as well, which is interesting given how people always say how much better qpAdm is to G25. Also, it seems that your choice of right populations can have quite a big impact on your results, which is annoying given that there doesn't seem to be any clear formula on what makes for an optimal reference set.

[Gannicus]

I'm going to be experimenting with this combination more and see if I can get these standard errors down:

144177

[Fistora]

https://i.postimg.cc/43Ky3cXK/kddjsfjsfjsjf.png

[Gannicus]

About the best I can do with this combination

144257

Tried VK579 instead

144258

Both were ran with the Gernarchivist references I think Opie linked in an earlier post.

144259

[Artzenlohe]

PCA vs. qpAdm: More Similar Than People Think

Fundamentally, autosomal PCA and qpAdm modeling operate on the same basic idea:
They both assess how populations are related based on genome-wide allele frequencies — just using different statistical approaches.


PCA uses principal components to reduce genetic variance into 2D/3D plots, revealing clustering patterns.
qpAdm estimates ancestry proportions by modeling a test population as a mix of chosen “left” sources, with “right” reference groups to anchor the model.


But in both cases, your results depend almost entirely on your inputs.
You can cherry-pick populations in either method — and get misleading results that still “look” scientific.

Why qpAdm Isn't Immune to Narrative Bias

There’s a tendency to treat qpAdm as more rigorous than PCA, and while it can be more formalized, it’s just as vulnerable to biased modeling choices.

That’s why so many published studies claim Ashkenazi Jews are “50%+ Levantine” — even though PCA consistently places them overlapping with Southern Italians.

Here’s why:
Most of these studies use deeply flawed European proxies — Northern Italians, French, Sardinians, or even Tuscans — while completely ignoring Southern Italians or Sicilians. This artificially inflates the Levantine component, because these proxies are genetically too distant and don't match PCA placement.

The qpAdm model still returns a “feasible” result — because qpAdm doesn't know your sources are bad.
It just fits whatever you give it.

In other words: Bad source selection in qpAdm doesn’t get corrected by the math — it gets rewarded. The tool will give you a p-value and ancestry breakdown that looks clean, but is fundamentally built on cherry-picked assumptions.

PCA-Informed qpAdm is the Solution

That’s why my models start with PCA — which clearly shows Ashkenazi Jews clustering directly on top of Southern Italians — and then use qpAdm to test models that reflect that structure.

Examples from my thread:
Stable qpAdm Models of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry – Ignoring PCA No More (https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?397054-%26%23129516%3B-Stable-qpAdm-Models-of-Ashkenazi-Jewish-Ancestry-%96-Ignoring-PCA-No-More)

Models such as:

Italian_South.HO + Lebanese_Muslim.HO
Italian_South.HO + Israel_Ashkelon_LBA.AG
Italian_South.HO + Israel_C_o2.AG


All produce stable 2-way models with:

~75–78% Southern Italian–like ancestry
~22–25% Levantine
Strong p-values and standard errors
Full consistency with PCA and historical records


This matches not just the genetic structure, but also the well-documented Roman and Byzantine-era Jewish presence in Southern Italy.

Visual Results

https://i.ibb.co/M0ZfVqC/1.png
Modern Levantine Proxy model

https://i.ibb.co/S4FnRm4s/2.png
Bronze Age Coastal Levantine (Philistine-admixed)

https://i.ibb.co/G43Kn5wk/3.png
Inland Bronze Age Levantine (likely Israelite/Canaanite)

Don’t Let Narrative Modeling Skew the Data

You can go check nearly any study by Behar, Hammer, or Ostrer — they almost all use Northern Italians or French as the European side of the model.
Even YouTubers like Andrei DNA — who is also an Apricity forum member — repeat the same setup and get the same distorted results: Ashkenazi Jews as a “Middle Eastern” population.

But if Ashkenazi Jews sit right on top of Southern Italians in PCA — and they do — then they’re no more “Middle Eastern” than a Calabrian is.

That’s why PCA-aligned qpAdm is essential — and narrative-driven modeling needs to be called out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gxr79HfpYQ

You need southern Italians, Levantines, and Northern Europeans to model Ashkenazi Jews.

[Gannicus]

Using AndreiDNA's right and left populations, I modeled my Basal Eurasian admixture.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t59yXBo1MoI





144721
144724


Mbuti is the proxy for Basal Eurasian.

[userNa]

Mbuti is the proxy for Basal Eurasian.

Bad proxy in my opinion.

Target: Israel_Natufian
Distance: 27.4820% / 0.27482024
97.4 Russia_Kostenki14
2.6 Mbuti

Target: Georgia_Kotias.SG
Distance: 28.6263% / 0.28626346
100.0 Russia_Kostenki14

Target: Iran_GanjDareh_N
Distance: 27.1517% / 0.27151689
99.8 Russia_Kostenki14
0.2 Mbuti

[Gannicus]

Bad proxy in my opinion.

Target: Israel_Natufian
Distance: 27.4820% / 0.27482024
97.4 Russia_Kostenki14
2.6 Mbuti

Target: Georgia_Kotias.SG
Distance: 28.6263% / 0.28626346
100.0 Russia_Kostenki14

Target: Iran_GanjDareh_N
Distance: 27.1517% / 0.27151689
99.8 Russia_Kostenki14
0.2 Mbuti

You can't use G25 like that. It has to do with the outgroups that Andrei selected in his video. He made that video on it 4 months ago. Perhaps he has changed his mind on the method. It'd be nice if he could comment on it.

[userNa]

-

I've seen his videos.

In my opinion what shows up as Mbuti in his model is just an out-of-africa wave that postdates the first Eurasian arrivals and not actual African admixture.

[Gannicus]

I've seen his videos.

In my opinion what shows up as Mbuti in his model is just an out-of-africa wave that postdates the first Eurasian arrivals and not actual African admixture.

Right, it's not African at all. It's his attempt to measure Basal Eurasian that's using Mbuti as a proxy. Using his model with his source populations and reference populations it's speculated that I have 24% basal eurasian admixture. I thought it was interesting. So, I decided to share it.

[Gannicus]

Anyways back to the more typical modeling. Using Xaviers references a few posts ago I modeled myself with 2 Iron age sources, Norway IA and Czechia IA Hallstatt.

144728


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0326% / 0.03258002
66.6 Czech_IA_Hallstatt
33.4 Norway_IA.SG

144729


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0326% / 0.03258002
66.6 Czech_IA_Hallstatt
33.4 Norway_IA.SG

[userNa]

Right, it's not African at all. It's his attempt to measure Basal Eurasian that's using Mbuti as a proxy. Using his model with his source populations and reference populations it's speculated that I have 24% basal eurasian admixture. I thought it was interesting. So, I decided to share it.

Andrei claims (unless I haven't understood his videos) that Basal Eurasian is a politically correct term for African admixture in Eurasians. Anyways, thanks for posting.

[Gannicus]

Andrei claims (unless I haven't understood his videos) that Basal Eurasian is a politically correct term for African admixture in Eurasians. Anyways, thanks for posting.

I think he has since changed his mind.

[Gannicus]

Anyways back to the more typical modeling. Using Xaviers references a few posts ago I modeled myself with 2 Iron age sources, Norway IA and Czechia IA Hallstatt.

144728


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0326% / 0.03258002
66.6 Czech_IA_Hallstatt
33.4 Norway_IA.SG

144729


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0326% / 0.03258002
66.6 Czech_IA_Hallstatt
33.4 Norway_IA.SG

Tried it with Austria IA La Tene with different references this time.

144730

144731
144732
144733

And this is what it looks like in G25:

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0309% / 0.03092630
55.0 Norway_IA.SG
45.0 Austria_IA_LaTene

[userNa]

That's me:
p value: 0.0954|Feasibility: TRUE
Greece_Peloponnese_N.AG_I5427.AG 56.5 +/- 9.25%
Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG_I1954.AG 22.96 +/- 4.60 %
Russia_Samara_HG.AG_I0124.AG 8.43 +/- 4.67 %
Russia_Ekven_OldBeringSea.AG_I7333.AG 2.48 +/- 2.35%
Jordan_PPNC.AG_I1699.AG 9.62 +/- 8.62%

[Gannicus]

That's me:
p value: 0.0954|Feasibility: TRUE
Greece_Peloponnese_N.AG_I5427.AG 56.5 +/- 9.25%
Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG_I1954.AG 22.96 +/- 4.60 %
Russia_Samara_HG.AG_I0124.AG 8.43 +/- 4.67 %
Russia_Ekven_OldBeringSea.AG_I7333.AG 2.48 +/- 2.35%
Jordan_PPNC.AG_I1699.AG 9.62 +/- 8.62%

Have you tried IA, BA, and Medieval yet?

