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

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.....



 
Last edited:
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
3.84695984Bronze_Age_Illyrians
5.96880222Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
6.60722332Villanovans_(n=2)
7.852617406th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24)
10.01532825Medieval_Catalonia_Valencia_(n=9)
10.09930691Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
10.59642393Etruscans_(n=3)
10.59899524Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5)
10.70577881Bell_Beaker_Hungary_(n=6)
12.92973318Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
13.13600776Latins_(n=4)
14.59763337Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
15.40992213Gauls_Belgae_(n=16)
15.55084564Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Alps_(n=7)
15.90517840Bell_Beaker_Poland_(n=6)
17.07502855Western_Scythians_(n=28)
17.136329836th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
17.47129074Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
17.55117945Ostrogoths_(n=3)
17.85517012Medieval_Andalusia_(n=14)
18.58959117Early_Bronze_Age_Southern_France_(n=5)
18.62277101Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture_(n=4)
19.24526695Bell_Beaker_Bavaria/Saxony_(n=20)
19.31956780Early_Bronze_Age_Swabia_(n=24)
19.66164540Bell_Beaker_Gaul_(n=13)



Distance to:VettorK12b
0.8582413246.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 54.00% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
1.0163702860.60% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 39.40% Minoan_Greece_(n=10)
1.0508330322.20% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 77.80% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.0912022048.00% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 52.00% EBA_Unetice_culture_(n=18)
1.2620489558.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 41.40% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
1.3469881754.40% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2) + 45.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.3873315745.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2) + 54.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.5764150849.20% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4) + 50.80% Lombards_(n=28)
1.5946584441.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 58.40% Lombards_(n=28)
1.6165763053.00% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 47.00% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4)
1.6381311546.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 53.40% Swedish_Vikings_(n=23)
1.6998036238.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 61.40% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.7080404055.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 45.00% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
1.7483367238.20% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 61.80% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.7599243921.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 78.40% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.7961958369.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 30.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24)
1.8108393493.60% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 6.40% Iron_Age_Estonia_(n=8)
1.8130131993.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 7.00% Medieval_Estonia_(n=7)
1.8305514958.00% EMBA_Greece_(n=6) + 42.00% Nordic_Bronze_Age_(n=14)
1.839390665.00% Mesolithic_Ukraine_(n=7) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.840988706.80% Eastern_Corded_Ware_(n=8) + 93.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.841043595.00% Neolithic_Ukraine_(n=12) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.8488682694.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 5.80% Baltic_Bronze_Age_(n=12)
1.8499497794.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 5.80% Bronze_Age_Estonia_(n=16)
1.8570449640.00% Early_Neolithic_Anatolia_(n=7) + 60.00% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15)
 
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)

IDClosest modern population
VK143Icelandic
VK144Hungarian
VK145German
VK146Italian from Friuli
VK147Icelandic
VK148Norwegian
VK150Belgian
VK151Norwegian
VK165Icelandic
VK167Swedish
VK168Icelandic
VK172Icelandic
VK173Scottish
VK174Icelandic
VK175Norwegian
VK176Norwegian
VK177Northwest French
VK178Dutch


Vikings from Dorset

IDClosest modern population
VK256Norwegian
VK257Irish
VK258Icelandic
VK259Icelandic
VK260Irish
VK261French
VK262North English
VK263Icelandic
VK264Icelandic
VK449Icelandic


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

The Hungarian and North Italian ancestry are the most surprising.
 
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.

IDClosest modern population
VK84North French
VK90Italians from Aosta Valley
VK92Northwest French
VK94Irish
VK134Danish
VK138Belgians
VK139Belarussians
VK141Swedish
VK274Hungarians
VK275Swedish
VK276Belgians
VK278Germans from Bavaria
VK280Belgians
VK282Germans
VK284Northeast Poles
VK285Northwest Germans
VK286Italians from Aosta Valley
VK287Russians
VK288Swedish
VK289Danish
VK295Danish
 
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.
 
Distance to:Me
2.6506111520.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 79.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
2.9347662816.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 83.60% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.517548009.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 91.00% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.6107187915.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3) + 84.60% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.7241938248.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 51.80% Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
3.9459313719.80% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 80.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
3.9470771855.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 45.00% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.1979096053.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 46.40% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.2373857214.60% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3) + 85.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
4.2492278117.00% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 83.00% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.3257778191.40% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46) + 8.60% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
4.412473428.20% Early_Neolithic_Maghreb_(n=1) + 91.80% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.4172243869.80% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 30.20% Western_Scythians_(n=28)
4.4412728512.80% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 87.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
4.5106816265.80% EMBA_Greece_(n=6) + 34.20% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
4.649091957.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 93.00% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
4.6637891745.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 54.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
4.6820757493.20% Italian_Greeks_(n=2) + 6.80% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
4.6997408557.00% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 43.00% Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
4.7120546156.60% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 43.40% Villanovans_(n=2)

The most even 2ways
3.7241938248.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 51.80% Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
3.9470771855.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 45.00% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.1979096053.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 46.40% Etruscans_(n=3)
4.6637891745.20% Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6) + 54.80% 6th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
4.6997408557.00% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4) + 43.00% Roman_&_Visigothic_Iberia_(n=31)
4.7120546156.60% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9) + 43.40% Villanovans_(n=2)
 
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.


