Ancient british Isles DNA

[Graham]

Ran a bunch Nmonte tests on K15 on anything i could find that came from the Isles. Don't have the newer stuff like Bell beaker which might change that a bit. Anyway, nice to start a new thread on related stuff.

Feel free to add anything.


"distance%=0.9901"
Kent Average, South East England
32.6% -- Anglo Saxon England
32.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
21.1% -- Iron Age Britain
11.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0038"
Cornwall Average, South West England
39.5% -- Iron Age Britain
25% -- Bronze Age Ireland
19.3% -- Anglo Saxon England
14.8% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% --York 100-400AD(J2b1),


"distance%=0.6604"
Irish Average
45.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
28.3% -- Iron Age Britain
18.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
8.1% -- Neolithic_Ireland
1.55% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)


[1] "distance%=0.4631"
Argyll Average, West Scotland
40.7% -- Bronze Age Ireland
25.4% -- Iron Age Britain
25.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
7.3% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0266"
Orcadian Average
40.6% -- Anglo_Saxon England
28.3% -- Iron Age Britain
25.1% -- Bronze Age Ireland
5.4% -- Neolithic_Ireland
0.6% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

[Norb]

Ran a bunch Nmonte tests on K15 on anything i could find that came from the Isles. Don't have the newer stuff. Anyway, nice to start a new thread on related stuff.

Feel free to add anything.


"distance%=0.9901"
Kent Average, South East England
32.6% -- Anglo Saxon England
32.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
21.1% -- Iron Age Britain
11.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0038"
Cornwall Average, South West England
39.5% -- Iron Age Britain
25% -- Bronze Age Ireland
19.3% -- Anglo Saxon England
14.8% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% --York 100-400AD(J2b1),


"distance%=0.6604"
Irish Average
45.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
28.3% -- Iron Age Britain
18.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
8.1% -- Neolithic_Ireland
1.55% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)


[1] "distance%=0.4631"
Argyll Average, West Scotland
40.7% -- Bronze Age Ireland
25.4% -- Iron Age Briton
25.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
7.3% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0266"
Orcadian Average
40.6% -- Anglo_Saxon
28.3% -- Iron Age Briton
25.1% -- Bronze Age Ireland
5.4% -- Neolithic_Ireland
0.6% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

Graham, I would be interested in sending you my kit number and be added to the results above. Send me a PM?

[Graham]

Graham, I would be interested in sending you my kit number and be added to the results above. Send me a PM?
I found your results.
Distance is still a bit off. So better samples would improve results. But I'm only using the British & Irish ones, restricting it a bit. Most of that anglo saxon you score is in Teeside anglo saxon. You dont match too high with any samples on an individual basis "yet". Compare your distance to the ones above. Where in England are you from?

"distance%=3.3027".
Norb
77.4% -- Anglo Saxon England
20.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)
2.3% -- Iron Age Britain

[Grace O'Malley]

I found your results.
Distance is still a bit off. So better samples would improve results. But I'm only using the British & Irish ones, restricting it a bit. Most of that anglo saxon you score is in Teeside anglo saxon. You dont match too high with any samples on an individual basis "yet". Compare your distance to the ones above. Where in England are you from?

"distance%=3.3027".
Norb
77.4% -- Anglo Saxon England
20.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)
2.3% -- Iron Age Britain

Could you do mine Graham? What do you need? Have you looked at Anthrogenica lately? They are using nMonte with the Global25 and there are some really interesting results regarding Bell Beakers and modern populations.

[Norb]

I found your results.
Distance is still a bit off. So better samples would improve results. But I'm only using the British & Irish ones, restricting it a bit. Most of that anglo saxon you score is in Teeside anglo saxon. You dont match too high with any samples on an individual basis "yet". Compare your distance to the ones above. Where in England are you from?

"distance%=3.3027".
Norb
77.4% -- Anglo Saxon England
20.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)
2.3% -- Iron Age Britain

I am from the South East, if you found my kit number without me giving it to you, did you also see my surname? I am sure it is linked to the North-East area.. Please dont write it on here!!

[Graham]

Only a wee bit. just looked into all this stuff and havent kept up really. I'll take a look in the near future. Most of your results would probably change if bell beakers are added in it. The difference between iron Age and Bronze isnt really that big.



