1 members found this post helpful.

Originally Posted by
Pax Augusta
Only recent Slavic or Germanic admixture can move them to that position. If they have recent Croatian or Slovenian admixture they can't be more considered fully Northern Italian.
Completely different thing is Germanic or Slavic medieval admixture.
Northern Italians have been living cheek by jowl with Croatians since the days of the Venetian Republic. How the heck do you know when the admixture happened?
My first cousin in law has a Slavic last name and his family has been in the Veneto since the Middle Ages. They were Venetian traders with long standing contacts with Dalmatia and Byzantium. Their "family" first names, one of which he gave to his unfortunate son, include names like Archimedi.
The point is that when you do a random "pick", as you HAVE to do for a scientific analysis, you're going to pick up people who might be a minority. When you have a LOT of samples from a certain area you can perhaps weed out the "outliers".
It is NOT something which one can do based on one's own results or a "hunch" as to what the people should look like, or one's preference.
For example, what is one to make of the comment above that posters at anthrogenica think the Peloponnesian samples are too "southern". Leaving aside the fact that so many of the amateur enthusiasts in this discipline are Nordicists even if they come from the southernmost parts of Europe, and are keen to make their "people" more "Northern", what is to be made of an observation like that? What SCIENTIFIC analysis is it based on?
Only when there are a LOT of randomly chosen samples from all parts of a designated area am I going to be persuaded by comments like that.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci