Study: Ancient Icelanders mix of Celtic and Norse ancestry

[Peterski]

Links:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/1028

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/05/30/360.6392.1028.DC1?_ga=2.93660253.1960558865.152786 6256-1477587080.1527866256

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/30/360.6392.1028.DC1/aar2625-Ebenesersdottir-SM.pdf

"Abstract:
Opportunities to directly study the founding of a human population and its subsequent evolutionary history are rare. Using genome sequence data from 27 ancient Icelanders, we demonstrate that they are a combination of Norse, Gaelic [Celtic], and admixed individuals. We further show that these ancient Icelanders are markedly more similar to their source populations in Scandinavia and the British-Irish Isles than to contemporary Icelanders, who have been shaped by 1100 years of extensive genetic drift. Finally, we report evidence of unequal contributions from the ancient founders to the contemporary Icelandic gene pool. These results provide detailed insights into the making of a human population that has proven extraordinarily useful for the discovery of genotype-phenotype associations."

Proportions of Insular Celtic/Gaelic and Norse ancestry in each individual:

https://i.imgur.com/ElZMDT3.jpg

Distribution of early settlers according to their ethnic origins:

https://i.imgur.com/wFwUDw8.jpg

PCA graph with ancient Icelanders:

https://s15.postimg.cc/j9gms84jd/Screen_Hunter_2411_Jun._01_09.09.jpg

Y-DNA haplogroup predictions:

https://s15.postimg.cc/koi7gxq6z/Screen_Hunter_2409_Jun._01_09.04.jpg

[Peterski]

Here is a GEDmatch kit of a native from Iceland: T661186

There are Celtic toponyms in Iceland - do you think they predate Viking colonization or date back to the same period? When Pytheas of Massalia visited Scotland around 330 BC, its inhabitants (Picts or other Celts) informed him about a land in the north, that he later called Thule. That was most probably Iceland, implying that Celts had discovered Iceland long before Vikings (if Thule was Iceland).

In 56 BC Roman fleet of Julius Caesar fought a naval battle against Celtic fleet near the southern coast of what later became Bretagne (in 56 BC that part of Bretagne was inhabited by a tribe known as the Weneted). In his "Gallic Wars", Caesar left a unique description of Celtic ships:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/dbg3.htm

"(...) For their ships were built and equipped after this manner. The keels were somewhat flatter than those of our ships, whereby they could more easily encounter the shallows and the ebbing of the tide: the prows were raised very high, and, in like manner the sterns were adapted to the force of the waves and storms [which they were formed to sustain]. The ships were built wholly of oak, and designed to endure any force and violence whatever; the benches which were made of planks a foot in breadth, were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather. These [were used] either through their want of canvas and their ignorance of its application, or for this reason, which is more probable, that they thought that such storms of the ocean, and such violent gales of wind could not be resisted by sails, nor ships of such great burden be conveniently enough managed by them. The encounter of our fleet with these ships' was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone, and the plying of the oars; other things, considering the nature of the place [and] the violence of the storms, were more suitable and better adapted on their side; for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them; and for the same reason they were less readily locked in by rocks. To this was added, that whenever a storm began to rage and they ran before the wind, they both could weather the storm more easily and heave to securely in the shallows, and when left by the tide feared nothing from rocks and shelves: the risk of all which things was much to be dreaded by our ships. (...)"

This description shows that Ancient Celts were good seafarers and that their ships were well-adapted to conditions in northern seas. The naval battle in 56 BC took place in the Quiberon Bay, between 100 Roman galleys and 220 Celtic ships:

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

Rome won that one thanks to using a clever fighting technique and exploiting weak points of the enemy:

"(...) The bay has seen several important naval battles. The first recorded in history was the Battle of Morbihan in 56 BCE, between the Romans led by Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus and the local Veneti [Weneted] tribe. The Romans had struggled to overcome the Veneti, who had coastal fortresses that could easily be evacuated by their powerful navy. Eventually the Romans built galleys and met the Veneti sailing fleet in Quiberon Bay. Despite being outnumbered 220 to 100 by a fleet of heavier ships, the Romans used hooks on long poles to shred the halyards holding up the leather sails of the Veneti, leaving the Veneti fleet dead in the water (...)"

Plutarch (ca. 40 - 120 AD) wrote also about another island located far to the west of Britain, bearing a name similar to the name of titan Kronos from Greek mythology. The Sea of Kronos is how later waters between Iceland and Greenland were referred too. So that could be Greenland (Greenland is of course a name invented much later, probably by Eric the Red, to attract settlers).

Sagas (including the Saga of Eric the Red) mention the land of "Hvitramannaland" ("White Man's Land", Latin: "Albania") also known as "Írland it Mikla" ("Great Ireland", Latin: "Hibernia Maior") - located supposedly about six-day sail west from Ireland, and also not far away from Vínland (Vineland). Unless it was fictional, it could refer to some Celtic settlement existing in - perhaps - Greenland.

In year 825, an Irish monk named Dicuil wrote "Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae", in which we can find a detailed description of the Faroe Islands, and a claim that hermit monks from Ireland had lived in those islands for 100 years before the "Northmen pirates" took them. He also describes the island of Thule (Iceland), beyond the Faroes, and writes that Irish hermit monks had been staying on Thule during the summer months for 30 years (since around 795 - about one century before first Vikings settled in Iceland). But were there also settlers, or just monks? And if just monks, then why?

The "Book of Settlements" (one of most important sources for early history of Iceland, alongside the "Book of Icelanders") claims that first Viking settlers in Iceland found traces of an earlier people, a Christian one, such as bells and crooks. Perhaps those were remains of hermitages of Irish monks.

"The Voyage of Saint Brendan the Navigator", a story first recorded around year 900 AD, indicates that certain Brendan (born in 484 AD in Kerry county, Ireland) reached Iceland, Greenland, the island of Jan Mayen in the Arctic Ocean, and maybe even the coast of America.

The Voyage of Saint Brendan is unique because it was recorded in 900 AD, before Viking travels to America took place. But there are more legends about Celtic travellers reaching America, such as this Welsh story about Madog ab Owain Gwynedd, who supposedly came to America in 1170:

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

It is claimed that after 400 AD, when climate in the region started to gradually get warmer, Pictish and other Celtic sailors regularly visited Iceland, gathering exotic resources such as eiderdown, and exporting them to the Mediterranean world. For sea travels Picts and Britons were using wooden ships, while Irish people were using currachs, covered by bovine skins. Such ships could transport up to 20 people, they were propelled by sails and oars.

"People of the West" (Vestmenn), as they were later called by Norsemen, probably visited Iceland already before 400 AD - findings of coins from that period may indicate this. On the other hand, coins produced long before 400 AD could get there long after that date too.

But a more controversial issue is whether Celts actually established some settlements there or not (apart from some hermitages of monks). Farley Mowat in one of his books claimed that Eric the Red found an Irish house in Greenland.

Celts contributed with some advancements in shipbuilding techniques in Northern Europe (check for example Ellmers, "Celtic plank boats and ships 500 BC - AD 1000" and Casson, "Ships and seamanship in the ancient world").

A small archipelago of Vestmannaeyjar (near Iceland) is named so after Insular Celts, but the origins of this name are unclear. One theory is that it is relatively recent and comes from Celtic slaves who escaped from Viking captivity and settled there. So this is probably not a sign of Celtic settlement predating Viking settlement. There are some other Celtic toponyms in Iceland as well (for example Írafell, Írafellsbunga, Kjaransvík, etc.).

[Wrong]

No R1b in Norse?

[Peterski]

No R1b in Norse?

I don't know. You can check what admixture proportions did individuals with R1b have.

Some of R1b in Iceland is surely Celtic. There is a lot of typically Irish R1b-L21 there.

[Aren]

"Sequencing revealed that the settlers had a roughly even split of Norse (from what are today Norway and Sweden) and Gaelic (from what are now Ireland and Scotland) ancestry. But when the researchers compared the ancient genomes to those of thousands of modern people in Iceland and other European countries, they found that contemporary Icelanders, on average, draw about 70% of their genes from Norse ancestry. That suggests in the approximately 1100 years between Iceland’s settlement and today, the population has undergone a surprisingly quick genetic shift, the researchers report today in Science."
Icelandic population has obviously as they have stated gone through some extreme drifts and bottlenecking. The ancient Icelandic samples were not complete ancestors of modern day Icelanders who seem to be pred. Norse. They also mentioned a more recent Scandinavian input, particularly Danish in Iceland.