"distance%=1.4439"
Grace
66.3% -- Iron Age Britain
32.8% -- Bronze Age Ireland
0.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)


"distance%=1.4439"

Grace

York 100-400AD (R1b-L21),29.7
Rathlin3 Bronze Age Ireland,29.7
Iron_Age_Briton (R1b-L21),18.5
York 100-400AD(R1b-U106),16.8
Bronze_Age_Ireland,3.1
York 100-400AD(J2b1),0.9
York 100-400AD(R1b-U152),0.8
York 100-400AD(R1b-U106),0.5


Norb

Anglo_Saxon_NEEngland(I1),66.8
Neolithic_Ireland,20.4
Anglo_Saxon_SEEngland5,7.6
York 100-400AD(J2b1),2.9
York 100-400AD(R1b-U106*),2.3

[Graham]

I am from the South East, if you found my kit number without me giving it to you, did you also see my surname? I am sure it is linked to the North-East area.. Please dont write it on here!!

It is just from your K15 results, you posted on a thread here. Don't worry. :) Don't know your surname.

[Norb]

It is just from your K15 results, you posted on a thread here. Don't worry. :) Don't know your surname.

I don't mind at all :p my surname is also linked to Scotland aswell I think, I just assumed that you got my results through my kit number!

[celticdragongod]

Ran a bunch Nmonte tests on K15 on anything i could find that came from the Isles. Don't have the newer stuff like Bell beaker which might change that a bit. Anyway, nice to start a new thread on related stuff.

Feel free to add anything.


"distance%=0.9901"
Kent Average, South East England
32.6% -- Anglo Saxon England
32.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
21.1% -- Iron Age Britain
11.4% -- Neolithic Ireland
2.9% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0038"
Cornwall Average, South West England
39.5% -- Iron Age Britain
25% -- Bronze Age Ireland
19.3% -- Anglo Saxon England
14.8% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% --York 100-400AD(J2b1),


"distance%=0.6604"
Irish Average
45.0% -- Bronze Age Ireland
28.3% -- Iron Age Britain
18.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
8.1% -- Neolithic_Ireland
1.55% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)


[1] "distance%=0.4631"
Argyll Average, West Scotland
40.7% -- Bronze Age Ireland
25.4% -- Iron Age Britain
25.2% -- Anglo Saxon England
7.3% -- Neolithic Ireland
1.4% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

"distance%=1.0266"
Orcadian Average
40.6% -- Anglo_Saxon England
28.3% -- Iron Age Britain
25.1% -- Bronze Age Ireland
5.4% -- Neolithic_Ireland
0.6% -- York 100-400AD(J2b1)

Interesting that the Orcadians have the highest level of Anglo-Saxon England. I wonder how genetically similar the Norwegians are to Anglo-Saxon England?

[somerled]

Interesting that the Orcadians have the highest level of Anglo-Saxon England. I wonder how genetically similar the Norwegians are to Anglo-Saxon England?

It appears from this that the Anglo-Saxon element is a general Germanic marker and so encompasses Norwegians. As I recall the People of British Isles project found it impossible to genetically distinguish between Anglo-saxons and Danish\Norwegian Vikings.

[Grace O'Malley]

It appears from this that the Anglo-Saxon element is a general Germanic marker and so encompasses Norwegians. As I recall the People of British Isles project found it impossible to genetically distinguish between Anglo-saxons and Danish\Norwegian Vikings.

They found it impossible to distinguish Danish Vikings but Norwegian Vikings are easier to pick up. The Irish DNA Atlas found a Norwegian Viking signal in the Orcadians, Irish and Scots.


A striking result of our admixture analysis is the surprising amount of Norwegian-like ancestry in our Irish clusters. We also detected high levels of Norwegian ancestry in Orcadian and Scottish clusters, and relatively low Norwegian ancestry in English and Welsh clusters.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17124-4


To temporally anchor the major historical admixture events into Ireland we used GLOBETROTTER [23] with modern surrogate populations represented by 4,514 Europeans [24] and 1,973 individuals from the PoBI dataset [7], excluding individuals sampled from Northern Ireland. Of all the European populations considered, ancestral influence in Irish genomes was best represented by modern Scandinavians and northern Europeans, with a significant single-date one-source admixture event overlapping the historical period of the Norse-Viking settlements in Ireland (p < 0.01; fit quality FQB > 0.985; Fig 6). This was recapitulated to varying degrees in specific genetically- and geographically-defined groups within Ireland, with the strongest signals in south and central Leinster (the largest recorded Viking settlement in Ireland was Dubh linn in present-day Dublin), followed by Connacht and north Leinster/Ulster (S5 Fig; S6 Table).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17124-4

This is from the People of the British Isles.


The dark blue Norwegian contribution stands out clearly in the Orkney samples, as expected, but represents only about a 25% Norse Viking admixture. This shows that the Norse Vikings certainly did not wipe out the resident Pictish population and replace it, but rather intermarried significantly with it. There are also clear Norwegian contributions to all the Scottish and Northern Ireland samples, less to Northern England, even less to Wales and very small contributions elsewhere.

The homogeneity of the east, central and southern British cluster (red squares) with no obvious differences in the Danish contribution (EU18 dark red) between them and the more northern English populations, strongly suggests that the Danish Vikings, in spite of their major influence through the “Danelaw’ and many place names of Danish origin, contributed little of their DNA to the English population.

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/POBInewsletter06_March2015.pdf

So while Graham's nMonte results are interesting you can get admixture breakdown of present day populations from studies like the PoBI, Irish DNA Atlas and Insular Celtic population structure and genomic footprints of migration.

All the Bell Beaker genomes are available for use including the British Bell Beakers, Dutch Bell Beakers and Central European Bell Beakers. Lots of interesting nMonte results are available on Eurogenes and Anthrogenica.

[frankhammer]

I'd be interested in you running my results when you have time. What do you need? The Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 results?

[Grace O'Malley]

I'd be interested in you running my results when you have time. What do you need? The Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 results?

Yes that's what Graham is using.

[frankhammer]

North_Sea 35.82
Atlantic 23.90
Baltic 11.23
Eastern_Euro 10.23
West_Med 12.01
West_Asian 2.40
East_Med 1.58
Red_Sea 1.59
South_Asian 1.18
Oceanian 0.05

[Aren]

The beakers from Central Europe were highly diverse. Their Steppe levels of admixture go from Sardinian-like to higher than modern day Northern Europeans. So it's kinda useless to use that sample in nMonte tbh. Try Dutch/British BB + CWC and Scotland_N + Sweden_MN.

[Aren]

They found it impossible to distinguish Danish Vikings but Norwegian Vikings are easier to pick up. The Irish DNA Atlas found a Norwegian Viking signal in the Orcadians, Irish and Scots.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17124-4

Where in the study do they say that? I went through it, not reading it thoroughly though and what it says is that they use 19 populations to produce modern day Brits. They simply sample people from various countries and use it as a compenents to model Brits and Irishmen. Just to give an example, they notice that all of the Gaelic Irish groups can be modeled as 80% Norwegian/Danish/Belgian/French(wtf are they using a dubious ethnic group like Belgians for??). The remaning 20% is mostly Spanish and Swedish. But it's quite clear historically that neither Swedes, nor Spaniards can even get close to have contributed almost 10% each to the Irish DNA. So just because some can be modeled as Norwegian + other , while other Brits get modeled as Danish + other, doesn't mean that they can differentiate Danish, Swedish and Norwegian vikings easily. As far as I know, you need viking era Scandinavians to get a clear picture and so far only one woman from Birka in Sweden has been looked at genetically and she ended up being genetically identical to modern day Swedes from Götaland and the former Danish regions(Scania, Halland, Blekinge). You must be quite optimistic to believe there would be any difference at all between the various Norse vikings.

Also that study really tell us nothing. The Celtic people of Britain and Ireland their continenal pull is more towards France whilst the English are more German and Belgian, although French admix is quite high all over the board. Scandinavian-like DNA is quite even across the two Islands, with the exception of Orkney were it's slightly higher. So overall it's different, but related kind of populations evening eachother out.

