Eupedia Ancient Ethnicities Checker: reliably compare your DNA to ancient populations

[Maciamo]

I have added:

- Iron Age Denmark => closest to modern Danes
- Iron Age Sweden => closest to modern Swedes
- Iron Age Norway => closest to modern Norwegians

All from the Margaryan 2020 study. Looks like the Scandinavians haven't changed much genetically in the last 2000 years.

I have also added new samples Iron Age Britons (+2) and Anglo-Saxons (+1).

I am working on the Vikings from Oxford and Dorset now. This should tell us how much intermingling there was with the English by the 10th century.

[bigsnake49]

A lot of what I see does not make sense from a historical point of view in that it's mixing Chalcolithic and medieval populations. Now I might be exaggerating a bit but you just can't mix populations from different periods.

[Duarte]

A lot of what I see does not make sense from a historical point of view in that it's mixing Chalcolithic and medieval populations. Now I might be exaggerating a bit but you just can't mix populations from different periods.

@[email protected]

In a more stricto point of view, I plenty agree with you. In a link disclosed in a Jovialis’ post (see next) in this thread, Maciamo do the separation by era, that allows us to visualize the distance that separate each one of us from the various populations grouped by era.

1) Dodecad K12b coordinates: Epipaleolithic to Chacolithic

2) Dodecad K12b coordinates: Bronze Age

3) Dodecad K12b coordinates: Iron Age & Early Antiquity

4) Dodecad K12b coordinates: Late Antiquity & Middle Ages

@Maciamo

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/anc...analyzer.shtml

Excellent work on the new information page! I am just seeing it this morning.

[Salento]

... second to last: the new Iron-Age Norway :)

[Northener]

... second to last: the new Iron-Age Norway :)

I see mostly Neolithic Farmer with some elevated Hunter Gatherer.....

Or may be more accurate some kind of 'North European' (10%) introgression into mostly 'Southern European'(90%).

Or just a usual mix from someone from Southern Italy?

[Northener]

North Dutch have a preference for Brittonic + Estonian Iron Age (also in the two way).




And most close to Iron Age Denmark.

[Northener]

I have added:

- Iron Age Denmark => closest to modern Danes
- Iron Age Sweden => closest to modern Swedes
- Iron Age Norway => closest to modern Norwegians

All from the Margaryan 2020 study. Looks like the Scandinavians haven't changed much genetically in the last 2000 years.

I have also added new samples Iron Age Britons (+2) and Anglo-Saxons (+1).

I am working on the Vikings from Oxford and Dorset now. This should tell us how much intermingling there was with the English by the 10th century.

A question. As I just presented North Dutch like me have a close distance to iron age Denmark, still the admixture shows a preference for Britton and Estonian mix. Why is there such a difference between the distance and the admixture.....

[Salento]

I see mostly Neolithic Farmer with some elevated Hunter Gatherer.....

Or may be more accurate some kind of 'North European' (10%) introgression into mostly 'Southern European'(90%).

Or just a usual mix from someone from Southern Italy?

It’s a 2way “Oracle”

... It’s possible that my 10% Northerner is actually the Southern European DNA carried by many Northerners, ... so that’ll makes me about 100% Southern European and You 10% Salentino or something like that, ... :)

[Northener]

It’s a 2way “Oracle”

... It’s possible that my 10% Northerner is actually the Southern European DNA carried by many Northerners, ... so that’ll makes me about 100% Southern European and You 10% Salentino or something like that, ... :)

clear thanks!]

Even more fun:

[Maciamo]

I have added the average of 28 Viking genomes from 10th & 11th century Oxford and Dorset. They were clearly already mixed with English locals. The closest modern population is Iceland (distance = 3.1), which is itself a blend of Vikings with Celtic Irish and Scottish populations. Dorset Vikings are closer to modern Irish and Scots than to Scandinavians, Germans or English!

[Northener]

I have added the average of 28 Viking genomes from 10th & 11th century Oxford and Dorset. They were clearly already mixed with English locals. The closest modern population is Iceland (distance = 3.1), which is itself a blend of Vikings with Celtic Irish and Scottish populations. Dorset Vikings are closer to modern Irish and Scots than to Scandinavians, Germans or English!

What could be factor is that especially Danish and North-Dutch show a specific affinity to Iron Age Brittonic!
This 'disturbs' the sometimes supposed strict 'Celtic vs Germanic' dichotomy.....

[torzio]

I have added the average of 28 Viking genomes from 10th & 11th century Oxford and Dorset. They were clearly already mixed with English locals. The closest modern population is Iceland (distance = 3.1), which is itself a blend of Vikings with Celtic Irish and Scottish populations. Dorset Vikings are closer to modern Irish and Scots than to Scandinavians, Germans or English!

mine changed a little bit with these inclusions

Distance to:	VettorK12b
3.84695984	Bronze_Age_Illyrians
5.96880222	Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
6.60722332	Villanovans_(n=2)
7.85261740	6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24)
10.01532825	Medieval_Catalonia_Valencia_(n=9)
10.09930691	Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
10.59642393	Etruscans_(n=3)
10.59899524	Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5)
10.70577881	Bell_Beaker_Hungary_(n=6)
12.92973318	Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
13.13600776	Latins_(n=4)
14.59763337	Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
15.40992213	Gauls_Belgae_(n=16)
15.55084564	Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Alps_(n=7)
15.90517840	Bell_Beaker_Poland_(n=6)
17.07502855	Western_Scythians_(n=28)
17.13632983	6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
17.47129074	Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
17.55117945	Ostrogoths_(n=3)
17.85517012	Medieval_Andalusia_(n=14)
18.58959117	Early_Bronze_Age_Southern_France_(n=5)
18.62277101	Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture_(n=4)
19.24526695	Bell_Beaker_Bavaria/Saxony_(n=20)
19.31956780	Early_Bronze_Age_Swabia_(n=24)
19.66164540	Bell_Beaker_Gaul_(n=13)

Distance to:	VettorK12b
0.85824132	46.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 54.00% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
1.01637028	60.60% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 39.40% Minoan_Greece_(n=10)
1.05083303	22.20% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 77.80% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.09120220	48.00% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 52.00% EBA_Unetice_culture_(n=18)
1.26204895	58.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 41.40% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
1.34698817	54.40% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2) + 45.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.38733157	45.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2) + 54.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.57641508	49.20% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4) + 50.80% Lombards_(n=28)
1.59465844	41.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 58.40% Lombards_(n=28)
1.61657630	53.00% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 47.00% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4)
1.63813115	46.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 53.40% Swedish_Vikings_(n=23)
1.69980362	38.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 61.40% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.70804040	55.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 45.00% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
1.74833672	38.20% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 61.80% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.75992439	21.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 78.40% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.79619583	69.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 30.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24)
1.81083934	93.60% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 6.40% Iron_Age_Estonia_(n=8)
1.81301319	93.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 7.00% Medieval_Estonia_(n=7)
1.83055149	58.00% EMBA_Greece_(n=6) + 42.00% Nordic_Bronze_Age_(n=14)
1.83939066	5.00% Mesolithic_Ukraine_(n=7) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.84098870	6.80% Eastern_Corded_Ware_(n=8) + 93.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.84104359	5.00% Neolithic_Ukraine_(n=12) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.84886826	94.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 5.80% Baltic_Bronze_Age_(n=12)
1.84994977	94.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 5.80% Bronze_Age_Estonia_(n=16)
1.85704496	40.00% Early_Neolithic_Anatolia_(n=7) + 60.00% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15)

[Maciamo]

I have run the 28 Viking genomes from England separately in Vahaduo. It gives us a clearer picture of the heterogeneity of the Viking bands at the time.

Vikings from Oxford (St Brice's Day Massacre)

ID	Closest modern population
VK143	Icelandic
VK144	Hungarian
VK145	German
VK146	Italian from Friuli
VK147	Icelandic
VK148	Norwegian
VK150	Belgian
VK151	Norwegian
VK165	Icelandic
VK167	Swedish
VK168	Icelandic
VK172	Icelandic
VK173	Scottish
VK174	Icelandic
VK175	Norwegian
VK176	Norwegian
VK177	Northwest French
VK178	Dutch

Vikings from Dorset

ID	Closest modern population
VK256	Norwegian
VK257	Irish
VK258	Icelandic
VK259	Icelandic
VK260	Irish
VK261	French
VK262	North English
VK263	Icelandic
VK264	Icelandic
VK449	Icelandic

As mentioned above, Icelandic implies mixed Scandinavian and Irish/British ancestry.

The Hungarian and North Italian ancestry are the most surprising.

[Maciamo]

I have added the Danish Vikings based on 21 samples from Margaryan 2020..