[Aren]

Also what are they using as a proxy for Gaelic heritage? Modern day Irish/Scots? That can't be entirely accurate...

[Peterski]

The ancient Icelandic samples were not complete ancestors of modern day Icelanders who seem to be pred. Norse. They also mentioned a more recent Scandinavian input, particularly Danish in Iceland.

LOL, JaM claimed the opposite - that modern day Icelanders are more Celtic than ancient ones due to genetic drift after the Black Death (which decimated the population of Iceland). They are not predominantly Norse, they are almost 1/2 Celtic autosomally (I showed you before that they plot almost in the middle between Norway and Ireland), more in terms of mtDNA and less in terms of Y-DNA.

Estimated Scandinavian and British-Irish ancestry in terms of haplogroups:

https://media.nature.com/full/nature-assets/hdy/journal/v95/n2/images/6800661f1.jpg

[Aren]

LOL, JaM claimed the opposite - that modern day Icelanders are more Celtic than ancient ones due to genetic drift after the Black Death (which decimated the population of Iceland). They are not predominantly Norse, they are almost 1/2 Celtic autosomally (I showed you before that they plot almost in the middle between Norway and Ireland), more in terms of mtDNA and less in terms of Y-DNA.

Estimated Scandinavian and British-Irish ancestry in terms of haplogroups:

https://media.nature.com/full/nature-assets/hdy/journal/v95/n2/images/6800661f1.jpg

That's haplgroups though, the small Icelandic population has probably gone through some extensive bottlenecking throughout history.
From the study itself:

"Sequencing revealed that the settlers had a roughly even split of Norse (from what are today Norway and Sweden) and Gaelic (from what are now Ireland and Scotland) ancestry. But when the researchers compared the ancient genomes to those of thousands of modern people in Iceland and other European countries, they found that contemporary Icelanders, on average, draw about 70% of their genes from Norse ancestry. That suggests in the approximately 1100 years between Iceland’s settlement and today, the population has undergone a surprisingly quick genetic shift, the researchers report today in Science."
And that's with probably using modern day Irish and Scots who have a decent amount of Norse input themself, as a proxy for 9th-10th century Gaelic admix.

[Peterski]

That's haplgroups though, the small Icelandic population has probably gone through some extensive bottlenecking throughout history.

So why are modern frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups very similar to frequencies in this sample of 27 ancient Icelanders? Modern Icelanders are a mix of mostly R1b (including Celtic subclades), I1 and R1a. Just like these ancient samples, no difference, so bottlenecking did not change ancestry proportions.


And that's with probably using modern day Irish and Scots who have a decent amount of Norse input themself, as a proxy for 9th-10th century Gaelic admix.

Modern day Norwegians also have Celtic ancestry, both from the Viking Age and from later immigrants. After the Viking Age - and especially after the Black Death - Norway welcomed thousands of foreign immigrants including Scots (and other British people), Danes, Germans (including South Germans and East Germans), Swedes, Finns, Dutch, Romani, Russians, Jews, Faroese, Icelanders, Basques, Italians and Belgians. A whole lot of surnames in modern Norway are of Non-Norse origin. This includes many German surnames.

[Aren]

So why are modern frequencies of Y-DNA haplogroups very similar to frequencies in this sample of 27 ancient Icelanders? Modern Icelanders are a mix of mostly R1b (including Celtic subclades), I1 and R1a. Just like these ancient samples.

But the autosomal DNA of modern Icelanders doesn't match that of the 27 ancient samples. The study itself is pointing out that modern day Icelanders are 70% Norse autosomally.

[Peterski]

Even Finnish Swede admitted that thousands of Germans settled in Late Medieval Scandinavia. They were often not North Germans - so autosomally very different from native Scandinavians.

Mannerheim himself was of German ancestry (not Swedish as many people think):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim

[Jana]

But the autosomal DNA of modern Icelanders doesn't match that of the 27 ancient samples. The study itself is pointing out that modern day Icelanders are 70% Norse autosomally.

That makes sense, since modern Irish are around 20%+ norse, so if they say they are even split of Irish/Scandinavians it comes to similar amount like being 70% norse in origin.

[Peterski]

That makes sense, since modern Irish are around 20% norse

This might as well be just shared DNA from ancestors of common origin. These estimates often can't be taken literally. If you take them literally then modern Norwegians are about 20% Polish:

https://i.imgur.com/b8tknJM.png

[Jana]

This might as well be just shared DNA from ancestors of common origin. These estimates often can't be taken literally. If you take them literally then modern Norwegians are about 20% Polish:

https://i.imgur.com/b8tknJM.png

But Vikings did colonize Ireland. There are lot of norse toponyms in Ireland. I think they founded Dublin for example. btw, if this was shared ancestry why don't English or Welsh score it too in such amount ?
this norse input is high in Ireland and Orkneys while Germanic in England and lowland Scotland is more of continental type (Danish/North German)

[Peterski]

But Vikings did colonize Ireland.

But were most likely nowehere near 20%, just like Poles were not 20% in Norway.

[Aren]

Modern day Norwegians also have Celtic ancestry, both from the Viking Age and from later immigrants. After the Viking Age - and especially after the Black Death - Norway welcomed thousands of foreign immigrants including Scots (and other British people), Danes, Germans (including South Germans and East Germans), Swedes, Finns, Dutch, Romani, Russians, Jews, Faroese, Icelanders, Basques, Italians and Belgians. A whole lot of surnames in modern Norway are of Non-Norse origin. This includes many German surnames.
That's the myth you'll hear from leftist Scandinavians who desperately want to be "exotic". If I was to believe the bullcrap I hear from Swedes one would think that modern day Swedes are exclusively a mix of Sami, Wallon, Scots, Finns and Germans. The myth of the Wallonian smiths is so widespread I hear almost everyone claim to be partly Wallon when only 900 Wallons settled in Sweden and 20% of them left by the 17th century. Either way, there's one study on a Viking era woman from Birka in Sweden. She ended being almost identical autosomally to modern day South Swedes.
https://i.imgur.com/pk3ejmK.png

Modern day South Swedes(from Götaland) are themself extremely close to Danes and Norwegians, so it makes the scenario of Norwegians being anything but Norse quite hard to believe.

https://i.imgur.com/n0JhBHc.png

[Jana]

But were most likely nowehere near 20%, just like Poles were not 20% in Norway.

You didn't answer why this Norwegian like input is lacking in Cornwall or rest of England ? And how can you know amount of Viking input in Irish ? There is some I1 and Germanic R1b there, not all is from English colonists.

[Peterski]

And that's with probably using modern day Irish and Scots

Why would they use modern samples if there is already a decent amount of ancient samples from the British Isles? They most probably used Iron Age, Roman era and Bronze Age samples.

BTW many Bell Beakers from Bronze Age Britain and Ireland come out as very "autosomally Germanic" on GEDmatch. And obviously they were not Germanic-speakers but other Indo-Europeans.

So as I said, much of this DNA can be shared ancestry from ancient times. Just like most of this 20% of "Polish" in Norway is probably shared Corded Ware DNA unaletered by regional drift.

[Jana]

btw, which study say Norway is 20% Polish like ? I know for Denmark, and actually Polabian Slavs did settle there, but Norway ? Please post a link.

[Peterski]

btw, which study say Norway is 20% Polish like ? I know for Denmark, and actually Polabian Slavs did settle there, but Norway ? Please post a link.

See Supplementary Figure 6.:

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

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-17124-4/MediaObjects/41598_2017_17124_MOESM1_ESM.pdf


know for Denmark, and actually Polabian Slavs did settle there

Actual Poles also settled there.

Early Medieval Denmark and Poland were allies and there were Polish mercenaries in Danish armies. Written sources (‘Danish History’ by Saxo Grammaticus) and archaeology confirm this.

[Aren]

btw, which study say Norway is 20% Polish like ? I know for Denmark, and actually Polabian Slavs did settle there, but Norway ? Please post a link.

ADMIXTURE runs are not actual ancestry. Think of them as the mixed oracle on Gedmatch. You probably get 50% Polish + 50% Albanian but you are neither obviously it's just a marginally better fit for you than 100% Croatian.

[Jana]

ADMIXTURE runs are not actual ancestry. Think of them as the mixed oracle on Gedmatch. You probably get 50% Polish + 50% Albanian but you are neither obviously it's just a marginally better fit for you than 100% Croatian.

I just said Slavs settled in Denmark as fact, while there is no real Slavic admixture in Norway.

[Jana]

See Supplementary Figure 6.:

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

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-17124-4/MediaObjects/41598_2017_17124_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Thanks! It must be ancient shared ancestry in that case.

[Aren]

I just said Slavs settled in Denmark as fact, while there is no real Slavic admixture in Norway.

And I'm telling you they predicted Polish input in Norwegians in the chart Peterski posted by using ADMIXTURE, in other words it's not actual ancestry.

[Jana]

And I'm telling you they predicted Polish input in Norwegians in the chart Peterski posted by using ADMIXTURE, in other words it's not actual ancestry.

Yeap.

[Peterski]

And I'm telling you they predicted Polish input in Norwegians in the chart Peterski posted by using ADMIXTURE, in other words it's not actual ancestry.

They also used ADMIXTURE for modelling British and Irish populations. Exact same methodology.

So it's also not necessarily actual ancestry.

They should try to model ancient Irish sample with ADMIXTURE, Bronze Age Irish samples, etc. It will be fun if Bronze Age Irish samples get - for example - 30% Norse, more than modern Irish samples. :)

[Peterski]

Thanks! It must be ancient shared ancestry in that case.

It is always hard to determine how old a particular "admixture" is.

For example DNA Tribes models me as 1/3 Danish-like, but you would be very mistaken to assume that it is anything recent, or even from the Viking Age. It is much older than that:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?212984-Peterski-s-(Litvin-s)-DNA-Tribes-Report-(FTDNA-raw-data-transfer)&p=4463596&viewfull=1#post4463596

http://i.imgur.com/RbNXQj9.png

I was surprised by that model until prof. Figlerowicz - the guy from Poznań University who is researching Wielbark culture and Przeworsk culture Iron Age DNA from Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) - came out and explained it. From page 130 of the book (excerpt from an interview with prof. Figlerowicz):

https://histmag.org/Roman-Zuchowicz-Wielka-Lechia.-Zrodla-i-przyczyny-popularnosci-teorii-pseudonaukowej-okiem-historyka-recenzja-16753

Quote:

Legendary Great Lechia was in reality rather Great Denmark, because the population of Polish lands in the Iron Age originated from the Jutland Peninsula - except for Masłomęcz. People from Masłomęcz were different than those from Kowalewko. And in Masłomęcz there was no autosomal difference between women and men, unlike in Kowalewko. We can see different influences there. In Kowalewko, the population had constant contacts with Northern Europe and there was continuous migration flow. In Masłomęcz, they came just once, stayed, and mixed with the locals.

So there is a Danish-like Pre-Slavic substrate to the west of the Vistula River.

On the other hand, North-Eastern Poland has a Lithuanian-like substrate.

[Grace O'Malley]

It is always hard to determine how old a particular "admixture" is.

For example DNA Tribes models me as 1/3 Danish-like:

http://i.imgur.com/RbNXQj9.png

I was surprised by that model until prof. Figlerowicz - the guy from Poznań University who is researching Wielbark culture and Przeworsk culture Iron Age DNA samples from Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) - came out and said:

From page 130 of the book (excerpt from an interview with prof. Figlerowicz):

https://histmag.org/Roman-Zuchowicz-Wielka-Lechia.-Zrodla-i-przyczyny-popularnosci-teorii-pseudonaukowej-okiem-historyka-recenzja-16753

Legendary Great Lechia was in reality rather Great Denmark, because the population of Polish lands in the Iron Age originated from the Jutland Peninsula - except for Masłomęcz. People from Masłomęcz were different than those from Kowalewko. And in Masłomęcz there was no autosomal difference between women and men, unlike in Kowalewko. We can see different influences there. In Kowalewko, the population had constant contacts with Northern Europe and there was continuous migration flow. In Masłomęcz, East Germanic tribes came just once, stayed, and mixed with the locals.

DNA Tribes gave me mostly Danish which obviously isn't correct.

http://i66.tinypic.com/102jhbr.jpg

[Petalpusher]

I ve never seen a pca with Iceland between Norway and Ireland. They are usually even closer to SHG than other Scandinavians. Ydna proportions never tell much but in Icelandic for obvious reasons it means really peanuts

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

[Peterski]

DNA Tribes gave me mostly Danish which obviously isn't correct.

http://i66.tinypic.com/102jhbr.jpg

They gave you Pima Mexico? ^^

[Grace O'Malley]

They also used ADMIXTURE for modelling British and Irish populations. Exact same methodology.

So it's also not necessarily actual ancestry.

They should try to model ancient Irish sample with ADMIXTURE, Bronze Age Irish samples, etc. It will be fun if Bronze Age Irish samples get - for example - 30% Norse, more than modern Irish samples. :)

The thing I don't understand and what Stearsolina explained as well is why the different admixture in those studies on the Irish and British. Orkney has the Norse admixture and also Ireland and the West Scottish. Now it might be ancient but it is odd that the Norse is higher in areas known to have the Vikings. Why is this Norse not at the same levels in all the areas of Ireland and Britain if it is ancient? It is also interesting that the German/Danish (what they call Anglo-Saxon) is less in places like Ireland which had the least Anglo-Saxon input. That's the only thing I can't really rationalise. Perhaps you and Aren can explain?

They did use the ancient genomes in both the Icelandic study and the Irish one. They do have ancient genomes available to look at these sort of questions.

[Peterski]

They are usually even closer to SHG than other Scandinavians.

Why would it be the case? Either because Scandinavians were altered by foreign admixtures during the last 1000 years (and modern Scandinavians no longer resemble those Scandinavian settlers who colonized Iceland), or due to Iceland-specific local genetic drift during the last 1000 years.

Modern Insular Celts probably also have more Med admixture than 1000 years ago.

Mixing with the English and Scottish settlers in Ireland increased Med admixture.


I ve never seen a pca with Iceland between Norway and Ireland.

Based on Eurogenes K36 they plot between Iceland and Norway.

Those other PCAs are probably too low K to show such nuances.

[Aren]

I ve never seen a pca with Iceland between Norway and Ireland. They are usually even closer to SHG than other Scandinavians. Ydna proportions never tell much but in Icelandic for obvious reasons it means really peanuts

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fc2W-6tR-HA/Urigqts3hwI/AAAAAAAAJbg/hqZiV1TOGgc/s1600/europe.png

That's right, I've noticed the academic Icelandic sample is more "Northern" than both the Norwegian and Swedish samples. I'm not sure why though, maybe Icelanders actually are more Norse than modern day Scandinavians, maybe cause of inaccurate sampling idk.

[Grace O'Malley]

They gave you Pima Mexico? ^^

Yep. I know it's odd. I get some Amerindian component in a few tests and also Gedmatch. I surmise it is ancient ANE. That's the only rationale I have for it.

[Peterski]

Yep. I know it's odd. I get some Amerindian component in a few tests and also Gedmatch. I surmise it is ancient ANE. That's the only rationale I have for it.

Do you have Mestizo or Amerindian matches in GEDmatch One-to-many tool?

[Peterski]

That's right, I've noticed the academic Icelandic sample is more "Northern" than both the Norwegian and Swedish samples. I'm not sure why though, maybe Icelanders actually are more Norse than modern day Scandinavians, maybe cause of inaccurate sampling idk.

There are only 2 possible explanations - either Scandinavians and Gaels became more southern-shifted during the last 1000 years due to receiving foreign admixture (= those settlers who colonized Iceland were more northern than modern ones), or due to heavy recent genetic drift in Iceland.

[Petalpusher]

And why would it be the case? Either because Scandinavians were altered by foreign admixtures during the last 1000 years (and modern Scandinavians no longer resemble those Scandinavian settlers who colonized Iceland), or due to Iceland-specific local genetic drift during the last 1000 years.


Because they retained more mesolithic ancestry to begin with, and because they have less of the Siberian influence Scandinavians have?




Based on Eurogenes K36 they plot between Iceland and Norway.


I meant something serious.

[Aren]

There are two explains - either because Scandinavians became more southern-shifted during the last 1000 years (= those who colonized Iceland were more northern than modern ones), or due to heavy genetic drift in Iceland during the last 1000 years.

Well I did show you the study on that Birka-Viking woman who ended up very much identicaly to modern day South Swedes so the first option is pretty out of question.

[Peterski]

Because they retained more mesolithic ancestry to begin with

What Mesolithic ancestry? There is no any local Mesolithic Icelandic DNA.

Iceland was uninhabited until the Iron Age (at least) or the Middle Ages.


and because they have less of the Siberian influence Scandinavians have?

So Scandinavians became more Siberian-admixed in the last 1000 years?


Well I did show you the study on that Birka-Viking woman who ended up very much identicaly to modern day South Swedes so the first option is pretty out of question.

Iceland was settled by Norwegians, not by South Swedes.

[Aren]

The thing I don't understand and what Stearsolina explained as well is why the different admixture in those studies on the Irish and British. Orkney has the Norse admixture and also Ireland and the West Scottish. Now it might be ancient but it is odd that the Norse is higher in areas known to have the Vikings. Why is this Norse not at the same levels in all the areas of Ireland and Britain if it is ancient? It is also interesting that the German/Danish (what they call Anglo-Saxon) is less in places like Ireland which had the least Anglo-Saxon input. That's the only thing I can't really rationalise. Perhaps you and Aren can explain?

They did use the ancient genomes in both the Icelandic study and the Irish one. They do have ancient genomes available to look at these sort of questions.

Norse(Danish, Swedish, Norwegian) input was higher in England/Scotland than in Ireland, but highest in Orkney and lowest in Wales. Breton-like input much lower in England and Orkney than anywhere else in the isles. Makes sense to me, but we don't know how supervised the ADMIXTURE runes were in that study you are talking about. ADMIXTURE runs can sometimes be very accurate other times it doesn't make sense. Much like the mixed oracle on Gedmatch.

[Aren]

Iceland was settled by Norwegians, not by South Swedes.
But South Swedes are nearly identical to Norweigans. At most the non-Scandinavian input in Norwegians would be minimal.

[Grace O'Malley]

Do you have Mestizo or Amerindian matches in GEDmatch One-to-many tool?

I've never looked into it. I doubt I would though.

[Peterski]

But South Swedes are nearly identical to Norweigans.

Today. What aboout 1000-1500 years ago? Maybe at that time Norwegians were different.


I've never looked into it. I doubt I would though.

That's one of ways to check whether it is real or not.

If you score Ashkenazi admixture you can also check if you have Jewish matches.

Of course Jewish matches can also be due to Non-Jewish admixture in these Jews.

[Aren]

Today. What aboout 1000-1500 years ago? Maybe at that time Norwegians were different.

Really? What would the possibilty be of that? Be honest.

[Grace O'Malley]

Norse(Danish, Swedish, Norwegian) input was higher in England/Scotland than in Ireland, but highest in Orkney and lowest in Wales. Breton-like input much lower in England and Orkney than anywhere else in the isles. Makes sense to me, but we don't know how supervised the ADMIXTURE runes were in that study you are talking about. ADMIXTURE runs can sometimes be very accurate other times it doesn't make sense. Much like the mixed oracle on Gedmatch.

The Swedish was the only constant in all the areas. The Danish and Norwegian input was different as well as the German. Here is the table.

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

[Peterski]

I ve never seen a pca with Iceland between Norway and Ireland.

Check Davidski's Global 25 PCA. It also has it between Norway and Ireland.


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

They should start modelling modern populations as mixtures of ancient samples, not other modern populations.

[Petalpusher]

What Mesolithic ancestry? There is no any local Mesolithic Icelandic DNA.

Iceland was uninhabited until the Iron Age (at least) or the Middle Ages.

Of course, it still depends by which specific groups of Norwegians it was settled by originally and other influences. They seem to be shifted toward Ajvide (late mesolithic survivor), some more than others.




So Scandinavians became more Siberian-admixed in the last 1000 years? It's possible due to internal migrations from the north, not new arrivals.

Eitherway this should not make that much difference but they are clearly not an Irish/Scandinavians mix

[Aren]

The Swedish was the only constant in all the areas. The Danish and Norwegian input was different. Here is the table.

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

Why is the Swedish constant? Did the British Isles receive that many Swedish vikings, almost equally everywhere or is it because ADMIXTURE runs are not really that accurate to measure actual heritage?

[Peterski]

but they are clearly not an Irish/Scandinavians mix

The study I posted in the OP says they are. BTW modelling modern British populations as mixtures of French and other continental populations doesn't make sense. Modern French are not the same as Early Iron Age "French". Already Busby 2015 revealed the role of recent Non-European admixtures in France:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

They should start using ancient samples, there are already hundreds of them.

[Aren]

The study I posted in the OP says they are. BTW modelling modern British populations as mixtures of French and other continental populations doesn't make sense. Modern French are not the same as Early Iron Age "French". Already Busby 2015 revealed the role of recent Non-European admixtures in France:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/
You are contradicting yourself because both studies used ADMIXTURE. You can't nitpick like that.

[Grace O'Malley]

Why is the Swedish constant? Did the British Isles receive that many Swedish vikings, almost equally everywhere or is it because ADMIXTURE runs are not really that accurate to measure actual heritage?

Possibly the Swedish could be ancient. The different amounts are what is of interest and correspond to Anglo-Saxon input etc. How to explain the different admixture proportions in populations that had the same ancient input i.e. Bell Beakers. What accounts for the differences?

[Peterski]

I'm just saying they should use ADMIXTURE with ancient samples, not with modern samples.


But the autosomal DNA of modern Icelanders doesn't match that of the 27 ancient samples.

Maybe Celtic settlers are overrepresented among those 27 samples. Perhaps a sample size of 100 would have more realistic proportions. You also can't draw any conclusions about Viking Age South Sweden from just one Viking Age Birka sample. You need large and representative sample sizes.

[Grace O'Malley]

They did say the ancient Icelanders matched modern Norwegians, Irish and Scots than present day Icelanders.

[Aren]

Possibly the Swedish could be ancient. The different amounts are what is of interest and correspond to Anglo-Saxon input etc. How to explain the different admixture proportions in populations that had the same ancient input i.e. Bell Beakers. What accounts for the differences?

So the Swedish input is ancient, but the Norwegian is actual heritage? Can you not see how you are nitpicking?
Btw on Gedmatch one of the Anglo-Saxons is closer to Norwegians, the other to Northern Dutch. It's not like the Norwegian vikings were any different than the Danish or Swedish ones.

[Grace O'Malley]

So the Swedish input is ancient, but the Norwegian is actual heritage? Can you not see how you are nitpicking?
Btw on Gedmatch one of the Anglo-Saxons is closer to Norwegians, the other to Northern Dutch. It's not like the Norwegian vikings were any different than the Danish or Swedish ones.

The Norwegian is in different proportions. That what I'm pointing out. The Swedish is constant in all the areas. If the proportion of that Norwegian component was constant in all areas I would say it was ancient but the fact that the Norwegian is at different levels and matches to areas in Northern and Western Norway is what makes me question whether it is ancient or not.

[Peterski]

They did say the ancient Icelanders matched modern Norwegians, Irish and Scots than present day Icelanders.

Because all of present-day Icelanders are mixed Norse-Gaelic.

While some of these ancients were 100% Gaelic or 100% Norse.


It's not like the Norwegian vikings were any different than the Danish or Swedish ones.

Norway has much more of R1a than Denmark, that's one of possible ways to distinguish them.

[Aren]

The Norwegian is in different proportions. That what I'm pointing out. The Swedish is constant in all the areas.

And I asked why is that?

[Petalpusher]

The study I posted in the OP says they are. BTW modelling modern British populations as mixtures of French and other continental populations doesn't make sense. Modern French are not the same as Early Iron Age "French". Already Busby 2015 revealed the role of recent Non-European admixtures in France:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

They should start using ancient samples, there are already hundreds of them.

So their model makes no sense but you like it, so it's right? You faint to understand how admixture works when it suits you.

Although im really happy you begin to aknowledge that modeling population should be done with ancient samples after spaming the forum with your K36 crap for 2 years based entirely on modern regional populations. So the exact opposite.

How is the professional genetic work going? Magnolia is right, you are a snake.

[Grace O'Malley]

And I asked why is that?

You tell me? What explanation could there be? It is based on modern populations and as you said admixture might not be actual ancestry but why the differences? That's the only thing that makes me think it is something other than ancient because the Irish and British were basically all Bell Beaker before people like the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans came in.

[Grace O'Malley]

Because all of present-day Icelanders are mixed Norse-Gaelic.

While some of these ancients were 100% Gaelic or 100% Norse.



Norway has much more of R1a than Denmark, that's one of possible ways to distinguish them.

The Icelanders have had bottleneck and drift. This could also explain the reason why they have more Scandinavian than Gaelic today. Although the increase in Scandinavian could also be due to more Scandinavians settling over a period of time after the initial founding of Iceland.

[Aren]

You tell me? What explanation could there be? It is based on modern populations and as you said admixture might not be actual ancestry but why the differences? That's the only thing that makes me think it is something other than ancient because the Irish and British were basically all Bell Beaker before people like the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans came in.
A clear picture would be early Medieval Irish and Scottish genomes + Viking era Scandinavians, and using those populations in ADMIXTURE runes on modern day British people. This study you keep referring to has many flawes. Like there is obviously not 60% French input in Ireland, nor is there substantial Swedish etc.
There's also possible admix from Hallstatt/La Tene people before that. Not to mention that Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Vikings were all pretty Bell Beaker-like too.

[Dick]

So what’s this all about?

[Grace O'Malley]

A clear picture would be early Medieval Irish and Scottish genomes + Viking era Scandinavians, and using those populations in ADMIXTURE runes on modern day British people. This study you keep referring to has many flawes. Like there is obviously not 60% French input in Ireland, nor is there substantial Swedish etc.
There's also possible admix from Hallstatt/La Tene people before that. Not to mention that Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Vikings were all pretty Bell Beaker-like too.

They do apparently have genomes across all these periods so they should be able to compare with these eventually. But nevertheless it still doesn't explain the differences in that Norse component or the German/Danish. Why the differences if all these populations were similar?

[Peterski]

So their model makes no sense but you like it, so it's right?

I noticed you love to criticize everything but never come up with better alternatives.

And why do you think their model makes "no sense"?

[Aren]

They do apparently have genomes across all these periods so they should be able to compare with these eventually. But nevertheless it still doesn't explain the differences in that Norse component or the German/Danish. Why the differences if all these populations were similar?

Because it's not 100% identical ofc, the difference is mostly on an individual level. Some Gedmatch oracles I presume give you something like 50% Dutch + 50% English or something(I'm not sure what you get exactly) yet it's far from the truth. But it's a marginally better fit than say 100% Irish even though you are well within the Irish variation. It's the same thing here.
But you are still not answering my original question. Why is it to you that the Swedish and French input is supposedly something ancient and shared, yet the Norwegian is accurately from the Vikings? Isn't that nitpicking from your side?

[Wrong]

General knowledge is that the Icelandic Norse raided the Celtic shores of Ireland & Scotland and captured women to prevent inbreeding in Iceland.

[Grace O'Malley]

Because it's not 100% identical ofc, the difference is mostly on an individual level. Some Gedmatch oracles I presume give you something like 50% Dutch + 50% English or something(I'm not sure what you get exactly) yet it's far from the truth. But it's a marginally better fit than say 100% Irish even though you are well within the Irish variation. It's the same thing here.
But you are still not answering my original question. Why is it to you that the Swedish and French input is supposedly something ancient and shared, yet the Norwegian is accurately from the Vikings? Isn't that nitpicking from your side?

No it isn't nitpicking because as I've been saying why the different proportions in the Norwegian vs the German/Danish? Also what do you think is the Anglo-Saxon component? The PoBI said that it was the German/Danish component. You're not saying why there are these differences?

The French like component is mostly Breton. Bretons comprise a lot of Insular Celtic dna anyway which explains why it is in the Irish population and what they are putting down to an ancient "Celtic" component. The Swedish component looks quite similar across all populations as I've previously stated. If the Norse was the same across all populations I could rationalise this as something ancient in Bell Beakers but because it is at different levels what could account for this? No one appears to be able to make any suggestions as to why?

[Jana]

No it isn't nitpicking because as I've been saying why the different proportions in the Norwegian vs the German/Danish? Also what do you think is the Anglo-Saxon component? The PoBI said that it was the German/Danish component. You're not saying why there are these differences?

The French like component is mostly Breton. Bretons comprise a lot of Insular Celtic dna anyway which explains why it is in the Irish population and what they are putting down to an ancient "Celtic" component. The Swedish component looks quite similar across all populations as I've previously stated. If the Norse was the same across all populations I could rationalise this as something ancient in Bell Beakers but because it is at different levels what could account for this? No one appears to be able to make any suggestions as to why?

He is biased and doesn't seem to like if some non-Germanic people have their input (like Irish), or possible contributed to them (like Slavs to Danish). Aren may be Assyrian but it is interesting case, he acts like Swedish/Germanic supremacist :D

The fact how ''swarthy Celtic'' Irish have more Viking DNA than English master race doesn't seem to sit well with some people (not nesessary him, I noticed this on other forum).

[Aren]

No it isn't nitpicking because as I've been saying why the different proportions in the Norwegian vs the German/Danish? Also what do you think is the Anglo-Saxon component? The PoBI said that it was the German/Danish component. You're not saying why there are these differences?

The French like component is mostly Breton. Bretons comprise a lot of Insular Celtic dna anyway which explains why it is in the Irish population and what they are putting down to an ancient "Celtic" component. The Swedish component looks quite similar across all populations as I've previously stated. If the Norse was the same across all populations I could rationalise this as something ancient in Bell Beakers but because it is at different levels what could account for this? No one appears to be able to make any suggestions as to why?

I have answered you why the components might be different. But either way I've also explained why ADMIXTURE isn't really actual heritage.
It really is nitpicking when you so easily put off French and Swedish admix as something ancient ancestrally shared, but the Norwegian and Danish MUST correspond to Anglo-Saxon and Viking input. Why is there French input in the first place? Why draw such conclusion that it must be ancient Celtic British proxy? You are making some conclusions that are very comfortable to make but not entirely supported.

[Aren]

He is biased and doesn't seem to like if some non-Germanic people have their input (like Irish), or possible contributed to them (like Slavs to Danish). Aren may be Assyrian but it is interesting case, he acts like Swedish/Germanic supremacist :D

The fact how ''swarthy Celtic'' Irish have more Viking DNA than English master race doesn't seem to sit well with some people (not nesessary him, I noticed this on other forum).

Typical Balkanic thinking tbh, that I must be some supremacist just because I'm interested in other ethnic groups. And I am Assyrian, have you not seen my DNA results that I've posted here?
Btw even the study that Grace seems to quote everywhere actually does say that the English have less French input and more Scandinavian and German than the Irish. So I'm not sure how that is true either.

[Grace O'Malley]

He is biased and doesn't seem to like if some non-Germanic people have their input (like Irish), or possible contributed to them (like Slavs to Danish). Aren may be Assyrian but it is interesting case, he acts like Swedish/Germanic supremacist :D

The fact how ''swarthy Celtic'' Irish have more Viking DNA than English master race doens't seem to sit well with some people (not nesessary him, I noticed this on other forum).

I have noticed that a bit myself? Not sure why? The study even stated it was a one-mixture event that occurred around the time of Viking activity. I would just like some rational explanation about the differences in the admixture. People can argue that admixture doesn't mean ancestry and that it is flawed but it still doesn't explain why this Norse admixture is higher in the Irish. Also the Orcadians have a higher Norse component and no one is arguing about the "Viking" admixture in them. It is known that the English have the highest Anglo-Saxon input which the scientists have stated is the German/Danish component. This makes sense as well. This is lower in the Irish which makes sense. No one argued when the PoBI came out either.

The fact that there is a higher Norse component in the Irish and these scientists must be wrong. I'm open to the Norse component being ancient but the differences in amounts makes me question this. There was a lot of Viking activity in Ireland and a lot of intermarriage so it's not like they weren't there. Why couldn't this be from Viking activity?

I would just like some reasonable and rational explanation. As I've pointed out previously the Irish and British are mostly Bell Beaker so there is no reason for these differences in the admixture result. The English have had known Anglo-Saxon incursions which changed the language. The other two groups were the Normans and Vikings for the Isles. What components in the modern populations reflect these people?

[Grace O'Malley]

Typical Balkanic thinking tbh, that I must be some supremacist just because I'm interested in other ethnic groups. And I am Assyrian, have you not seen my DNA results that I've posted here?
Btw even the study that Grace seems to quote everywhere actually does say that the English have less French input and more Scandinavian and German than the Irish. So I'm not sure how that is true either.

They have more German but not more Scandinavian which you keep stating. The PoBI said this as well.

[Jana]

Typical Balkanic thinking tbh, that I must be some supremacist just because I'm interested in other ethnic groups. And I am Assyrian, have you not seen my DNA results that I've posted here?
Btw even the study that Grace seems to quote everywhere actually does say that the English have less French input and more Scandinavian and German than the Irish. So I'm not sure how that is true either.

Ha, not because of that, but you favor Germanic people over others :D OK, we forgive you, you live in Sweden.

French in that study is Breton if I am not mistaken, so it should be proxy for Celtic ancestry, ofc Irish will have higher. But they have visibly more Norwegian, that study doesn't count Danish as Norse but Anglo-Saxon togheder with German (because Jutes come from Denmark I guess). English have more German/Danish DNA but less Norwegian than Irish.

[Aren]

They have more German but not more Scandinavian which you keep stating. The PoBI said this as well.
Danes are not Scandinavian?

Ha, not because of that, but you favor Germanic people over others :D OK, we forgive you, you live in Sweden.

French is that study is Breton if I am not mistaken, so it should be proxy for Celtic ancestry, ofc Irish will have higher. But they have visibly more Norwegian, that study doesn't count Danish as Norse but Anglo-Saxon toghder with German (because Jutes come from Denmark I guess). English have more German/Danish DNA but less Norwegian than Irish.
Actually I'm interested in genetics of all West Eurasians, obviously I'm much more interested in my own people but right now there's nothing happening with ancient genomes related to Assyrians, I'm just waiting for ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian and other Mesopotamian aDNA but it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon considering the political situation in Iraq and Syria atm.

They used French auDNA from all over France not just from Brittany.

[Grace O'Malley]

I have answered you why the components might be different. But either way I've also explained why ADMIXTURE isn't really actual heritage.
It really is nitpicking when you so easily put off French and Swedish admix as something ancient ancestrally shared, but the Norwegian and Danish MUST correspond to Anglo-Saxon and Viking input. Why is there French input in the first place? Why draw such conclusion that it must be ancient Celtic British proxy? You are making some conclusions that are very comfortable to make but not entirely supported.

You're really exasperating. This is because they fluctuate. I've already explained my reasoning. My conclusions are from the scientific papers. I can get quotes if you want. They aren't my conclusions. The only thing I've stated was that the Swedish was constant across all populations so I'm trying to think why this would be in answer to your question about it. I haven't seen where you have answered why the components could be different. They shouldn't be.

[Dick]

So the Vikings fucked British women and had mixed Scandinavia and celtic babies. Wasn’t this known before the study since most of their mitochondrial DNA seemed to be from britain anyway?

[Grace O'Malley]

Danes are not Scandinavian?

Actually I'm interested in genetics of all West Eurasians, obviously I'm much more interested in my own people but right now there's nothing happening with ancient genomes related to Assyrians, I'm just waiting for ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian and other Mesopotamian aDNA but it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon considering the political situation in Iraq and Syria atm.

They used French auDNA from all over France not just from Brittany.

To answer your questions the French component in the Irish is over 80% Breton like. The Danes are Scandinavian but the PoBI stated that the German/Danish component was Anglo-Saxon and not Vikings. They reasoned that this component was similar in areas outside the Danelaw with no increase in areas where the Viking activity was. The Anglo-Saxons came from an area close to Southern Denmark / Northern Germany. It is well known about the Anglo-Saxon impact on the UK. What component would you say shows this?

[Grace O'Malley]

So the Vikings fucked British women and had mixed Scandinavia and celtic babies. Wasn’t this known before the study since most of their mitochondrial DNA seemed to be from britain anyway?

They were Gaels i.e. Irish/Scots. If you are talking about the Icelandic study?

[Aren]

You're really exasperating. This is because they fluctuate. I've already explained my reasoning. My conclusions are from the scientific papers. I can get quotes if you want. They aren't my conclusions. The only thing I've stated was that the Swedish was constant across all populations so I'm trying to think why this would be in answer to your question about it. I haven't seen where you have answered why the components could be different. They shouldn't be.

It doesn't matter why because ADMIXTURE runs are not directly correlated to actual heritage(I'm sure the study points that out somewhere). I mean Peterski posted from the same study how they modelled Norwegians with the same method and they got 20-30% Polish. Now surely you must not think there's that much Polish input in Norwegians?
No one is saying that the Scandinavian components are 100% identical that would be impossible but they are highly related and whatever the population it choses could or could not be accurate of predicting actual ancestry that's my point. Obviously 60% French is not accurate, neither is the constant 10% Swedish. Already there we can notice some flaws with ADMIXTURE runs.

[Dick]

They were Gaels i.e. Irish/Scots. If you are talking about the Icelandic study?

Yes I’m sorry for calling them british

[Aren]

To answer your questions the French component in the Irish is over 80% Breton like. The Danes are Scandinavian but the PoBI stated that the German/Danish component was Anglo-Saxon and not Vikings. They reasoned that this component was similar in areas outside the Danelaw with no increase in areas where the Viking activity was. The Anglo-Saxons came from an area close to Southern Denmark / Northern Germany. It is well known about the Anglo-Saxon impact on the UK. What component would you say shows this?

I'm sorry but why would one expect that it must follow the old Danelaw area? What evidence other than this historical area do they bring forward of how the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings differed genetically? There are no ancient vikings genomes(except that one woman from Birka which wasn't used in this study) and only two roman era Anglo-Saxons, and one seems to be already mixed with the native Brits. So the evidence isn't there.

[Grace O'Malley]

It doesn't matter why because ADMIXTURE runs are not directly correlated to actual heritage(I'm sure the study points that out somewhere). I mean Peterski posted from the same study how they modelled Norwegians with the same method and they got 20-30% Polish. Now surely you must not think there's that much Polish input in Norwegians?
No one is saying that the Scandinavian components are 100% identical that would be impossible but they are highly related and whatever the population it choses could or could not be accurate of predicting actual ancestry that's my point. Obviously 60% French is not accurate, neither is the constant 10% Swedish. Already there we can notice some flaws with ADMIXTURE runs.

There is not a reasonable explanation for the Irish to have higher Norse than the English. You keep on about the French and Swedish but I can understand why the Irish would be French-like especially Breton-like. This is not an issue with me. The Swedish is constant but why the differences in the other components? We know the history of the Isles and the differences in the components make perfect sense to me.

Of course the Scandinavians are very related. The Irish and British are also very related.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm sorry but why would one expect that it must follow the old Danelaw area? What evidence other than this historical area do they bring forward of how the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings differed genetically? There are no ancient vikings genomes(except that one woman from Birka which wasn't used in this study) and only two roman era Anglo-Saxons, and one seems to be already mixed with the native Brits. So the evidence isn't there.

That is what the study says. It looks like I'll have to give you the quote. As I've previously said I'm just stating what these studies conclude. I'm not inventing anything.


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.

https://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/sites/default/files/peopleofthebritishisles/documents/media/newsletter6_1.pdf

[Aren]

There is not a reasonable explanation for the Irish to have higher Norse than the English. You keep on about the French and Swedish but I can understand why the Irish would be French-like especially Breton-like. This is not an issue with me. The Swedish is constant but why the differences in the other components? We know the history of the Isles and the differences in the components make perfect sense to me.

Of course the Scandinavians are very related. The Irish and British are also very related.

I'm just giving you examples of how ADMIXTURE is not actual heritage no matter how well you can explain it. You claim the Breton input must be something shared with the Celts of Britain well I can claim that the Danish and Norwegian input both could be from Vikings and/or from Anglo-Saxons. Would modern day Bretons be more like the Roman Era Celts than say the Norwegians being as similar genetically to the Anglo-Saxons? We don't know since there are no Viking era genomes nor any meaningful amount of Anglo-Saxons. I really don't like these kind of comfortable armchair conclusions. Not everything is black and white.

[Aren]

That is what the study says. It looks like I'll have to give you the quote. As I've previously said I'm just stating what these studies conclude. I'm not inventing anything.



https://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/sites/default/files/peopleofthebritishisles/documents/media/newsletter6_1.pdf

Yeah I did read that but it still doesn't give actual evidence, they simply cannot know since there are no Viking and early Medieval Danish genomes. They are using input from modern day Danes in ADMIXTURE run as something that must've come from during the time of the Danelaw(what the English of that time look like autosomally? we don't know), it could very well be true but it's not actual proof.

[Grace O'Malley]

I'm just giving you examples of how ADMIXTURE is not actual heritage no matter how well you can explain it. You claim the Breton input must be something shared with the Celts of Britain well I can claim that the Danish and Norwegian input both could be from Vikings and/or from Anglo-Saxons. Would modern day Bretons be more like the Roman Era Celts than say the Norwegians being as similar genetically to the Anglo-Saxons? We don't know since there are no Viking era genomes nor any meaningful amount of Anglo-Saxons. I really don't like these kind of comfortable armchair conclusions. Not everything is black and white.

You should argue with these scientists then. You obviously know better than them. You're the one going against the studies conclusions not me. No one says the Norwegians are similar to the Anglo-Saxons. The Danes are though because they come from the same area.

In the Irish DNA Atlas they claimed the Breton-like component was ancient and represented the Celts. You keep saying I'm claiming these things when I've told you I'm just giving you the conclusions from the studies. I'm not a geneticist and don't claim to be.


For the seven ‘Gaelic’ Irish clusters, we observe that 80% of ancestry is best explained by clusters of French, Belgian, Danish, and Norwegian membership, with clusters from the other six reference European populations making up the remaining ~20% (Fig. 3a). French clusters are the best fit for about half of the ancestry within these Irish clusters, which is the highest proportion across all the Irish or British clusters. This French proportion is being driven primarily by the European cluster FRA1 which by itself represents an average of 30% ancestry in the ‘Gaelic’ Irish clusters (Fig. 3b). Cluster FRA1 is predominantly (80.0%) made up of individuals from the north-west region of France, an area with genetic affinity to other, British, ‘Celtic’ populations23. This pattern of French ancestry continues in other Irish and British clusters associated with Celtic ancestry; specifically the N Ireland, Scottish, Orcadian, Welsh, and Cornish clusters. The ‘Gaelic’ Irish clusters show the lowest ancestry proportions of German clusters, which in turn are thought to reflect Germanic/Saxon influence21. Orkney shows the second-least ‘Germanic’ proportion, with English clusters showing the most. We also observe a low amount of Belgian-like ancestry within Ireland, compared to groups within Britain, further illustrating Ireland’s relative isolation from mainland Europe.

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

[Aren]

You should argue with these scientists then. You obviously know better than them. You're the one going against the studies conclusions not me. No one says the Norwegians are similar to the Anglo-Saxons. The Danes are though because they come from the same area.

In the Irish DNA Atlas they claimed the Breton-like component was ancient and represented the Celts. You keep saying I'm claiming these things when I've told you I'm just giving you the conclusions from the studies. I'm not a geneticist and don't claim to be.



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

But why are they claiming these? Do they have secret ancient genomes of Vikings? Of Medieval Gaels? Of Roman Era Scandinavians? No they don't, they are just giving some comfortable explanation going by what some historical records are telling us. Very amateurish tbh to make these claims without actual aDNA to back it up. I don't think of these scientists as some kind of Gods, no I don't.
I don't think so highly of studies in the auDNA field cause a lot of them contradict eachother(just look at this mess with the PIE homeland). And it's not something difficult to figure out that ADMIXTURE isn't actual heritage.

[Myanthropologies]

That doesnt make sense to me, since I thought modern day Icelandic people are a mixture of Vikings and Irish slaves. I will have to read that study later though, perhaps I will understand after reading it.

[Kelmendasi]

Seems like the Icelandic people went through years of genetic drifts which is why they are genetically different today. The sample size is small and those who were 100% Celtic could just have been Gaelic slaves and not a mix but idk really

[Grace O'Malley]

But why are they claiming these? Do they have secret ancient genomes of Vikings? Of Medieval Gaels? Of Roman Era Scandinavians? No they don't, they are just giving some comfortable explanation going by what some historical records are telling us. Very amateurish tbh to make these claims without actual aDNA to back it up. I don't think of these scientists as some kind of Gods, no I don't.
I don't think so highly of studies in the auDNA field cause a lot of them contradict eachother(just look at this mess with the PIE homeland). And it's not something difficult to figure out that ADMIXTURE isn't actual heritage.

I'm sure more information on ancient genomes will be published. Apparently Prof Dan Bradley, the Irish geneticist, has Irish genomes from a lot of different periods. There are Viking graves so they should be able to get some samples from them also.

And this.


During the Iron Age or Roman Period, the DNA of people in the south-east diverged somewhat from that of populations in the rest of the Britain.

Prof Reich, from Harvard Medical School in Boston, told BBC News: "We are initiating an effort to follow up on this observation - and more generally to provide a fine-grained picture of population structure of Iron Age and Roman Britain - using a study that will be on a scale of 1,000 newly reported British samples."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587

[Leto]

That's why I say Iceland should accept only Scandinavian and British people as migrants. They won't alter the gene pool.

[Ayman Vasconic]

Using genome sequence data from 27 ancient Icelanders, we demonstrate that they are a combination of Norse, Gaelic [Celtic], and admixed individuals.

Nothing new under the sun. It was known since ever - no need in discovery of America that way. And still they are not Celts.


That's why I say Iceland should accept only Scandinavian and British people as migrants. They won't alter the gene pool.

And what sense in that? Migrant is migrant. Either you have original people who came and can proof it in IX century (then no migrants) either any migrant, as he is not original anyway. Brit, Pole, Greek - the same foreign migrant. You use very bizzare logic.

[Grace O'Malley]

Nothing new under the sun. It was known since ever - no need in discovery of America that way. And still they are not Celts.



And what sense in that? Migrant is migrant. Either you have original people who came and can proof it in IX century (then no migrants) either any migrant, as he is not original anyway. Brit, Pole, Greek - the same foreign migrant. You use very bizzare logic.

It's not bizarre logic. I have a couple of Icelandic cousins through dna testing. Gaels are also a closely related population. They aren't going to change the genetic gene pool as the Icelandic people already are descended from Gaels as well as Scandinavians.

[Ayman Vasconic]

It's not bizarre logic.

Is, as people from England or Denmark would be a new-comers as well, totaly foreign to ancient original migrants. Iceland exists 1200 years, and any anglo-dano-whatever will be the same foreigner as any other European. Pole or russian or whoever would change exactly the same as bunch of Anglos or Irish. You have to be really blind to not see this.

[Grace O'Malley]

Is, as people from England or Denmark would be a new-comers as well, totaly foreign to ancient original migrants. Iceland exists 1200 years, and any anglo-dano-whatever will be the same foreigner as any other European. Pole or russian or whoever would change exactly the same as bunch of Anglos or Irish. You have to be really blind to not see this.

Irish, English, Scots, Danes or Norwegians etc are already closely related to the Icelandic population. For example on the Global 25 my closest modern population is Icelandic. They were part of the founding population so how can they be as foreign as some other group when Icelandic people are close to those populations anyway? Not sure why you can't understand this?

[Ayman Vasconic]

Irish, English, Scots, Danes or Norwegians etc are already closely related to the Icelandic population. For example on the Global 25 my closest modern population is Icelandic. They were part of the founding population so how can they be as foreign as some other group when Icelandic people are close to those populations anyway? Not sure why you can't understand this?

Still will be not Icelanders. Racial closness has nothing to do with it, especially, thet in the case of other white europeans the difference wouldne be mentionable either. If there will settle 100,000 O'brians or 100,000 Kowalskis - the result would be exactly the same: the same propotion of population would be foreign and would not be of Icelandic provenance. Period. Even if you, as a racist, are bother by the race, then I assure you, that the difference in look would not be very noticable, really. Poles are not negros, neither Middleeasterners. If you want preserve Icelanders as they originally were you have to either banned all immigration, even backward, either kept two clases of inhabitants: original Icelanders and migrants. There is no other possiblity.

[Hevo]

No R1b in Norse?

Atleast 2 of them cluster with Scand0's.

VDP-A7= R1b U106>Z18
TGS-A1= R1b P312> L238

Both of these subclades are common in Scandinavia.

[Grace O'Malley]

Still will be not Icelanders. Racial closness has nothing to do with it, especially, thet in the case of other white europeans the difference wouldne be mentionable either. If there will settle 100,000 O'brians or 100,000 Kowalskis - the result would be exactly the same: the same propotion of population would be foreign and would not be of Icelandic provenance. Period. Even if you, as a racist, are bother by the race, then I assure you, that the difference in look would not be very noticable, really. Poles are not negros, neither Middleeasterners. If you want preserve Icelanders as they originally were you have to either banned all immigration, even backward, either kept two clases of inhabitants: original Icelanders and migrants. There is no other possiblity.

I'm not a racist but I think you are being very obtuse. The original Icelanders were a mix of Gaels i.e. Irish and Scots and Scandinavians. If present day Scandinavians and Gaels settle there how is that different than the original population? That's what Leto was saying. Even today Icelanders will be similar to Norwegians, Danes and Irish, Scots. As I've pointed out I have Icelandic cousins so there is obviously still a connection. I also have very strong matches to Icelandic people on the Global 25.

It is not the same as Poles or some other European group migrating to Iceland. How can people that are very genetically similar alter the Icelandic genepool like someone from a less similar group? You're not making any sense.

[Ayman Vasconic]

If present day Scandinavians and Gaels settle there how is that different than the original population?

How how? They are not Icelanders, are they? My neighbour can be racially identical to me, but if he kicks me out from my house and will move to it, would you say, that the same people are living in my house? Really?


