Do people in different parts of the UK cluster differently autosomally?

[Sikeliot]

I have often heard that eastern England and southeastern Scotland have the most continental Germanic as well as Norse ancestry in all of the UK.. do genetics show this? Or is it impossible to tell due to the native people of the British Isles having been similar to Germanics to begin with?

Do people from Cornwall, Wales, western Ireland, etc. cluster closer to France and have a southward shift? People say that the darkest people in the British Isles are found in these regions and more "Iberian"-like ancestry should be there.

[Neon Knight]

There is a bit of pan-French DNA in most of England and there is also a lot of a type which is common in Brittany but even more frequent in Wales, so is that British or French?

As far as I know this is the most up-to-date info on British genetics: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21841126/Royal%20Society%20exhibit%20Jul%202012d.pdf

[LightHouse89]

I have often heard that eastern England and southeastern Scotland have the most continental Germanic as well as Norse ancestry in all of the UK.. do genetics show this? Or is it impossible to tell due to the native people of the British Isles having been similar to Germanics to begin with?

Do people from Cornwall, Wales, western Ireland, etc. cluster closer to France and have a southward shift? People say that the darkest people in the British Isles are found in these regions and more "Iberian"-like ancestry should be there.

Neon Knight sent me an article discussing this and it is very recent. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/21/the-genographic-project-returns-to-ireland-to-reveal-dna-results/

For Ireland.

[Grace O'Malley]

I have often heard that eastern England and southeastern Scotland have the most continental Germanic as well as Norse ancestry in all of the UK.. do genetics show this? Or is it impossible to tell due to the native people of the British Isles having been similar to Germanics to begin with?

Do people from Cornwall, Wales, western Ireland, etc. cluster closer to France and have a southward shift? People say that the darkest people in the British Isles are found in these regions and more "Iberian"-like ancestry should be there.

Cornwall and Wales cluster closer to France but western Ireland along with the rest of Ireland clusters with West Scots and Orcadians. My father was from Western Ireland and none of us have any Iberian on 23andMe. I really don't see any close Iberian connection by genetics. I have some people from Donegal on 23andMe and they have very high British & Irish scores with the rest being broadly Northern European. My mother from Tipperary has on speculative 91% British & Irish, 4.6% French & German, 4 % Broadly Northern European, 0.1% Southern European and 0.3% Broadly European. She is the most varied of us all with myself, brother and daughter all being mostly British & Irish, some French & German and the rest broadly Northern European.

Here are a few other Irish examples from 23&Me on Speculative -
94% British & Irish, 1.5% French & German, 0.9% Scandinavian, 3.6 Broadly Northern European
98% British & Irish, 1.8% Broadly Northern European, 0.1 Broadly European
87.5 British & Irish, 1.4% Scandinavian, 0.6% French & German, 10.3% Broadly Northern European, 0.2% Broadly European
94.6% British & Irish, 5.3% Broadly Northern European, 0.2% Broadly Northern European
93.7% British & Irish, 0.6% Finnish, 6% Broadly Northern European, <0.1% Broadly European
95.5% British & Irish, 0.7% Scandinavian, 3.5% Broadly Northern European, 0.3 % Broadly European
95.8% British & Irish, 4.1% Broadly Northern European, 0.1% Broadly European

A couple with Iberian

96.5 % British & Irish, 3.3% Broadly Northern European, 0.1% Iberian, 0.1 % Broadly European
86.6% British & Irish, 1.1% French & German, 11% Broadly Northern European, 0.4% Iberian, 0.2% Broadly Southern European, 0.8% Broadly European

Anyway that's a good general cross section of Irish results.

[Grace O'Malley]

There is a bit of pan-French DNA in most of England and there is also a lot of a type which is common in Brittany but even more frequent in Wales, so is that British or French?

As far as I know this is the most up-to-date info on British genetics: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21841126/Royal%20Society%20exhibit%20Jul%202012d.pdf

It would be great if they did this for Ireland.

[Damião de Góis]

Yes, IE and UK are usually in a separate cluster... but close to one another still.

[Grace O'Malley]

Here's a genetic plot. I can't find any with separate areas of Britain. I'll keep looking though. I think the PoBI plots are the only ones.

http://www.molecularecologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/journal.pgen_.1002886.g002.png

[Grace O'Malley]

We need someone like Jackson on this thread. He's very knowledgeable about British genetics.