[Grace O'Malley]

Where in the study do they say that? I went through it, not reading it thoroughly though and what it says is that they use 19 populations to produce modern day Brits. They simply sample people from various countries and use it as a compenents to model Brits and Irishmen. Just to give an example, they notice that all of the Gaelic Irish groups can be modeled as 80% Norwegian/Danish/Belgian/French(wtf are they using a dubious ethnic group like Belgians for??). The remaning 20% is mostly Spanish and Swedish. But it's quite clear historically that neither Swedes, nor Spaniards can even get close to have contributed almost 10% each to the Irish DNA. So just because some can be modeled as Norwegian + other , while other Brits get modeled as Danish + other, doesn't mean that they can differentiate Danish, Swedish and Norwegian vikings easily. As far as I know, you need viking era Scandinavians to get a clear picture and so far only one woman from Birka in Sweden has been looked at genetically and she ended up being genetically identical to modern day Swedes from Götaland and the former Danish regions(Scania, Halland, Blekinge). You must be quite optimistic to believe there would be any difference at all between the various Norse vikings.

Also that study really tell us nothing. The Celtic people of Britain and Ireland their continenal pull is more towards France whilst the English are more German and Belgian, although French admix is quite high all over the board. Scandinavian-like DNA is quite even across the two Islands, with the exception of Orkney were it's slightly higher. So overall it's different, but related kind of populations evening eachother out.

The Swedish is obviously part of the general Scandinavian component and the Spanish part of the French component.

Regarding not been able to distinguish the Danish Vikings it is in the PoBI study and also stated in other sources.


Donnelly was aware of the uncertainties surrounding this separation of Danish Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons when the study was originally published.

“Definitively separating Saxon and Danish Viking [genetic] inputs is impossible,” they write in the supplementary material accompanying the study.

But they still write that “we thus think it likely” that Danish Vikings only left limited traces of their DNA in the modern British population because “we see no remnant of the Danelaw, in terms of a distinct genetic cluster within the UK.”

Donnelly adds:

“It’s true that we cannot exclude that the Vikings’ descendants have moved around so much that we can no longer see the signal from the Vikings in certain areas. But they should have moved around a lot for such a genetic signal to be erased. And we quite clearly see the genetic signals from other events that took place thousands of years before the Vikings came to England.”

“But of course no one can say anything definitive. We’re trying to reconstruct events that happened over 1,000 years ago based on modern human DNA,” says Donnelly.

http://sciencenordic.com/new-study-reignites-debate-over-viking-settlements-england

Norse dna is obviously much easier to pick up from looking at the different studies. Here is a graphic of the breakdown.

http://i65.tinypic.com/28h0w7k.jpg

If there is no difference as you postulate why can't they pick up the signal in England? In the PoBI they are calling the German/Danish component "Anglo-Saxon".

Not sure how you can say the study tells us nothing? I've never seen any other studies do breakdowns of populations like these studies. You might not be impressed but I am.

[Aren]

The Swedish is obviously part of the general Scandinavian component and the Spanish part of the French component.
What general component? I thought you were of the opinion you could differentiate Danes and Norwegians, so surely there's a difference between Swedes and Danes/Norwegians too? This is fitting, not direct ancestry.


Regarding not been able to distinguish the Danish Vikings it is in the PoBI study and also stated in other sources.
Yeah ofc, Anglos, Saxons, Danes, Gaets, Norwegians etc were virtually indistuingshable genetically during that time. I was talking about differentiating Danish DNA from Norwegian. This seems like just modelling. I don't think anyone disagrees that Danes had more impact in England and Norwegians in Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
http://sciencenordic.com/new-study-reignites-debate-over-viking-settlements-england


Norse dna is obviously much easier to pick up from looking at the different studies. Here is a graphic of the breakdown.

http://i65.tinypic.com/28h0w7k.jpg

If there is no difference as you postulate why can't they pick up the signal in England? In the PoBI they are calling the German/Danish component "Anglo-Saxon".

Not sure how you can say the study tells us nothing? I've never seen any other studies do breakdowns of populations like these studies. You might not be impressed but I am.
Norse includes Danes and Jutes aswell. And most of the German they picked up in both Britain and Ireland was SW German, not North German were Anglo-Saxons originated. So why bother saying that it's Anglo-Saxon when very little North German-like admix could be found anywhere in England?
I don't think this is that interesting because it's not suprising and very well expected. More French-like DNA in the celtic areas, equal Norse in both places but more SW German/Belgian in England. It cancels out eachother.

[Grace O'Malley]

What general component? I thought you were of the opinion you could differentiate Danes and Norwegians, so surely there's a difference between Swedes and Danes/Norwegians too? This is fitting, not direct ancestry.


Yeah ofc, Anglos, Saxons, Danes, Gaets, Norwegians etc were virtually indistuingshable genetically during that time. I was talking about differentiating Danish DNA from Norwegian. This seems like just modelling. I don't think anyone disagrees that Danes had more impact in England and Norwegians in Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
http://sciencenordic.com/new-study-reignites-debate-over-viking-settlements-england


Norse includes Danes and Jutes aswell. And most of the German they picked up in both Britain and Ireland was SW German, not North German were Anglo-Saxons originated. So why bother saying that it's Anglo-Saxon when very little North German-like admix could be found anywhere in England?
I don't think this is that interesting because it's not suprising and very well expected. More French-like DNA in the celtic areas, equal Norse in both places but more SW German/Belgian in England. It cancels out eachother.

As I'm not a geneticist so I can't answer those sort of questions but it just appears logical to me that some of these components are linked. I don't agree that because something is expected that it isn't interesting. I personally find it fascinating. The geneticists were surprised at the amount of the Norse component in Ireland so they weren't expecting that. I also find it interesting that the majority of the French component is Northwestern French especially considering the amount of L21 in those areas. Being Irish I'm mostly interested in Irish genetics and by extension other neighbouring populations as well so these kind of studies are extremely interesting from my perspective. I just wish they would do these kind of studies in a lot of other European countries.

Regarding your issue about distinguishing different Scandinavian dna why do some areas have more of that Norse component if they are all the same and less of the German/Danish? It appears logical to me that there would be small differences in the dna of the Norse, Swedes and Danes. I doubt they are all the same. I would think the Danes would be more similar to Germans and the Swedes would be a bit more east shifted. Also there are apparently differences between West and East Norwegians so I don't agree that they can't distinguish populations.

Even though the Irish and British are quite close populations genetically in the Insular Celtic study they can differentiate the Irish from the British using t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding (t-SNE). The Insular Celtic paper has more in depth analysis and discussion.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007152

[Aren]

From the same study they try to fit Norwegians using the same populations + the Brits/Irish. The results being that the best fit(even if it's overfitting) is, depending on the region ~50-60% Danish + 20-25% Polish + 5-10% French + 10-15% Spanish. Maybe that fit was something like 0,01% perfect fit even though it makes little sense why Norwegians should be labeled like that. Instead modelling them as 50% Danish + 50% Swedish would end up being maybe a 0,05% fit which is still very close and a lot more believeable. To me these kind of modelling doesn't really show anything. In the study they wanted to modell the Norwegians to see if there was Irish admix in them, but that's not really a good method to use in this situation. Are they gonna say that there's Polish admix in Norwegians just because the best fit inlcudes a big chunk of Polish DNA? No that's absurd

73094

[Grace O'Malley]

From the same study they try to fit Norwegians using the same populations + the Brits/Irish. The results being that the best fit(even if it's overfitting) is, depending on the region ~50-60% Danish + 20-25% Polish + 5-10% French + 10-15% Spanish. Maybe that fit was something like 0,01% perfect fit even though it makes little sense why Norwegians should be labeled like that. Instead modelling them as 50% Danish + 50% Swedish would end up being a 0,05% fit which is still very close and a lot more believeable. To me these kind of modelling doesn't really show anything. In the study they wanted to modell the Norwegians to see if there was Irish admix in them, but that's not really a good method. Are they gonna say that there's Polish admix in Norwegians just because the best fit inlcudes a big chunk of Polish DNA? No that's absurd

73094

Can you state what it is you don't agree with in these studies? As I'm not a geneticist I can't address some of your questions but if you look at history regarding Ireland and Britain the information fits. It is also compelling that they date the Norse admixture in Ireland to the time of the Vikings. They also date the British component in Northern Ireland to the time of the Plantations.

They also have done a study on the Icelandics which hopefully will be published this year so that should add more information as they have y and mtdna and autosomal in that study so more information will be coming out by default about the Irish and Scottish Isles.

I do understand what you are saying about the Norwegian breakdown as based on history they haven't received a lot of input from Poles for example.