EthnicityGedrosiaSiberiaNW AfricaSE AsiaAtlantic MedNorth EuropeSouth AsiaEast AfricaSW AsiaEast AsiaCaucasusSSA
Remedello culture (n=3)0.000.000.780.7169.0411.780.000.005.180.0011.800.72
Middle Bronze Age North Italy (n=4)0.000.211.880.0056.3211.550.060.049.770.1619.640.37


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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.ctv3t5r28.18?seq=8#metadata_info_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
 
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.ctv3t5r28.18?seq=8#metadata_info_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.
 
Code:
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
 
Code:
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)
5.40290971Coptic
10.89614256Egyptian
13.25021761Jordanian_Muslim
13.83067123Palestinian
13.83731067Jordanian_Christian
14.58840978Bedouin
14.63119726Syrian_SW_Christian
15.16207549Palestinian_Christian
17.24141622Syrian_Muslim
18.31857436Kuwait1
18.33372484Lebanese_Christian
18.49851345Lebanese_Muslim
19.78952754Yemenite_Mahra
20.29654650Iraqi_Arab
20.92513003Nusayri_Turkey
21.56825677Greek_Cypriot
22.02733529Morocco_Jews
22.51023249Saudi
22.53014277Turk_Cyprus
22.66852958Yemenite_mixed
22.93816252Sephardic_Jews
23.18180896Italian_Jews
23.36516852Arab_Iran
23.60695378Iraqi_Jew
24.33897149Iraqi_Baghdad

Distance to:BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3)
8.85923059Chalcolithic_Israel
9.43461358Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
11.92433227Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15)
15.02139696Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
17.60487811Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9)
19.82554413Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=24)
21.22479211Chalcolithic_North_Levant_(n=6)
25.11349504Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4)
25.11877385Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
25.68113185Chalcolithic_Anatolia_(n=35)
27.29128005Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hittites_(n=2)
27.40460363Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6)
27.62940704Chalcolithic_Azerbaijan_(n=4)
27.85185631Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
31.06945392Middle_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=2)
32.26044327Early_Neolithic_Anatolia_(n=7)
32.64035743EMBA_Greece_(n=6)
33.76692761Minoan_Greece_(n=10)
33.802719326th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_only)_(n=7)
33.88694586Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
34.42262337Medieval_Foggia_Apulia_(n=5)
34.90256724Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4)
35.42841891Early_Neolithic_Greece_(n=3)
36.32362087Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
38.31379908Early_Medieval_Latium_(n=5)


Distance to:BA_Ancient_Egyptian_(n=3)
5.469409279.40% Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5) + 90.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
5.515711758.40% Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5) + 91.60% Chalcolithic_Israel
6.4310178947.60% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 52.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_(n=4)
6.6303519238.00% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 62.00% Early-Middle_Bronze_Age_North_Levant_(n=9)
6.8568143148.20% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 51.80% Chalcolithic_Anatolia_(n=35)
7.2369467988.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 11.60% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
7.2478004086.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3) + 13.40% Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
7.8917744516.40% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 83.60% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
7.9058187632.80% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 67.20% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
7.9655671392.20% Chalcolithic_Israel + 7.80% Maykop_culture_(n=16)
8.0290870777.20% Chalcolithic_Israel + 22.80% Late_Bronze_Age_Israel_(n=3)
8.0353819793.00% Chalcolithic_Israel + 7.00% Late_Bronze_Age_North_Caucasus_(n=4)
8.0581667094.40% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.60% Eastern_Scythians_(n=12)
8.091713744.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6) + 95.40% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.1094402535.60% Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Levant_(n=15) + 64.40% Early_Bronze_Age_Jordan_(n=3)
8.128996105.80% Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2) + 94.20% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.131784354.40% Chalcolithic_Pontic_Steppe_(n=3) + 95.60% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.1437440094.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.20% Tian_Shan_Huns_(n=8)
8.1644142111.60% Epipaleolithic_Levant_(Natufians)_(n=6) + 88.40% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.165797246.80% Chalcolithic_Northwest_Caucasus_(n=3) + 93.20% Chalcolithic_Israel
8.1660239795.00% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.00% Iron_Age_Altai_(n=5)
8.1674553994.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 5.20% Tian_Shan_Saka_(n=5)
8.1807686291.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 8.20% Kura-Araxes_culture_(n=8)
8.1854751795.60% Chalcolithic_Israel + 4.40% Mongolian_Xiongnu_(n=5)
8.1909044295.80% Chalcolithic_Israel + 4.20% Bronze_Age_Kola_peninsula_(n=6)

 
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.
 
I have just added the Vikings from Russia and Ukraine. Here too there was intermingling with Slavic natives.