[Oneeye]

There is a bit of pan-French DNA in most of England and there is also a lot of a type which is common in Brittany but even more frequent in Wales, so is that British or French?

As far as I know this is the most up-to-date info on British genetics: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21841126/Royal%20Society%20exhibit%20Jul%202012d.pdf

Why is Belgian tacked onto German and Danish on pg 9? It really distinguishes the English having that as the largest component. And maybe I am showing historical ignorance, but how come there is a higher affinity for Swedes than Norwegians?

[LightHouse89]

Why is Belgian tacked onto German and Danish on pg 9? It really distinguishes the English having that as the largest component. And maybe I am showing historical ignorance, but how come there is a higher affinity for Swedes than Norwegians?

I find that graph confusing. My guess is the Vendel period England could have attracted Swedes in small numbers? In this period Beowulf was popular and some of that legend comes from Sweden [Geatland].

[Siberia62]

I have often heard that eastern England and southeastern Scotland have the most continental Germanic as well as Norse ancestry in all of the UK.. do genetics show this? Or is it impossible to tell due to the native people of the British Isles having been similar to Germanics to begin with?

Do people from Cornwall, Wales, western Ireland, etc. cluster closer to France and have a southward shift? People say that the darkest people in the British Isles are found in these regions and more "Iberian"-like ancestry should be there.


Before I get started, good attached links from Neon Knight and Jim Crow, haven't seen these before and will be reading in due course.

As for the topic:

I live in England and have travelled this land from shore to shore, I have been to Wales, Scotland and Ireland too but when I was younger mostly and devoid of any anthropological/racial knowledge. Well, actually I went to Scotland recently but only for 1 day.

When you look at haplogroup maps, compared with genetics results (out of Bryan Sykes book for example), it is East Anglia and the South-East in particular that possess a large percentage of I1, running at around 30% according to Sykes's figures. The north possesses more Norse-Viking ancestry. Whilst the South-West is very R1b, Cornwall will be well up into 80% I should think.
The Northern and Western Isles of Scotland have the most Norse ancestry, the Grampian region of the North-East is the most untouched and most Celtic-Pictish. Whilst, the South-West appears to show ample Saxon/Dane ancestry.
Regarding Wales, the North was the scene of small-scale Viking settlements I think, so has a minute amount of Norse & other Germanic ancestry. The central belt is heavily Briton.

From what I have noticed about my travels throughout Britain: The south-east of England is typically Keltic-Nordid looking, with mixes of North Atlantid and Borreby. Over 50% of people have blue eyes, and light brown hair is probably the most common. Into Kent and Essex you get some very Germanic-looking types.

I lived in the south-west for half a year - The Devonians and Cornish are undoubtedly slightly darker people, the percentage of brown hair and eyes is higher down there, and some are heavily tanned/Iberian looking, but you will still see natural blondes dotted about.

I think the further North you go, into the Midlands and then Northern England especially, you see more Danish/Northern-German looking types, even Scandinavian. More blue eyes and blonde hair, for sure. I am sure this is the same in Norfolk but I don't think I've been there. Also, regardless of SF stereotypes of yids having dark curly hair, big hooked noses and being swarthy with sharply receding foreheads. If you travel throughout Britain, you will see hooked noses everywhere, a lot of Roman-type noses, even Armenoid every so often. Yes, it's true that jews often have hooked noses, but Brits certainly do too, because I see this all the time. And many of the more Briton-looking types, have sharply receding foreheads too, so again, this is not a trait just bound to Jews, lol. As for Curlyish hair and swarthy skin, just go to parts of Cornwall and Wales and you will see these types dotted around.

Either way, I've had little else to do this Sunday afternoon so I have put Bryan Sykes's final results into an Excel spreadsheet for anyone who's interested, and will upload a picture of it here now. Thanks for reading:

http://s23.postimg.org/7033z2wwb/Isles_Haplogroups.jpg

Fucking finally it worked, damn photo.

[LightHouse89]

Before I get started, good attached links from Neon Knight and Jim Crow, haven't seen these before and will be reading in due course.

As for the topic:

I live in England and have travelled this land from shore to shore, I have been to Wales, Scotland and Ireland too but when I was younger mostly and devoid of any anthropological/racial knowledge. Well, actually I went to Scotland recently but only for 1 day.

When you look at haplogroup maps, compared with genetics results (out of Bryan Sykes book for example), it is East Anglia and the South-East in particular that possess a large percentage of I1, running at around 30% according to Sykes's figures. The north possesses more Norse-Viking ancestry. Whilst the South-West is very R1b, Cornwall will be well up into 80% I should think.
The Northern and Western Isles of Scotland have the most Norse ancestry, the Grampian region of the North-East is the most untouched and most Celtic-Pictish. Whilst, the South-West appears to show ample Saxon/Dane ancestry.
Regarding Wales, the North was the scene of small-scale Viking settlements I think, so has a minute amount of Norse & other Germanic ancestry. The central belt is heavily Briton.

From what I have noticed about my travels throughout Britain: The south-east of England is typically Keltic-Nordid looking, with mixes of North Atlantid and Borreby. Over 50% of people have blue eyes, and light brown hair is probably the most common. Into Kent and Essex you get some very Germanic-looking types.

I lived in the south-west for half a year - The Devonians and Cornish are undoubtedly slightly darker people, the percentage of brown hair hair is higher down there, and some are heavily tanned/Iberian looking, but you will still see natural blondes dotted about.

I think the further North you go, into the Midlands and then Northern England especially, you see more Danish/Northern-German looking types, even Scandinavian. More blue eyes and blonde hair, for sure. I am sure this is the same in Norfolk but I don't think I've been there. Also, regardless of SF stereotypes of yids having dark curly hair, big hooked noses and being swarthy with sharply receding foreheads. If you travel throughout Britain, you will see hooked noses everywhere, a lot of Roman-type noses, even Armenoid every so often. Yes, it's true that jews often have hooked noses, but Brits certainly do too, because I see this all the time. And many of the more Briton-looking types, have sharply receding foreheads too, so again, this is not a trait just bound to Jews, lol. As for Curlyish hair and swarthy skin, just go to parts of Cornwall and Wales and you will see these types dotted around.

Either way, I've had little else to do this Sunday afternoon so I have put Bryan Sykes's final results into an Excel spreadsheet for anyone who's interested, and will upload a picture of it here now. Thanks for reading:

http://s23.postimg.org/7033z2wwb/Isles_Haplogroups.jpg

Fucking finally it worked, damn photo.

My dad looks like a Jew in his old age but in younger pictures he looks like a dark brit or irishman....I say this because he has dark hair. he has a weird looking nose. My mother looks Irish/German....or like a Germanicized Irish woman.

[Neon Knight]

Cornwall and Wales cluster closer to FranceI just want to make clear that the Cornish (especially) and Welsh are still closer to English than French and it is only the north-west French that the Welsh have a lot of fine-scale overlap with (about 40% compared with the English/NW French overlap of about 25%).

[Oneeye]

Before I get started, good attached links from Neon Knight and Jim Crow, haven't seen these before and will be reading in due course.

As for the topic:

I live in England and have travelled this land from shore to shore, I have been to Wales, Scotland and Ireland too but when I was younger mostly and devoid of any anthropological/racial knowledge. Well, actually I went to Scotland recently but only for 1 day.

When you look at haplogroup maps, compared with genetics results (out of Bryan Sykes book for example), it is East Anglia and the South-East in particular that possess a large percentage of I1, running at around 30% according to Sykes's figures. The north possesses more Norse-Viking ancestry. Whilst the South-West is very R1b, Cornwall will be well up into 80% I should think.
The Northern and Western Isles of Scotland have the most Norse ancestry, the Grampian region of the North-East is the most untouched and most Celtic-Pictish. Whilst, the South-West appears to show ample Saxon/Dane ancestry.
Regarding Wales, the North was the scene of small-scale Viking settlements I think, so has a minute amount of Norse & other Germanic ancestry. The central belt is heavily Briton.

From what I have noticed about my travels throughout Britain: The south-east of England is typically Keltic-Nordid looking, with mixes of North Atlantid and Borreby. Over 50% of people have blue eyes, and light brown hair is probably the most common. Into Kent and Essex you get some very Germanic-looking types.

I lived in the south-west for half a year - The Devonians and Cornish are undoubtedly slightly darker people, the percentage of brown hair hair is higher down there, and some are heavily tanned/Iberian looking, but you will still see natural blondes dotted about.

I think the further North you go, into the Midlands and then Northern England especially, you see more Danish/Northern-German looking types, even Scandinavian. More blue eyes and blonde hair, for sure. I am sure this is the same in Norfolk but I don't think I've been there. Also, regardless of SF stereotypes of yids having dark curly hair, big hooked noses and being swarthy with sharply receding foreheads. If you travel throughout Britain, you will see hooked noses everywhere, a lot of Roman-type noses, even Armenoid every so often. Yes, it's true that jews often have hooked noses, but Brits certainly do too, because I see this all the time. And many of the more Briton-looking types, have sharply receding foreheads too, so again, this is not a trait just bound to Jews, lol. As for Curlyish hair and swarthy skin, just go to parts of Cornwall and Wales and you will see these types dotted around.

Either way, I've had little else to do this Sunday afternoon so I have put Bryan Sykes's final results into an Excel spreadsheet for anyone who's interested, and will upload a picture of it here now. Thanks for reading:

http://s23.postimg.org/7033z2wwb/Isles_Haplogroups.jpg

Fucking finally it worked, damn photo.


South East England has the most E1B? Interesting

[LightHouse89]

South East England has the most E1B? Interesting

this explains why they can easily tan compared to northerners.

[Neon Knight]

Why is Belgian tacked onto German and Danish on pg 9? It really distinguishes the English having that as the largest component. And maybe I am showing historical ignorance, but how come there is a higher affinity for Swedes than Norwegians?I think the Belgian is there just because it belongs in the 'eastern' category more than the 'southern' one. The fact there is more Swedish than Norwegian DNA is very interesting. But if you look at a map of Europe you can see it is easier to get to Britain from Sweden (via Denmark/Germany/France) than it is from Norway unless you are with some good sailors, so I think that reflects migrations from Sweden in pre-Roman times - probably just adventurers who heard that Britain had some good farmland.

[LightHouse89]

I think the Belgian is there just because it belongs in the 'eastern' category more than the 'southern' one. The fact there is more Swedish than Norwegian DNA is very interesting. But if you look at a map of Europe you can see it is easier to get to Britain from Sweden (via Denmark/Germany/France) than it is from Norway unless you are with some good sailors, so I think that reflects migrations from Sweden in pre-Roman times - probably just adventurers who heard that Britain had some good farmland.

Well what I find odd is the Germanic invasions could have just mostly came from the coastal populations of all of northern europe really in different numbers and waves at different points in time. Anglo-Saxon is the only easy way of naming the invasions I guess hahaha. I wish a more comprehensive study was done on Ireland to determine what level of Germanic settlement occurred there. It would seem not much but it would be nice ot see if they had regional results, like Watersford for example my great great grandfather's home. I am not really impressed with Brian Syke's book and results as I doubt he tested alot of people there. Not to mention he was testing farmers.....which is not entirely accurate seeing the Vikings in Ireland were merchant people not farmers...where as in England many were farmers. The inlands of Ireland were most likely untouched by the Vikings and the Normans probably made very little impact there as well.

[Neon Knight]

Yeah, I think the Sykes stuff is useful but has now been superceded by more powerful studies.

[LightHouse89]

Yeah, I think the Sykes stuff is useful but has now been superceded by more powerful studies.

I wish that Ireland had a more comprehensive study like the one you posted earlier which graphs the regions and where they cluster more with. Hopefully all of europe can be mapped like this in the future. Although continental europe will be more difficult I think LOL.

[Neon Knight]

I wish that Ireland had a more comprehensive study like the one you posted earlier which graphs the regions and where they cluster more with. Hopefully all of europe can be mapped like this in the future. Although continental europe will be more difficult I think LOL.I think they are going to get around to Ireland soon (if they'd stayed in the UK they'd have been done already!). The British Isles project contains this map of Europe which is obviously not complete but still interesting:

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu295/Alchemyst/EuropeanGeneticPie-Charts_zps5dd80959.jpg

It is surprising how much variety there is in Norway and Sweden which challenges the idea of a 'pure nordic' (although Danes come close).

[LightHouse89]

I think they are going to get around to Ireland soon (if they'd stayed in the UK they'd have been done already!). The British Isles project contains this map of Europe which is obviusly not complete but still interesting:

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu295/Alchemyst/EuropeanGeneticPie-Charts_zps5dd80959.jpg

It is surprising how much variety there is in Norway and Sweden which challenges the idea of a 'pure nordic' (although Danes come close).

what is ireland there? pure bright purple? does this mean little to no genetic impact?

[Neon Knight]

^ I reckon when they study Ireland in proper detail then there will be some differences by area. But the Irish are probably one of the most homogeneous populations in Europe given that they've not had much immigration/invasion compared to, say, Britain and France.

[Siberia62]

My dad looks like a Jew in his old age but in younger pictures he looks like a dark brit or irishman....I say this because he has dark hair. he has a weird looking nose. My mother looks Irish/German....or like a Germanicized Irish woman.

All my grandparents except my Mum's father look a bit odd. And what do you know, gedmatch states I'm roughly 1/4 AJ but no one in my family actually believes it lol. Either way, DNA doesn't lie, so when I get the money I'm doing a test with ftdna to confirm my result. Then I will get my maternal grandmother, paternal grandfather and my parents to do tests if they agree to it. So far, my maternal grandmother has agreed to it.

My paternal grandfather looks a bit jewish in his old age too, but he looked just Atlantid when he was younger. He is supposedly 1/4 Irish and has curly brown hair and tans well, but his nose is small and very straight. Genetics is just odd at the end of the day.

I know for certain that my earliest directly paternal and maternal ancestors were both English. Obviously my R-L21 is not from a Jew. And my T2 was from an English lady with the surname of Giles which sounds pretty gentile to me. Some heathen yid cursed my bloodline for eternity, lmfao, and no one including my grandparents knows anything about this.

[LightHouse89]

All my grandparents except my Mum's father look a bit odd. And what do you know, gedmatch states I'm roughly 1/4 AJ but no one in my family actually believes it lol. Either way, DNA doesn't lie, so when I get the money I'm doing a test with ftdna to confirm my result. Then I will get my maternal grandmother, paternal grandfather and my parents to do tests if they agree to it. So far, my maternal grandmother has agreed to it.

My paternal grandfather looks a bit jewish in his old age too, but he looked just Atlantid when he was younger. He is supposedly 1/4 Irish and has curly brown hair and tans well, but his nose is small and very straight. Genetics is just odd at the end of the day.

I know for certain that my earliest directly paternal and maternal ancestors were both English. Obviously my R-L21 is not from a Jew. And my T2 was from an English lady with the surname of Giles which sounds pretty gentile to me. Some heathen yid cursed my bloodline for eternity, lmfao, and no one including my grandparents knows anything about this.

I know some with the surname Giles.....they look like the regular yankee new englander. Here the British and Irish inter married so they may look Irish or more British. There is alot of keltic nordid types for both irish people and brits here....I see them very regularly. Then you have the darker types like Mark Wahlberg and Ben Affleck [both new englander actors], my dad and his father had a very Atlantid look......while my dad's brothers could pass as scotch irish americans.

[Siberia62]

Yeah, I think the Sykes stuff is useful but has now been superceded by more powerful studies.

Yeah, that's probably true. I have Stephen Oppenheimer's "Origins of the British" and am being too lazy to pick it up and read it. Fuck it, I will tonight, I believe he delves into greater detail than Sykes does.

Though lately, I've been looking at various Saxon-related videos on youtube, and I noticed a few people who insist that the English are Germanic and will even go as far as to label the Cornish, Welsh, Scots and Irish "different to us."

In reality, hasn't DNA shown that yes, we have differences, but we're really quite similar? Ok, the Scots have the most Norse blood, and the English have the most Saxon/Danish Viking ancestry. The Welsh are overwhelmingly indigenous Britons.

Are the theories proposed by Sykes and Oppenheimer really, false bullshit? Some are saying this like every Englishman is descended from a Saxon, Angle or Jute, and this is clearly not true when you look at the levels of R-L21 in England.

What Sykes hasn't done in his Blood of the Isles, is differentiate between the various subclades of R1b, and he should have.

[Neon Knight]

Yeah, that's probably true. I have Stephen Oppenheimer's "Origins of the British" and am being too lazy to pick it up and read it. Fuck it, I will tonight, I believe he delves into greater detail than Sykes does.

Though lately, I've been looking at various Saxon-related videos on youtube, and I noticed a few people who insist that the English are Germanic and will even go as far as to label the Cornish, Welsh, Scots and Irish "different to us."