[Aren]

Regarding your issue about distinguishing different Scandinavian dna why do some areas have more of that Norse component if they are all the same and less of the German/Danish? It appears logical to me that there would be small differences in the dna of the Norse, Swedes and Danes. I doubt they are all the same. I would think the Danes would be more similar to Germans and the Swedes would be a bit more east shifted. Also there are apparently differences between West and East Norwegians so I don't agree that they can't distinguish populations.

That's my point the differences are small, but they show up in these studies where the scientist are trying to get the best fit so thesse small differences matter here. Having Danish, Anglo-Saxon or Norwegian DNA is practically the same from a genetical view point.
And from looking through many, many Scandinavian Gedmatch results I can tell you that the only outliers are far Northern Swedes/Norwegians and certain Eastern Swedes from Svealand. The rest are nearly identical.

Anyways I'm happy they are doing all these studies on Brits and Irishmen, the picture is starting to shape up good ever since the Bell Beaker study was released. Then you have other countries like France that we basically know nothing about. Even the French sample in this study was from a hospital in Rennes and their patients were not picked out regarding to ethnicity or ancestry as that's illegal.

[Aren]

Can you state what it is you don't agree with in these studies? As I'm not a geneticist I can't address some of your questions but if you look at history regarding Ireland and Britain the information fits. It is also compelling that they date the Norse admixture in Ireland to the time of the Vikings. They also date the British component in Northern Ireland to the time of the Plantations.

They also have done a study on the Icelandics which hopefully will be published this year so that should add more information as they have y and mtdna and autosomal in that study so more information will be coming out by default about the Irish and Scottish Isles.

I do understand what you are saying about the Norwegian breakdown as based on history they haven't received a lot of input from Poles for example.

Modelling is not the same as actual admixture that's my point. In Norwegians that 40-50% bit of Polish, French, Germand and Spanish maybe ended up being Scandinavian-like better than actually using Danes or Swedes since you are using more than one population to fit them which is easier ofc.

[Grace O'Malley]

That's my point the differences are small, but they show up in these studies where the scientist are trying to get the best fit so thesse small differences matter here. Having Danish, Anglo-Saxon or Norwegian DNA is practically the same from a genetical view point.
And from looking through many, many Scandinavian Gedmatch results I can tell you that the only outliers are far Northern Swedes/Norwegians and certain Eastern Swedes from Svealand. The rest are nearly identical.

Anyways I'm happy they are doing all these studies on Brits and Irishmen, the picture is starting to shape up good ever since the Bell Beaker study was released. Then you have other countries like France that we basically know nothing about. Even the French sample in this study was from a hospital in Rennes and their patients were not picked out regarding to ethnicity or ancestry as that's illegal.

Thanks Aren for the interesting discussion. You obviously know a bit more about modelling and the techniques than I do. I agree about France. It's frustrating that there isn't a good genetic study on such an important population as the French. Why doesn't the French government allow these scientific genetic studies? It's really anti-scientific.

[celticdragongod]

I agree about France. It's frustrating that there isn't a good genetic study on such an important population as the French. Why doesn't the French government allow these scientific genetic studies? It's really anti-scientific.

I think it is just basic political correctness. The French government apparently believes that everyone born in France is French regardless of ancestry.

[firemonkey]

Could you do mine- M812599? Thank you.

[Leto]

I think it is just basic political correctness. The French government apparently believes that everyone born in France is French regardless of ancestry.
Actually they were the first to declare that a nation should be based solely on nationality. I didn't know though they didn't allow genetic studies on the French people.

[Albannach]

Could you do mine too please. Is the K15 enough or do you need my Gedmatch number? Thanks in advance.
My K15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 36.09
2 Atlantic 32.33
3 Baltic 12.09
4 Eastern_Euro 8.40
5 West_Asian 5.60
6 West_Med 4.25

[Neon Knight]

The kind of studies you've been discussing can tell us (approximately) where a population's DNA has come from but not when and so historical events are still up for a lot of speculation. We still cannot say with much certainty whether AngloSaxon admixture in England is closer to 50% or 15% since the German/Danish DNA could have come in the Bronze and/or Iron Age(s).

Another thing they don't tell us is how much of a population's DNA is natively generated. Places like Britain and Ireland are bound to have had their own characteristic DNA mutations.