Interestingly Danish Vikings weren't closest to modern Danes, but modern Dutch people and Northwest Germans (both 2.7), then North English and Icelandic people (both 5.2), then only modern Danes (5.3). That is surely because the samples tested included a lot of foreigners.

ID	Closest modern population
VK84	North French
VK90	Italians from Aosta Valley
VK92	Northwest French
VK94	Irish
VK134	Danish
VK138	Belgians
VK139	Belarussians
VK141	Swedish
VK274	Hungarians
VK275	Swedish
VK276	Belgians
VK278	Germans from Bavaria
VK280	Belgians
VK282	Germans
VK284	Northeast Poles
VK285	Northwest Germans
VK286	Italians from Aosta Valley
VK287	Russians
VK288	Swedish
VK289	Danish
VK295	Danish

[brick]

Of course, this makes no sense historically. Your other effort with Iron Age Italians makes more sense, but still the distances are pretty far for a lot of provinces, not just the ones populated by foreigners, like Aosta, Friuli and Trentino.

Italian population genetics is too complicated for this kind of two way analysis.

Of course I agree with you, the first model makes no sense historically.

[HAYZOO]

Distance to:	Me
2.65061115	20.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 79.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
2.93476628	16.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 83.60% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.51754800	9.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 91.00% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.61071879	15.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3) + 84.60% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.72419382	48.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 51.80% Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
3.94593137	19.80% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 80.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.94707718	55.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 45.00% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.19790960	53.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 46.40% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.23738572	14.60% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3) + 85.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
4.24922781	17.00% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 83.00% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.32577781	91.40% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46) + 8.60% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
4.41247342	8.20% Early_Neolithic_Maghreb_(n=1) + 91.80% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.41722438	69.80% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 30.20% Western_Scythians_(n=28)
4.44127285	12.80% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 87.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
4.51068162	65.80% EMBA_Greece_(n=6) + 34.20% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
4.64909195	7.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 93.00% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.66378917	45.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 54.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
4.68207574	93.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2) + 6.80% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
4.69974085	57.00% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 43.00% Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
4.71205461	56.60% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 43.40% Villanovans_(n=2)

The most even 2ways

3.72419382

48.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 51.80% Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)

3.94707718

55.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 45.00% Etruscans_(n=3)

4.19790960

53.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 46.40% Etruscans_(n=3)

4.66378917

45.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 54.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)

4.69974085	57.00% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 43.00% Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
4.71205461	56.60% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 43.40% Villanovans_(n=2)

[Pax Augusta]

I thought that the Terramare culture was the first Indo-European advance into Italy? If that is the case, it doesn't show at all in these samples from Olmo di Nogara, who have 0% of Gedrosia and only 11% of North European, just like the people from the Chalcolithic Remedello culture in the same region. In fact, what we see is in increase in Caucasus, SW Asian and NW African admixture (+14% in total) in the Middle Bronze Age and a decrease in Atlantic Med. So it looks like the Early/Middle Bronze Age immigrants to North Italy came from Greece, maybe via South Italy, but definitely not from Central Europe. I suppose that the Proto-Italics only started crossing the Alps from the Late Bronze Age onwards.

Ethnicity	Gedrosia	Siberia	NW Africa	SE Asia	Atlantic Med	North Europe	South Asia	East Africa	SW Asia	East Asia	Caucasus	SSA
Remedello culture (n=3)	0.00	0.00	0.78	0.71	69.04	11.78	0.00	0.00	5.18	0.00	11.80	0.72
Middle Bronze Age North Italy (n=4)	0.00	0.21	1.88	0.00	56.32	11.55	0.06	0.04	9.77	0.16	19.64	0.37

Who are the 4 samples on which the Middle Bronze Age North Italy average is based?

If I remember correctly, the oldest sample that comes from Italy and has Steppe is the sample I2478 (2194–1939 BC) from Parma, Emilia, and that archaeologically belongs to Bell Beaker (YDNA R1b1a2a1a2 (R-P312) and mtDNA K1a2a). He was buried with a younger woman who was Sardinian-like and Steppe-less.

Personally I think that of all the calculators on gedmatch Dodecad 12K is the one that keeps working better, especially with the new tests that use different chips from the past. But even the components of Dodecad K12 are not true ancestral components, it is hard to draw conclusions even with Dodecad.