In reality, hasn't DNA shown that yes, we have differences, but we're really quite similar? Ok, the Scots have the most Norse blood, and the English have the most Saxon/Danish Viking ancestry. The Welsh are overwhelmingly indigenous Britons.

Are the theories proposed by Sykes and Oppenheimer really, false bullshit? Some are saying this like every Englishman is descended from a Saxon, Angle or Jute, and this is clearly not true when you look at the levels of R-L21 in England.

What Sykes hasn't done in his Blood of the Isles, is differentiate between the various subclades of R1b, and he should have.
There are some people who like to tell themselves "I am 100% Anglo-Saxon, descended from heroic warriors who sailed across the North Sea" and I think they've got the Germanic superiority bug which came from some US white nationalists who decided that having 'Germainic' ancestry was better than having any other, and so some of them started living in the past (mostly imagined) and viewing modern day Welsh/Scottish/Irish people as a separate race and mortal enemies. And so they will deny any scientific evidence which threatens this self-image. Sykes and Oppenheimer moved closer to the truth but went a bit too far in the other direction. The latest studies tell us that most English are about 50/50 ancient Brit and German/Scandi but how much of that came with the classic AngloSaxon invasions is debatable. It must have been enough to change the language and culture but there was obviously no annihilation of the British Celts - a lot of them must have been assimilated and came to see themselves as Angles and Saxons and then English.

But even all this evidence is largely based on people from rural areas and excludes all the British Isles mixing of recent times. I personally make no great distinction between northwestern Europeans in general on a political level (and I'm not saying that other Europeans are exactly aliens either).

[Siberia62]

There are some people who like to tell themselves "I am 100% Anglo-Saxon, descended from heroic warriors who sailed across the North Sea" and I think they've got the Germanic superiority bug which came from some US white nationalists who decided that having 'Germainic' ancestry was better than having any other, and so some of them started living in the past (mostly imagined) and viewing modern day Welsh/Scottish/Irish people as a separate race and mortal enemies. And so they will deny any scientific evidence which threatens this self-image. Sykes and Oppenheimer moved closer to the truth but went a bit too far in the other direction. The latest studies tell us that most English are about 50/50 ancient Brit and German/Scandi but how much of that came with the classic AngloSaxon invasions is debatable. It must have been enough to change the language and culture but there was obviously no annihilation of the British Celts - a lot of them must have been assimilated and came to see themselves as Angles and Saxons and then English.

But even all this evidence is largely based on people from rural areas and excludes all the British Isles mixing of recent times. I personally make no great distinction between northwestern Europeans in general on a political level (and I'm not saying that other Europeans are exactly aliens either).

Good comment. I agree with your sentiments. Something also to bear in mind, is what Sykes actually highlighted in the early pages of his book "Blood of the Isles." He wrote about how historically, English leaders throughout the middle ages up until the 21st century, have consistently proclaimed they're "Germanicness" if that was a word, and how they are "different" to the Celts of Ireland, Scotland and particularly Wales. There were English figures who genuinely thought that the Irish, Welsh and Scots were backwards and worthless, of a different race....and so on, and these Englishmen routinely declared a Germanic or Anglo-Saxon superiority, which you can see is still around today, in some places.

I do see those on youtube with Olde English names, who express their love of the Saxons and Old England before the Normans latinized our language and ruined everything, lol. And this is fine. But then you start getting to the comments, and their real views - "I am Englisc, descended from the almighty Saxons. I am not like them, the Celts, Celts are not English. They are a different people" etc etc. It's a load of bullshit. I just tell them "take a DNA test, because the most common haplogroup in England is R1b, and the ancient Briton subclade of this.

One source for this is this: http://britainsdna.com/assets/EarthsDNA/img/diagram/YDNADistributionDark.jpg?1402489353

And you compare Sykes's haplogroup results for the Isles with BritainsDNA results above and they're pretty damn similar. If you add pretani to ancient irish to hunter gatherer to pictish you get around 44% and there are other R1b subclades in the BritainsDNA results which could come under the indigenous Briton definition. Basically, around 50% of all haplogroups (including subclades) in the Isles are what could be defined as indigenous. And I bet that a lot of these Englisc types who proclaim their Saxon heritage, would just be R-L21 clades. It'd be funny if they got R1a1a considering the Norse were ultimately enemies of the English, and even funnier if they got E1b or J which naturally came here from neolithic middle-eastern farmers.