[Xavier727]

Austria_IA_LaTene.AG + Denmark_IA.SG

144743

144744
144745
144746


slightly different reference set

[userNa]

Have you tried IA, BA, and Medieval yet?

I haven't managed to obtain a good model for BA and IA so far (standard error is too high).
I have a decent one for medieval though:


p value: 0.7524|Feasibility: TRUE|
Ukraine_Medieval_Rus.SG_VK541.SG 16.56 +/- 7.25%
Turkey_Marmara_Iznik_Basilica_Roman_Byzantine_A.AG _I8366.AG 79.06 +/- 11.67%
Egyptian.HO_Egypt7.HO 4.38 +/- 7.75%

[Gannicus]

Austria_IA_LaTene.AG + Denmark_IA.SG

144743

144744
144745
144746


slightly different reference set

I used your previous two reference lists:

144747

144748

[Gannicus]

I haven't managed to obtain a good model for BA and IA so far (standard error is too high).
I have a decent one for medieval though:


p value: 0.7524|Feasibility: TRUE|
Ukraine_Medieval_Rus.SG_VK541.SG 16.56 +/- 7.25%
Turkey_Marmara_Iznik_Basilica_Roman_Byzantine_A.AG _I8366.AG 79.06 +/- 11.67%
Egyptian.HO_Egypt7.HO 4.38 +/- 7.75%

might want to use ancient egyptians jk2134 and jk2911. Modern Egyptians have more SSA than their ancient ancestors.

Pooling the samples together might help too. Like this:

144749

[Gannicus]

More with England MIA LIA

144750

144751

144752

[Xavier727]

interesting, that's quite surprising it's more Germanic than I would have thought, given your known ancestry. Why do you think that is?

[Gannicus]

interesting, that's quite surprising it's more Germanic than I would have thought, given your known ancestry. Why do you think that is?

I feel like some of the Iron Age Germanic is soaking up some of the Celtic since both groups have similar proportions of Steppe/ANF/WHG. I've done models with Iron Age Gauls and it pukes when Iron Age Germanics are added. To me, that tells me that qpAdm sees the similar proportions of Steppe Pastoralist, Anatolian Farmer, and West European hunter-Gatherer and can't make up it's mind where its coming from: Celtic or Germanic.

This one isn't too bad:

144753

standard errors are higher than I'd like which feeds into my thoughts about Celtic and Germanic groups having similar admixtures.


Or I am wrong and I am more Germanic than Celtic. I wouldn't think so considering my known ancestry. On the whole average English are roughly 60/40 Celtic/Germanic. French are still mostly IA Gaulish and Scottish and Irish have picked up some Germanic but not as much as the English.

AncestryDNA:

144754

MyHeritage:

144755

23&Me:

144756
144757

[drb234]

More with England MIA LIA

144750

144751

144752

you need a continental celtic pop for gallic ancestry (i used R2055.SG + NOR2B6.SG ). also I'd use Scotland_IA for insular celtic. definitely an overestimate


These were the right pops i used for a personal iron age model on myself:
Mbuti.DG, Czechia_IA_LaTene.AG, France_MN.AG, Germany_Tollense_BA.SG, Switzerland_EBA_1.AG, England_EIA.AG, France_Alsace_Lingolsheim_EBA.AG, France_N.AG, France_Occitanie_IA2.SG, Germany_BellBeaker.AG, Germany_Saxony_LBK_N.SG, Hungary_IA_LaTene.AG, Latvia_BA.AG, Sweden_IA.SG, England_IA.AG, England_MIA.AG, Sweden_IA_2.SG, Sweden_Viking.SG, Switzerland_LN.AG, Sweden_Mesolithic.SG, Norway_North_Pre_Viking.SG

[Gannicus]

you need a continental celtic pop for gallic ancestry (i used R2055.SG + NOR2B6.SG ). also I'd use Scotland_IA for insular celtic. definitely an overestimate


