Table 4. Success rate, reason for failure, age of site, year of excavation and post-excavation handling for 18 ancient locations.

Site	Success rate	Reason for failure	Age of site	Excavated (year)	Handling
Bøgebakken	0/1	contaminated	7,000 YBP	1975	very handled
Tybrind Vig	0/1	no DNA	6–7,000 YBP	1976	very handled
Hulbjerg	0/5	1, no DNA	4–5,000 YBP	1960–61	handled
		4, contaminated
Kyndeløse	0/5	3, no DNA	4–5,000 YBP	1937–38	handled
		2, contaminated
Strø Bjerge	0/2	1, no DNA	4,400 YBP	1978	handled
		1, contaminated
Damsbo	2/5	no DNA*	4,200 YBP	2006	not handled
Bredtoftegård	1/1		3,300–3,500 YBP	2007	handled
Borum Eshøj	0/2	1, no DNA	3,300 YBP	1870	very handled
		1, contaminated
Egtvedpigen	0/1	no DNA	3,300 YBP	1921	very handled
Hestehavebakken	0/1	contaminated	3,100–3,700 YBP	1977	handled
Bøgebjerggård	7/8	contaminated	AD 1–400	1992, 2000	handled
Simonsborg	6/10	contaminated	AD 1–200	1965–1968	handled
Skovgaarde	11/14	contaminated	AD 200–400	1982, 1988	very handled
Himlingeøje	0/1	contaminated	AD 200–400	1940's–1950's	very handled
Varpelev	0/1	no DNA	AD 200–400	1876–1877	very handled
Galgedil	11/11		AD 1000	2005	not handled
Kongemarken	8/10	contaminated	AD 1000–1250	1996–2000	handled
Riisby	10/13	contaminated	AD 1250–1450	1986	handled

The two sites in italic indicate the use of hair as aDNA source.

Success rate is listed as number of individuals where unequivocal assignment of mtDNA haplotypes was possible out of total number of individuals tested. The next column states the reason for failure of the remaining samples. “No DNA” signifies “not sufficient amount of DNA” in the extract for a PCR to be successfully performed.

*The second tooth from one of the three “unsuccessful” individuals from Damsbo did not contain sufficient DNA for a replication to be conducted.