What you've said though sounds correct, a 50/50 type split between Briton and Germanic ancestry. In my opinion, it seems most plausible that this would've happened when the Saxons/Angles/Jutes came ashore: They basically exerted their presence and physical dominance over the Celts, who basically submitted to their rule and consequently integrated within their system, intermarried with the Saxons/Angles/Jutes and you therefore had a slight minority of Germanic people mixing with a majority of Britons who became increasingly Germanicized in a sense, in terms of culture and customs. There was no genocide or ethnic cleansing, because DNA from Brits today proves this to be false. But there we go!

[Grace O'Malley]

Well what I find odd is the Germanic invasions could have just mostly came from the coastal populations of all of northern europe really in different numbers and waves at different points in time. Anglo-Saxon is the only easy way of naming the invasions I guess hahaha. I wish a more comprehensive study was done on Ireland to determine what level of Germanic settlement occurred there. It would seem not much but it would be nice ot see if they had regional results, like Watersford for example my great great grandfather's home. I am not really impressed with Brian Syke's book and results as I doubt he tested alot of people there. Not to mention he was testing farmers.....which is not entirely accurate seeing the Vikings in Ireland were merchant people not farmers...where as in England many were farmers. The inlands of Ireland were most likely untouched by the Vikings and the Normans probably made very little impact there as well.

Not necessarily. I've read some old studies that suggested that Vikings might have settled further inland and left some genetic imprint. Not sure how relevant these studies would be today but hopefully more up to date information will come out. Regarding the Normans they went everywhere in Ireland and even settled in the far west. The Tribes of Galway were of many origins. "The Tribes of Galway (Treibheanna na Gaillimhe) were fourteen merchant families who dominated the political, commercial, and social life of the city of Galway in western Ireland between the mid-13th and late-19th centuries. They were the families of Athy, Blake, Bodkin, Browne, D'Arcy, Deane, Font, French, Joyce, Kirwan, Lynch, Martin, Morris and Skerrett. They were of mixed origins, variously Norman, Hiberno-Norman, Gaelic-Irish, French, Welsh and English, or some combination of the above."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Galway

Here is a study done on Ireland by J H Relethford as I've said not sure how relevant it is today but it does discuss some of the populations that have went into Ireland.

"Both blood-group and anthropometric analyses suggest that genetic distinctiveness of several midland populations. For the blood-group analysis, the counties of Longford (13) and Roscommon (8) are separate from nearby populations. For the anthropometric analysis, the county subgroup of Longford-Westmeath (11) ) is quite distinct. Hooton and Dupertuis (1955) noted the distinct nature of this subgroup and suggested two explanations: (1) age-related variation in that this subgroup was on average the youngest, and (2) effects of early Viking inhabitation in the area. In their original analysis, Hooton and Dupertuis noted that the young average age of men in Longford-Westmeath could account for some of the group's distinctiveness. In the present study, however, this separation remains even after variables most affected by age are removed. The hypothesis of Viking contact has historical validity. Early Norse invasions of Ireland began in the late ninth century, and the major settlements sprang up in the coastal ports of Wexford, Waterford, Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The only significant inland occupation of the Vikings seems to have occurred around Lough Ree, a lake bordering Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath. This settlement seems to have resulted from expansion of the Limerick Norse up the Shannon River (Hooton and Dupertuis 1955, Jones 1968, Orme 1970). In fact, the Gaelic term 'longphort' (the Gaelic equivalent of Longford) means a Norse fortification (Orme 1970). The relationship of history to naming of the county is not known, however. That other Norse settlements do not show any distinction in blood-group or anthropometric analyses may be due to the fact that these were coastal ports, and as such experienced greater immigration in later times. That is, Norse colonization is a slight factor relative to later historical events. The Norse may have had a greater genetic effect in the midlands."

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~sys502/arcview/Projects/Eire/Blood_Group_paper_2.pdf

Anyway the fact remains that there has never been anything done in Ireland like the PoBI project and this is the only way to get a good idea of what makes up the Irish population.

[Graham]

It's hard to tell on the amatuer blogs, because we only see Kent, Cornwall from South England.

On those Orcadians, Irish & West Scots look closer together separate from South England.

With the professional PoBI. England is more Germanic & more homogeneous as one unified people from South going right up to Yorkshire. The Scots, Northern Irish, Northumberland & Cumbria tend to be a bit closer. Especially Scots & Northern Irish.