Archaeologically, I don't recall the hypothesis that there are Early/Middle Bronze Age immigrants to North Italy from Greece. If there is any arrival from outside, it is more likely to come from the northern Balkans entering as usual in Friuli and from there moving further into Italy.

As for the Proto-Italics, yes it seems to have greater consensus that they began to cross the Alps only from the late Bronze Age onwards, roughly with the beginning of the Proto-Villanovan culture which is a facies that exists everywhere in Italy and should not be confused with the Iron Age Villanovan culture that is associated only with the Etruscans. Probably Indo-European movements were already present with the culture of Polada and Terramare but what is important is that when they ended, rather than when they begin in my opinion, and when the ethnic groups of pre-Roman Italy are then formed.

It must be added that the Latin-Faliscan is not linguistically considered Italic in the strict sense and that the opinion that enjoys greater consensus is that it belongs to a different migratory movement from that which brought the Osco-Umbrian languages. On the Venetic language instead there is still no consensus, the Venetic language shows an ancient relationship with Latin but it is not yet completely clear if they can be classified together.

Generally speaking one of the most widespread opinions is that the Latin-Faliscan speakers arrived before the Osco-Umbrian speakers, in any case both from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures. Also for the Etruscans it is archaeologically assumed that they also received Indo-European language migrations from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures between the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Iron Age from the Danubian-Carpathian area and the northern Balkans.

[torzio]

Who are the 4 samples on which the Middle Bronze Age North Italy average is based?

If I remember correctly, the oldest sample that comes from Italy and has Steppe is the sample I2478 (2194–1939 BC) from Parma, Emilia, and that archaeologically belongs to Bell Beaker (YDNA R1b1a2a1a2 (R-P312) and mtDNA K1a2a). He was buried with a younger woman who was Sardinian-like and Steppe-less.

Personally I think that of all the calculators on gedmatch Dodecad 12K is the one that keeps working better, especially with the new tests that use different chips from the past. But even the components of Dodecad K12 are not true ancestral components, it is hard to draw conclusions even with Dodecad.

Archaeologically, I don't recall the hypothesis that there are Early/Middle Bronze Age immigrants to North Italy from Greece. If there is any arrival from outside, it is more likely to come from the northern Balkans entering as usual in Friuli and from there moving further into Italy.

As for the Proto-Italics, yes it seems to have greater consensus that they began to cross the Alps only from the late Bronze Age onwards, roughly with the beginning of the Proto-Villanovan culture which is a facies that exists everywhere in Italy and should not be confused with the Iron Age Villanovan culture that is associated only with the Etruscans. Probably Indo-European movements were already present with the culture of Polada and Terramare but what is important is that when they ended, rather than when they begin in my opinion, and when the ethnic groups of pre-Roman Italy are then formed.

It must be added that the Latin-Faliscan is not linguistically considered Italic in the strict sense and that the opinion that enjoys greater consensus is that it belongs to a different migratory movement from that which brought the Osco-Umbrian languages. On the Venetic language instead there is still no consensus, the Venetic language shows an ancient relationship with Latin but it is not yet completely clear if they can be classified together.

Generally speaking one of the most widespread opinions is that the Latin-Faliscan speakers arrived before the Osco-Umbrian speakers, in any case both from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures. Also for the Etruscans it is archaeologically assumed that they also received Indo-European language migrations from the Middle-Danube Urnfield cultures between the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Iron Age from the Danubian-Carpathian area and the northern Balkans.

Venetic language is closest to Latin-Faliscan than with Osco-Umbrian .................I already added a study on this in a thread here a few months ago.

Archeologist, Perego has many papers that the Venetic was only in Italy from circa 1200BC and before this the modern regions of Friuli, Veneto and South-Trentino was ruled by the many Euganei tribes ..........they had some links with the Rhaeti from North-Trentino and South-Tyrol regions

https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/2508?lang=en

[Pax Augusta]

Venetic language is closest to Latin-Faliscan than with Osco-Umbrian .................I already added a study on this in a thread here a few months ago.

Archeologist, Perego has many papers that the Venetic was only in Italy from circa 1200BC and before this the modern regions of Friuli, Veneto and South-Trentino was ruled by the many Euganei tribes ..........they had some links with the Rhaeti from North-Trentino and South-Tyrol regions

https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/2508?lang=en

A paper released in 2020.

"La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattuto in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo. L’appartenenza del venetico alla famiglia indeuropea è data per acquisita fin a partire dalla fine dell’Ottocento con Pauli, anche se lo stesso ne sosteneva l’appartenenza ad un ramo ‘illirico’, tesi la cui insussistenza è stata in seguito dimostrata da Krahe. Dopo alcuni interventi che sottolineavano l’affinità del venetico col latino (Altheim, Beeler), il venetico è stato riportato da alcuni studiosi ad una posizione di autonomia nel quadro indeuropeo (Krahe, Pisani, Pellegrini), ma l’opinione prevalente — fin dagli anni ’50 — ne vede l’attribuzione al ramo italico dell’indeuropeo (Beeler, Lejeune). Nonostante non siano mancati i sostenitori di relazioni privilegiate con altre lingue (celtico in primis), la classificazione nel ramo italico si può ormai dire acquisita; il nodo ancora irrisolto riguarda la posizione interna del venetico, in relazione al latino da una parte e alle lingue italiche (= sabelliche) dall’altra; sostanzialmente neutrale è la posizione di Lejeune, mentre più decisamente orientato verso una affinità col latino è Prosdocimi; più di recente Prósper rivendica le relazioni con l’italico".


Marinetti, A. (2020). Venético. Palaeohispanica. Revista Sobre Lenguas Y Culturas De La Hispania Antigua, (20), 367-401.

https://doi.org/10.36707/palaeohispanica.v0i20.374
La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

[torzio]

A paper released in 2020.

"La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattuto in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo. L’appartenenza del venetico alla famiglia indeuropea è data per acquisita fin a partire dalla fine dell’Ottocento con Pauli, anche se lo stesso ne sosteneva l’appartenenza ad un ramo ‘illirico’, tesi la cui insussistenza è stata in seguito dimostrata da Krahe. Dopo alcuni interventi che sottolineavano l’affinità del venetico col latino (Altheim, Beeler), il venetico è stato riportato da alcuni studiosi ad una posizione di autonomia nel quadro indeuropeo (Krahe, Pisani, Pellegrini), ma l’opinione prevalente — fin dagli anni ’50 — ne vede l’attribuzione al ramo italico dell’indeuropeo (Beeler, Lejeune). Nonostante non siano mancati i sostenitori di relazioni privilegiate con altre lingue (celtico in primis), la classificazione nel ramo italico si può ormai dire acquisita; il nodo ancora irrisolto riguarda la posizione interna del venetico, in relazione al latino da una parte e alle lingue italiche (= sabelliche) dall’altra; sostanzialmente neutrale è la posizione di Lejeune, mentre più decisamente orientato verso una affinità col latino è Prosdocimi; più di recente Prósper rivendica le relazioni con l’italico".


Marinetti, A. (2020). Venético. Palaeohispanica. Revista Sobre Lenguas Y Culturas De La Hispania Antigua, (20), 367-401.

https://doi.org/10.36707/palaeohispanica.v0i20.374
La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

La posizione linguistica del venetico è stato un tema ampiamente dibattu-
to in passato, e non ancora pervenuto ad un assetto definitivo

The issue with Marinetti is that she does not resolve the original inhabitants of the area , while Perego does

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t...o_tab_contents

Marinetti seems to think no one was in North-East italy before the Venetic people arrived or fails to cover it................it is the same old , same old with Marinetti

[Pax Augusta]

The issue with Marinetti is that she does not resolve the original inhabitants of the area , while Perego does

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t...o_tab_contents

Marinetti seems to think no one was in North-East italy before the Venetic people arrived or fails to cover it................it is the same old , same old with Marinetti

Marinetti is a linguist and her paper focuses only on Venetic, it's not really her job to solve what you're talking about. Perego is an archeologist.

[Gabriele Pashaj]

My genetic distance among those ancient samplesAttachment 12672

[Jovialis]

BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2134,0.83,0,8.24,0,15.48,0,0,6.5,32.25,0,36.69,0
BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2888,0.23,0,10.62,0,15.29,0,0,6.3,32.71,0,34.85,0
BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2911,1.61,0.82,7.99,0.95,12.77,0,0.32,6.44,33.51,0.06,35.53,0

BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3),0.89,0.273333333,8.95,0.316666667,14.51333333,0,0.106666667,6.413333333,32.82333333,0.02,35.69,0

Ancient Egyptians

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods | Nature Communications

[Jovialis]

BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2134,0.83,0,8.24,0,15.48,0,0,6.5,32.25,0,36.69,0
BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2888,0.23,0,10.62,0,15.29,0,0,6.3,32.71,0,34.85,0
BA_Ancient_Egyptian:JK2911,1.61,0.82,7.99,0.95,12.77,0,0.32,6.44,33.51,0.06,35.53,0

BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3),0.89,0.273333333,8.95,0.316666667,14.51333333,0,0.106666667,6.413333333,32.82333333,0.02,35.69,0

Ancient Egyptians

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods | Nature Communications

Distance to:	BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3)
5.40290971	Coptic
10.89614256	Egyptian
13.25021761	Jordanian_Muslim
13.83067123	Palestinian
13.83731067	Jordanian_Christian
14.58840978	Bedouin
14.63119726	Syrian_SW_Christian
15.16207549	Palestinian_Christian
17.24141622	Syrian_Muslim
18.31857436	Kuwait1
18.33372484	Lebanese_Christian
18.49851345	Lebanese_Muslim
19.78952754	Yemenite_Mahra
20.29654650	Iraqi_Arab
20.92513003	Nusayri_Turkey
21.56825677	Greek_Cypriot
22.02733529	Morocco_Jews
22.51023249	Saudi
22.53014277	Turk_Cyprus
22.66852958	Yemenite_mixed
22.93816252	Sephardic_Jews
23.18180896	Italian_Jews
23.36516852	Arab_Iran
23.60695378	Iraqi_Jew
24.33897149	Iraqi_Baghdad

Distance to:	BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3)
8.85923059	Chalcolithic_Israel
9.43461358	Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
11.92433227	Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15)
15.02139696	Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
17.60487811	Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9)
19.82554413	Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=24)
21.22479211	Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6)
25.11349504	Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4)
25.11877385	Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
25.68113185	Chalcolithic_Anatolia_(n=35)
27.29128005	Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hittites_(n=2)
27.40460363	Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6)
27.62940704	Chalcolithic_Azerbaijan_(n=4)
27.85185631	Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
31.06945392	Middle_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=2)
32.26044327	Early_Neolithic_Anatolia_(n=7)
32.64035743	EMBA_Greece_(n=6)
33.76692761	Minoan_Greece_(n=10)
33.80271932	6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
33.88694586	Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
34.42262337	Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
34.90256724	Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4)
35.42841891	Early_Neolithic_Greece_(n=3)
36.32362087	Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
38.31379908	Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5)

Distance to:	BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3)
5.46940927	9.40% Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5) + 90.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
5.51571175	8.40% Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5) + 91.60% Chalcolithic_Israel
6.43101789	47.60% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 52.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4)
6.63035192	38.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 62.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9)
6.85681431	48.20% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 51.80% Chalcolithic_Anatolia_(n=35)
7.23694679	88.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 11.60% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
7.24780040	86.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3) + 13.40% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
7.89177445	16.40% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 83.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
7.90581876	32.80% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 67.20% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
7.96556713	92.20% Chalcolithic_Israel + 7.80% Maykop_culture_(n=16)
8.02908707	77.20% Chalcolithic_Israel + 22.80% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
8.03538197	93.00% Chalcolithic_Israel + 7.00% Late_Bronze_Age_North_Caucasus_(n=4)
8.05816670	94.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.60% Eastern_Scythians_(n=12)
8.09171374	4.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6) + 95.40% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.10944025	35.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 64.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
8.12899610	5.80% Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2) + 94.20% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.13178435	4.40% Chalcolithic_Pontic_Steppe_(n=3) + 95.60% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.14374400	94.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.20% Tian_Shan_Huns_(n=8)
8.16441421	11.60% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 88.40% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.16579724	6.80% Chalcolithic_Northwest_Caucasus_(n=3) + 93.20% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.16602397	95.00% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.00% Iron_Age_Altai_(n=5)
8.16745539	94.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.20% Tian_Shan_Saka_(n=5)
8.18076862	91.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 8.20% Kura-Araxes_culture_(n=8)
8.18547517	95.60% Chalcolithic_Israel + 4.40% Mongolian_Xiongnu_(n=5)
8.19090442	95.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 4.20% Bronze_Age_Kola_peninsula_(n=6)

[Maciamo]

I have added:

- Neolithic Latvia : no modern equivalent, but closest to modern Latvians (15.2)
- Botai culture (Eneolithic Kazakhstan) : no modern equivalent, but closest to the Udmurts (15.8)

I also updated the Eastern Corded Ware culture, Neolithic Ukraine and Mesolithic Latvia.