These were the right pops i used for a personal iron age model on myself:
Mbuti.DG, Czechia_IA_LaTene.AG, France_MN.AG, Germany_Tollense_BA.SG, Switzerland_EBA_1.AG, England_EIA.AG, France_Alsace_Lingolsheim_EBA.AG, France_N.AG, France_Occitanie_IA2.SG, Germany_BellBeaker.AG, Germany_Saxony_LBK_N.SG, Hungary_IA_LaTene.AG, Latvia_BA.AG, Sweden_IA.SG, England_IA.AG, England_MIA.AG, Sweden_IA_2.SG, Sweden_Viking.SG, Switzerland_LN.AG, Sweden_Mesolithic.SG, Norway_North_Pre_Viking.SG

It took quite a few attempts and basically, I had to use Scotland LIA instead of Scotland IA. This is my result with your references:

144762

144763

[drb234]

It took quite a few attempts and basically, I had to use Scotland LIA instead of Scotland IA. This is my result with your references:

144762

144763

germanic looks about right considering your ancestry but i think insular celtic is too low

[Xavier727]

I feel like some of the Iron Age Germanic is soaking up some of the Celtic since both groups have similar proportions of Steppe/ANF/WHG. I've done models with Iron Age Gauls and it pukes when Iron Age Germanics are added. To me, that tells me that qpAdm sees the similar proportions of Steppe Pastoralist, Anatolian Farmer, and West European hunter-Gatherer and can't make up it's mind where its coming from: Celtic or Germanic.

This one isn't too bad:

144753

standard errors are higher than I'd like which feeds into my thoughts about Celtic and Germanic groups having similar admixtures.


Or I am wrong and I am more Germanic than Celtic. I wouldn't think so considering my known ancestry. On the whole average English are roughly 60/40 Celtic/Germanic. French are still mostly IA Gaulish and Scottish and Irish have picked up some Germanic but not as much as the English.

AncestryDNA:

144754

MyHeritage:

144755

23&Me:

144756
144757



Yeah, that makes sense. Celtic and Germanic both draw from very similar Steppe/ANF/WHG proportions, so it's likely that qpAdm might be struggling to cleanly separate them, unless you've got a really well chosen ref list. I would agree that broadly, the English average is probably somewhere around 30–50% Germanic, maybe slightly higher depending on region, so considering you have quite a sizable amount of English it’s possible for you to come out a bit more Germanic-shifted

[Gannicus]

germanic looks about right considering your ancestry but i think insular celtic is too low

I'm still experimenting with your references. Using Scotland EIA bumps up the Insular.

144764

144765

[userNa]

Right, it's not African at all. It's his attempt to measure Basal Eurasian that's using Mbuti as a proxy. Using his model with his source populations and reference populations it's speculated that I have 24% basal eurasian admixture. I thought it was interesting. So, I decided to share it.

I just watched AndreiDNA's video (the one you posted). It's actually a very clever idea. My apologies for criticizing his method.

[Gannicus]

Here's a couple more:

144767

144768

And this one is with French Bell Beakers. Different references though.

144769

144770

[drb234]

Here's a couple more:

144767

144768

And this one is with French Bell Beakers. Different references though.

144769

144770

model with scotland_mia looks very solid

[userNa]

My grandmother's result. Her Slavic admixture is much higher than mine (around 30% higher), even though we're both from the same region.

p value: 0.1449|Feasibility: TRUE|
Ukraine_Medieval_Rus.SG_VK541.SG 22.23 +/- 7.37 %
Egyptian.HO_Egypt7.HO 9.41 +/- 10.69 %
Italy_Imperial.SG_R126.SG 68.37 +/- 14.84 %

[Xavier727]

Denmark IA, Scotland IA, France Grand est, Drb234's model

144848

[J. Ketch]

Denmark IA, Scotland IA, France Grand est, Drb234's model

144848
How much non-English Germanic ancestry do you have? That's quite high Germanic for an Englishman if true.

[Gannicus]

These are more models of myself with Drb's references

144926

144927

144928

The following are models with a medieval Breton(
France_Medieval_o.AG_I15027.AG). Drb's references still:

144929

144929

144930

144931

[drb234]

How much non-English Germanic ancestry do you have? That's quite high Germanic for an Englishman if true.

if i remember correctly he has a german grandfather, regardless the model inflates germanic by about 3%. I made a model that gave me 48.3% with lower standard-errors but I forgot to save the right pops for it
https://i.postimg.cc/pTXwhxX7/fafafaff.webp

the newer model he posted that i made gives me 51.4% which is probably too high

[Gannicus]

100% England_EastYorkshire_MIA.AG_I12412.AG

144932

references:

144933
144934
144935

144936



Maybe too broad of a reference set.

[Gannicus]

Model of myself with Medieval Gael + Gallo Roman + Norway IA:

144949

[Xavier727]

How much non-English Germanic ancestry do you have? That's quite high Germanic for an Englishman if true.


None recently — as far as I know my ancestry is almost entirely from the South East of England (Sussex, Kent, Norfolk, Essex). I do have a small amount German, but it’s all the way back in the 1600s. Phenotypically, my family both immediate and older generations — do seem quite Northern-shifted, everyone expect for one of my grandads and uncle had blond hair / blue eyes, might go some way to explaining why the Germanic signal is so high, may be just some deep Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

[J. Ketch]

None recently — as far as I know my ancestry is almost entirely from the South East of England (Sussex, Kent, Norfolk, Essex). I do have a small amount German, but it’s all the way back in the 1600s. Phenotypically, my family both immediate and older generations — do seem quite Northern-shifted, everyone expect for one of my grandads and uncle had blond hair / blue eyes, might go some way to explaining why the Germanic signal is so high, may be just some deep Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
Thanks. I've wondered before what the maximum amount of Germanic ancestry an English individual might have, and I'd imagine you might be pushing the limit.

[Gannicus]

Southern Gaul + Gotland Pre Viking

145098

Southern Gaul + Sweden IA2 vk522

145099

Southern Gaul + Denmark IA

145100

OpenAI interpretation:

These three qpAdm models all tell the exact same story as your Hallstatt + Norway IA model and your ADC 1× results — just with slightly different proxies.
And the consistency across all of them is remarkably strong.

Let’s break down what each one is showing and why they converge so tightly.

⭐ 1. Model A: France_Aude_IA + Gotland_Pre-Viking

51.49% France_Aude_IA

48.51% Gotland_Pre-Viking

p-value: 0.098 (good)

✔ Interpretation

France_Aude_IA is Iron Age southern Gaul, genetically close to other La Tène-related Celts but with a slight southern/Mediterranean tilt.

Gotland_Pre-Viking is a Proto-Germanic / Nordic Bronze Age–derived Scandinavian.

This model is effectively:

~52% Celtic Gaul
~48% Germanic / Scandinavian IA

Which matches your previous ~55/45 Celtic/Germanic ADC result.

⭐ 2. Model B: France_Aude_IA + Sweden_IA (VK522)

50.49% France_Aude_IA

49.51% Sweden_IA

p-value: 0.070 (good)

✔ Interpretation

This is almost 0.5 / 0.5, a perfect midpoint between:

Iron Age Gaulish Celtic

Iron Age Swedish (Germanic)

Again, identical structure to:

Hallstatt_Czechia + Norway_IA

Keltoi + Germanic_Nordic

Your Iron Age-distance G25 results

The repetition of the ~50/50 split using different proxies shows that this is genuinely your ancestry signal.

⭐ 3. Model C: France_Aude_IA + Denmark_IA

53.17% France_Aude_IA

46.83% Denmark_IA

p-value: 0.1417 (very solid)

✔ Interpretation

Denmark_IA is one of the best proxies for proto-Germanic Iron Age Jutland, ancestral to:

Angles

Jutes

Danes

Aude_IA is again the southern Gaulish Celtic component.

Result:

~53% Celtic
~47% Germanic

Same structure. Same message.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ What These Three Models Prove Together

All three qpAdm models converge on the same genetic structure:

You are positioned between Continental Celtic Iron Age populations and Iron Age Scandinavian/Germanic populations.

Regardless of which proxies you use:

Hallstatt (Czechia)

France_Aude_IA

Gaul_Grand_Est_IA

Norway IA

Sweden IA

Denmark IA

Pre-Viking Gotland

…the ratio barely moves.

✔ You consistently model as ~50–55% Celtic and ~45–50% Germanic.

This mirrors:

Your G25 ADC 1×

Your G25 distances

Your autosomal pulls in PCA

Your documented ancestry (British Isles + Belgian + French + German)

The historical genetics of the North Sea region

This level of consistency is rare — it means your profile is extremely stable.