- Vikings from Russia : the closest modern populations are the NW Poles (4.5), Sorbs (4.8), Poles (6.3), Slovaks (7.4), Czechs (7.5), Germans (7.7) and Swedes (8.1).
- Vikings from Ukraine : the closest modern populations are the Sorbs (2.9), Poles (4.2), NW Poles (4.4), Slovaks (5.3), Ukrainians (5.7) and Czechs (6.2).

Just like Vikings from Denmark and England, the samples are a motley of various Europeans who seemed to have joined the Scandinavian Vikings.

Sample IDClosest modern population
VK14NW German
VK16NW German
VK17West Finnish
VK20Swedish
VK21West Finnish
VK22Dutch
VK23Swedish
VK159Belarussian
VK160Russian
VK223Swedish
VK224Estonian
VK254Hungarian
VK272Ukrainian
VK273Polish
VK466Russian
VK539Polish
VK540Swedish
VK541Ukrainian
VK542Ukrainian


The last four are from Ukraine. All the others are from Russia.
 
Thx Maciamo
Target: Duarte
Distance: 1.4792% / 1.47915960

52.5CA_Remedello_culture_(n=3)
19.9Neolithic_Latvia_(n=4)
9.8Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2)
8.9Medieval_Andalusia_(n=14)
7.2Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5)
1.7Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6)




Target: Duarte
Distance: 1.4830% / 1.48299702 | R6P

52.0CA_Remedello_culture_(n=3)
19.7Neolithic_Latvia_(n=4)
10.0Medieval_Andalusia_(n=14)
9.5Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2)
7.0Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5)
1.8Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_Iran_(n=6)

Target: Duarte
Distance: 1.6336% / 1.63363287 | R5P

53.0CA_Remedello_culture_(n=3)
20.1Neolithic_Latvia_(n=4)
11.5Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2)
7.9Medieval_Andalusia_(n=14)
7.5Epipaleolithic_Magreb_(Iberomaurusians)_(n=5)

Target: Duarte
Distance: 2.1908% / 2.19077134 | R4P

51.6Bell_Beaker_Iberia_(n=11)
19.9Neolithic_Latvia_(n=4)
15.1Early_Medieval_Canaries_(n=5)
13.4Epipaleolithic_Mesolithic_Caucasus_(CHG)_(n=2)

 
no change for me after data added from post#277

I am interested in the high % of the bold ones though


Distance to:TorzioK12b
0.8582413246.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 54.00% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2)
1.0163702860.60% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 39.40% Minoan_Greece_(n=10)
1.0508330322.20% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 77.80% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.0912022048.00% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 52.00% EBA_Unetice_culture_(n=18)
1.2620489558.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 41.40% Imperial-age_Latium_(East_Med_immigrants)_(n=46)
1.3469881754.40% Imperial-age_Marche_(n=2) + 45.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.3873315745.40% Italian_Greeks_(n=2) + 54.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2)
1.4242339140.40% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 59.60% Danish_Vikings_(n=21)
1.5764150849.20% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4) + 50.80% Lombards_(n=28)
1.5946584441.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 58.40% Lombards_(n=28)
1.6165763053.00% Bell_Beaker_Czechia_(n=15) + 47.00% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4)
1.6381311546.60% Minoan_Greece_(n=10) + 53.40% Swedish_Vikings_(n=23)
1.6652113948.00% Mycenaean_Greece_(n=4) + 52.00% Danish_Vikings_(n=21)
1.6998036238.60% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 61.40% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.7080404055.00% Middle-Late_Bronze_Age_Hungary_(n=12) + 45.00% Italian_Greeks_(n=2)
1.7483367238.20% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 61.80% Late_Antiquity_Latium_(n=24)
1.7599243921.60% Hallstatt_Celts_(n=2) + 78.40% Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
1.7961958369.20% 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)
1.8130131993.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 7.00% Medieval_Estonia_(n=7)
1.8305514958.00% EMBA_Greece_(n=6) + 42.00% Nordic_Bronze_Age_(n=14)
1.839390665.00% Mesolithic_Ukraine_(n=7) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.8456485190.40% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 9.60% Vikings_from_Russia_(n=15)
1.846250255.00% Neolithic_Ukraine_(n=12) + 95.00% Bronze_Age_Illyrians
1.8488682694.20% Bronze_Age_Illyrians + 5.80% Baltic_Bronze_Age_(n=12)


Target: Torziok12b
Distance: 1.0953% / 1.09528753 | ADC: 0.25x RC
33.0
Bronze_Age_Illyrians
27.4Late_Medieval_Latium_(n=16)
22.7Bell_Beaker_Hungary_(n=6)
16.96th-century_Piedmont_(Italians_&_Lombards)_(n=24)
 
... new Neolithic Latvia and the new Vikings:

I’ve run out of theories, ... maybe it is what it is!

pPjeT7t.gif
 

This thread has been viewed 143261 times.

Back
Top