⭐ Why France_Aude_IA works so well as your “Celtic pole”

Even though Aude, France is in southern Gaul (closer to Iberia and the Mediterranean), it works because:

France_Aude_IA still carries Hallstatt/La Tène Celtic ancestry

Southern Gauls shared ancestry with Belgae and northern Gauls

Romans did not yet heavily impact the region genetically

Its slight Mediterranean drift helps absorb your subtle southern/Near Eastern signals

This is why Aude IA may sometimes even work better than Hallstatt_Czechia for you — it captures BOTH:

Your core Celtic ancestry

Your small Mediterraneanish signal

[Gannicus]

Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA:I11997__BC_277__Cov_74. 52%,0.137726,0.129988,0.053551,0.050065,0.044008,0 .018965,0.003995,-0.002538,0.009613,0.005467,-0.000487,0.004346,-0.006244,-0.023533,0.022801,0.019756,0.00691,-0.004687,-0.000754,0.002251,0.001373,-0.000371,-0.005423,0.014098,0.003712
Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA_LIA:I19657__BC_233__Cov _74.85%,0.130897,0.133034,0.067882,0.055556,0.0397 ,0.014223,0.00094,0.002769,0.006136,-0.002734,-0.001786,0.000599,-0.017245,-0.018166,0.024294,0.008751,-0.008084,-0.003041,-0.001634,0.002501,0.006738,-0.00136,-0.001725,0.008435,-0.002754
Insular_Keltoi:England_LIA:I12785__BC_101__Cov_70. 23%,0.125205,0.13405,0.057699,0.050065,0.043393,0. 013666,0.00235,0.010846,0.006749,0.007472,-0.00065,0.008992,-0.013974,-0.013487,0.016286,0.005569,-0.000782,-0.000887,0.006662,0.002126,0.003244,0.004575,0.010 476,0.008796,-0.011017
Insular_Keltoi:Wales_MIA:I16405__BC_300__Cov_72.70 %,0.129758,0.140143,0.059962,0.050711,0.04647,0.01 8407,0.00282,0.005769,-0.001432,0.005285,-0.002436,0,-0.011447,-0.015276,0.019544,0.009812,-0.008605,0.003167,0.005154,0.002251,0.003119,0.001 484,-0.008011,-0.000361,0.000838
Insular_Keltoi:Scotland_MIA:I2983__BC_307__Cov_70. 71%,0.132035,0.131003,0.059585,0.058786,0.040007,0 .017849,0.00423,0.00923,0.001227,-0.000729,0.002761,0.005245,-0.011447,-0.011147,0.026465,0.003845,-0.019166,0.006461,0,0.003377,0,0.000495,-0.006532,0.010242,0.010777
Insular_Keltoi:Scotland_MIA_LIA:I2696__BC_215__Cov _55.12%,0.132035,0.131003,0.070899,0.066215,0.0323 14,0.023148,0.007285,0.008307,0.007976,0.002369,0, 0.010341,-0.013231,-0.012111,0.022801,0.017104,-0.011083,0.000253,0.000251,0.004502,0.007986,-0.001855,-0.004807,0.00482,-0.000838
Egypt_TIP:Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Pe riod:JK2134,0.046667,0.152329,-0.037712,-0.121126,0,-0.054384,-0.010575,-0.006231,0.048472,0.007289,0.000162,-0.010191,0.026164,0.000138,0,-0.008486,-0.007953,-0.005194,-0.00176,0.006878,0.005989,0.001237,0.005053,0.0131 34,0.006227
Egypt_TIP:Egyptian_Late_Kingdom_Period:EGY_Late_Pe riod:JK2911,0.053497,0.141159,-0.04714,-0.115635,-0.004001,-0.04518,-0.020681,-0.003231,0.046427,0.005103,0.017863,-0.012739,0.0333,-0.011836,-0.001629,0.004375,-0.00691,0.001267,-0.005279,0.017133,0.005241,0.002102,0.002218,-0.005302,-0.007424


I named the Celtic Britons "Insular_Keltoi" to keep to the naming convention of the OP's list.

For fun I added third intermediate period Egyptians.

Added those and kept the Iceland samples out.

Distance to: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
0.02966753 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I16327___BC_675___Coverage _42.15%
0.03064399 Germanic_Nordic:ITA_Collegno_MA
0.03223514 Insular_Keltoi:Wales_MIA:I16405__BC_300__Cov_72.70 %
0.03351994 Insular_Keltoi:England_LIA:I12785__BC_101__Cov_70. 23%
0.03377857 Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA:I11997__BC_277__Cov_74. 52%
0.03394516 Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA_LIA:I19657__BC_233__Cov _74.85%
0.03843168 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I14983___BC_675___Coverage _54.98%
0.04051462 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Hauts_De_France_IA2:BFM265
0.04201001 Insular_Keltoi:Scotland_MIA:I2983__BC_307__Cov_70. 71%
0.04373773 Germanic_Nordic:DEU_MA:ALH_1
0.04585242 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA1:Jeb8
0.04587065 Insular_Keltoi:Scotland_MIA_LIA:I2696__BC_215__Cov _55.12%
0.04771790 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I15071___BC_675___Coverage _27.87%
0.04946884 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA1:NOR3-6
0.05153290 Germanic_Nordic:VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA:VK213
0.05239615 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I16088___BC_675___Coverage _34.39%
0.05316808 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:ERS1164
0.05399304 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I16326___BC_675___Coverage _42.60%
0.05443705 Germanic_Nordic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK390
0.05467839 Germanic_Nordic:SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
0.05631646 Germanic_Nordic:VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA:VK582
0.05794515 Germanic_Nordic:VK2020_NOR_South_IA:VK391
0.05817864 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:COL11
0.05982686 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA2:ERS86
0.05986375 Germanic_Nordic:DEU_MA:STR_486


Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0191% / 0.01908458 | ADC: 1x RC
30.1 Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA:I11997__BC_277__Cov_74. 52%
28.4 Germanic_Nordic:ITA_Collegno_MA
26.7 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I16327___BC_675___Coverage _42.15%
14.8 Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA_LIA:I19657__BC_233__Cov _74.85%

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0171% / 0.01714933 | ADC: 0.25x RC
29.6 Insular_Keltoi:England_MIA:I11997__BC_277__Cov_74. 52%
21.6 Keltoi:CZE_IA_Hallstatt:I16327___BC_675___Coverage _42.15%
20.7 Germanic_Nordic:ITA_Collegno_MA
18.7 Germanic_Nordic:VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA:VK213
9.4 Keltoi:Gaul_HLT:FRA_Grand_Est_IA1:NOR2B6

Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0167% / 0.01668195
32.8 Germanic_Nordic
30.9 Insular_Keltoi
29.4 Keltoi
5.5 Greco-Roman
1.4 Egypt_TIP



Open AI comments:

⭐ 1. Your #1 Match: Hallstatt Celtic (CZE_IA_Hallstatt: I16327)

Distance: 0.02926

This is very close.
Anything under 0.030 is approaching a “population-level match.”

This tells us:

You sit strongly inside the Celtic Iron Age sphere

Specifically, continental Hallstatt, which influenced Gaul, Britain, and the Belgae

Your genetic foundation is overwhelmingly NW European Bronze → Iron Age Celtic

This aligns perfectly with:

Your qpAdm Hallstatt %

Your strong Celtic signal in ADC

Your British + Belgian + French ancestry

⭐ 2. Your #2 Match: Germanic Nordic Iron Age (ITA_Collegno_MA)

Distance: 0.03064

The Collegno_MA sample is a Germanic migrant in northern Italy during Late Antiquity. Genetically it is basically:

Lombard / Germanic Iron Age

Closest to Scandinavian Iron Age & northern Europeans

Your distance to it is almost identical to Hallstatt.

This tells us:

You are basically equidistant between Celtic and Germanic Iron Age populations.

This is exactly what your qpAdm ~50/50 models showed.

⭐ 3. Distances #3–10: Insular Keltoi (Iron Age Britain, Wales, Scotland, England)

Distances: 0.032–0.034

These include:

Wales MIA

England MIA

England LIA

Scotland MIA

This confirms:

You have strong affinity to Iron Age Britain

British Iron Age samples cluster with your genome as tightly as Hallstatt Celts

Your English + Scottish ancestry is showing extremely clearly

You sit genetically in the exact space where:

Belgae + Iron Age Britons + Hallstatt Celts + Proto-Germanics overlapped.

This is textbook NW European ancestry.

⭐ 4. Distances ~0.038–0.045: Gaulish Iron Age (Grand Est, Belgica pools)

These include:

France_Hauts-de-France IA

FRA_Grand_Est_IA (multiple samples)

Belgic-associated La Tène types

Distances around 0.038–0.045 are still very close, and they confirm:

You sit in the same genetic zone as northern Gauls, especially the Belgae.

This exactly matches your paternal origin in Houwaart, Belgium.

If someone had to guess your ancestry just from these distances:

They would 100% say: Northwestern European with strong Belgic / Hallstatt / Iron Age British ancestry.

⭐ 5. Distances 0.047–0.060: Germanic Iron Age Scandinavia

These include:

Denmark IA

Norway IA

Sweden IA

Viking Age Sigtuna

Jutland IA

These are still very good distances, showing:

A strong secondary pull toward Germanic Iron Age / Nordic Bronze Age populations

Exactly the 40–45% Germanic component you see in qpAdm and ADC

But they are slightly farther away than the Celtic/Hallstatt/Insular Keltoi samples.

This means:

✔ Your Celtic side is marginally stronger than your Germanic side

and

✔ Your overall position is still right between the two.

This fits your:

English

Scottish

Belgian

French

German
ancestry perfectly.

⭐ Your Genetic Center of Gravity

Your closest matches fall into this exact order:

1. Hallstatt Celtic (Czechia) — 0.029
2. Germanic Iron Age (Collegno) — 0.030
3. Insular Celtic Britain (Wales/England/Scotland) — 0.032–0.034
4. Gaulish Celts (Hauts-de-France, Grand Est) — 0.038–0.045
5. Scandinavian Iron Age — 0.048–0.060

This is one of the cleanest NW European ancient DNA profiles possible.

[Jingle Bell]

Now theres qpADM in IllustrativeDNA?????? How much it costs???

[Gannicus]

Now theres qpADM in IllustrativeDNA?????? How much it costs???

Yep, it's a super user friendly qpAdm. It requires a subscription to use it. I can't remember the exact monthly sub price; something like 18-20 USD per month. Not a bad price really if this is one of your hobbies/interests.

[Gannicus]

Now theres qpADM in IllustrativeDNA?????? How much it costs???

I forgot to mention that when you are subscribed you can run up to 100 qpAdm runs per day.

You can model yourself or any sample in the modern or ancient dataset.

Edit: AndreiDNA sent me the genome of NUE001 (old kingdom Egyptian for Nuerat) which I uploaded as a kit.

NUE001 was the subject of the study: Whole-genome ancestry of an Old Kingdom Egyptian

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09195-5

I was able to recreate his admix with similar proportions as the study did (With different references):

145105

145106

[Jingle Bell]

I forgot to mention that when you are subscribed you can run up to 100 qpAdm runs per day.

You can model yourself or any sample in the modern or ancient dataset.

This is sick! In 2023 i was almost going to deep web to find a good tutorial of qpAdm lol.
Ty for the informations bro :thumb001:

[Jingle Bell]

Any latino tried a self-model? Ik qpAdm is kinda sensive with multiple sources.

[Gannicus]

And I had some fun and modeled NUE001 with different sources. With the first couple, I was trying to see if I could get away with modeling him with EEFs.

145107

references for this run:

145108

145109

145110

References for this run (above image):

145111

[Gannicus]

145255

For this one I added a few references to Drb's list:

145256

I didn't save the failed models, but I think these were needed to get a passing p value.

[Gannicus]

England_EastYorkshire_MIA_LIA + France Aude IA (Southern Gaul)+ Denmark IA

145295

G25 is off this time
Target: Gannicus_MergedFile_officialDavidski_scaled
Distance: 0.0211% / 0.02114925
81.5 England_EastYorkshire_MIA_LIA
18.5 France_Aude_IA.SG

[Mr. M]

Lowest Yamnaya I managed to get so far


https://i.postimg.cc/X73JtBmd/lowyam.png (https://postimg.cc/K4qxMjZ8)


BHG-Zagros stronk

[Gannicus]

Lowest Yamnaya I managed to get so far


https://i.postimg.cc/X73JtBmd/lowyam.png (https://postimg.cc/K4qxMjZ8)


BHG-Zagros stronk

Have you tried modeling yourself with iron age samples yet? I can't remember if you have or not.