Even today Icelanders will be similar to Norwegians, Danes and Irish, Scots.

They can be racially similar, but they are different. These are people - persons - not walking uncoucious breeding material. They have different history, provenance, families aso. They have common origin, but now they are different. It is like saying, that becasue all Indo-europeans have the same origin, you can replace Poles with Hindus, and the people will still be the same. Racially? Ok, the same, if you would replace all Poles with Ukrainians, and still it would be the same people who lived here 1000 years ago. Really would it make sense? Are you serious?


I also have very strong matches to Icelandic people on the Global 25.

And still, you are not Icelander.


It is not the same as Poles or some other European group migrating to Iceland. How can people that are very genetically similar alter the Icelandic genepool like someone from a less similar group? You're not making any sense.

but you do, sugesting, that (partial)replacment of Icelanders by Irelanders would change nothing. It is just stupid, thinking, that Irish are/would be Icelanders, and not being able to get, that these people are distinct people, no matter what race they are of.

[Grace O'Malley]

How how? They are not Icelanders, are they? My neighbour can be racially identical to me, but if he kicks me out from my house and will move to it, would you say, that the same people are living in my house? Really?



They can be racially similar, but they are different. These are people - persons - not walking uncoucious breeding material. They have different history, provenance, families aso. They have common origin, but now they are different. It is like saying, that becasue all Indo-europeans have the same origin, you can replace Poles with Hindus, and the people will still be the same. Racially? Ok, the same, if you would replace all Poles with Ukrainians, and still it would be the same people who lived here 1000 years ago. Really would it make sense? Are you serious?



And still, you are not Icelander.



but you do, sugesting, that (partial)replacment of Icelanders by Irelanders would change nothing. It is just stupid, thinking, that Irish are/would be Icelanders, and not being able to get, that these people are distinct people, no matter what race they are of.

Oh for God's sake no one is saying Irish or Norwegians are Icelanders. They are closer to them than other Europeans though and part of the founding population. They are like cousins to them. If you put Greeks in there they would be quite different. Are you being deliberately dense or what? I don't want to be rude but you are really pushing it.

Just to clarify of course Icelanders are a unique population but if you add some Irish/Scots and some Norwegians to the mix that is not going to have the same impact as putting some really unrelated people in there.

Just to give an example. The Icelandic gedmatch result that Peterski added at the beginning. Here is their K13 and K15 compared to mine.

Icelandic K13

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 51.48
2 Baltic 26.39
3 West_Med 9.54
4 West_Asian 7.96
5 East_Med 2.09
6 South_Asian 1.15
7 Red_Sea 0.5
8 Siberian 0.48
9 Amerindian 0.41

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 North_Dutch 2.77
2 Danish 2.92
3 Norwegian 3.04
4 Irish 3.84
5 Orcadian 4.33
6 North_German 4.45
7 West_Scottish 4.54
8 Swedish 5.63
9 Southeast_English 6.41
10 Southwest_English 6.94
11 South_Dutch 10.24
12 West_German 10.92
13 North_Swedish 12.02
14 Austrian 14.57
15 East_German 14.62
16 French 16.23
17 Hungarian 18.81
18 Southwest_Finnish 20.24
19 South_Polish 23.11
20 Spanish_Cataluna 23.68

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 97.1% Norwegian + 2.9% Balochi @ 2.3
2 97.2% Norwegian + 2.8% Brahui @ 2.3
3 97.1% Norwegian + 2.9% Makrani @ 2.33
4 61.6% Norwegian + 38.4% Irish @ 2.39
5 96.8% Norwegian + 3.2% Ossetian @ 2.42
6 97.1% Norwegian + 2.9% Georgian @ 2.43
7 97.2% Norwegian + 2.8% Abhkasian @ 2.43
8 96.4% Norwegian + 3.6% Tabassaran @ 2.44
9 96.8% Norwegian + 3.2% Afghan_Pashtun @ 2.47
10 96.7% Norwegian + 3.3% Lezgin @ 2.48
11 97.5% Norwegian + 2.5% Sindhi @ 2.49
12 97.2% Norwegian + 2.8% Kurdish @ 2.5
13 68.7% Norwegian + 31.3% West_Scottish @ 2.51
14 97.2% Norwegian + 2.8% Kalash @ 2.51
15 96.8% Norwegian + 3.2% Chechen @ 2.52
16 97% Norwegian + 3% North_Ossetian @ 2.52
17 97% Norwegian + 3% Adygei @ 2.52
18 60.5% North_Dutch + 39.5% Norwegian @ 2.54
19 96.7% Norwegian + 3.3% Tadjik @ 2.54
20 97.3% Norwegian + 2.7% Iranian @ 2.54

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +50% Norwegian @ 2.704572


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +25% North_German +25% Norwegian @ 2.580273


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
1 Irish + North_German + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.528024
2 North_German + Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.533811
3 Danish + Irish + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.562055
4 Irish + Irish + North_German + Norwegian @ 2.580273
5 Danish + Danish + Irish + Norwegian @ 2.598329
6 Irish + North_Dutch + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.622693
7 Danish + Irish + North_Dutch + Norwegian @ 2.627435
8 Danish + Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.645238
9 Danish + Irish + North_German + Norwegian @ 2.646420
10 Irish + North_Dutch + North_German + Norwegian @ 2.650612
11 Irish + North_German + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.652473
12 Danish + North_German + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.656878
13 North_Dutch + North_German + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.671925
14 Irish + North_Dutch + North_Dutch + Norwegian @ 2.700347
15 Irish + Irish + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.704572
16 Danish + Danish + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.719379
17 North_Dutch + Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.731906
18 Danish + North_Dutch + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.734330
19 Danish + Irish + Irish + Norwegian @ 2.738398
20 Danish + Irish + Irish + Swedish @ 2.755670

My K13

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 51.71
2 Baltic 25.4
3 West_Med 9.97
4 West_Asian 7.3
5 Red_Sea 1.77
6 East_Med 1.61
7 Amerindian 1.28
8 Siberian 0.73
9 Oceanian 0.22

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 North_Dutch 2.93
2 Irish 3.11
3 Norwegian 3.54
4 West_Scottish 3.71
5 Danish 3.82
6 Orcadian 3.83
7 North_German 5.25
8 Southeast_English 6.1
9 Southwest_English 6.24
10 Swedish 6.33
11 South_Dutch 10.06
12 West_German 10.9
13 North_Swedish 12.64
14 Austrian 15.02
15 East_German 15.17
16 French 15.76
17 Hungarian 19.31
18 Southwest_Finnish 20.89
19 Spanish_Cataluna 23.16
20 South_Polish 23.9

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 56% Irish + 44% Norwegian @ 2.24
2 52.1% Norwegian + 47.9% West_Scottish @ 2.36
3 75.3% Irish + 24.7% Swedish @ 2.45
4 54.8% North_Dutch + 45.2% Irish @ 2.5
5 87.1% Irish + 12.9% North_Swedish @ 2.51
6 68.2% West_Scottish + 31.8% Swedish @ 2.55
7 93.7% Irish + 6.3% Finnish @ 2.56
8 65.8% North_Dutch + 34.2% West_Scottish @ 2.58
9 94.7% Irish + 5.3% East_Finnish @ 2.61
10 92.5% Irish + 7.5% Southwest_Finnish @ 2.62
11 94.1% Irish + 5.9% La_Brana-1 @ 2.62
12 96.2% Irish + 3.8% Chuvash @ 2.63
13 73.3% Irish + 26.7% North_German @ 2.63
14 95.8% Irish + 4.2% Erzya @ 2.68
15 94.7% Irish + 5.3% Estonian @ 2.68
16 63.8% West_Scottish + 36.2% North_German @ 2.69
17 96.7% Irish + 3.3% Mari @ 2.69
18 95.2% Irish + 4.8% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 2.72
19 95.1% Irish + 4.9% Belorussian @ 2.72
20 83% West_Scottish + 17% North_Swedish @ 2.72

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +50% Norwegian @ 2.484299


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +25% North_Dutch +25% Norwegian @ 2.481593


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
1 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + Norwegian @ 2.481593
2 Irish + Irish + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.484299
3 Irish + Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.516863
4 Irish + North_Dutch + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.542499
5 Irish + North_German + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.579951
6 North_German + Norwegian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 2.591957
7 Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 2.612724
8 Irish + Irish + North_German + Norwegian @ 2.622498
9 Irish + Irish + Irish + Norwegian @ 2.633069
10 Danish + Irish + Irish + Norwegian @ 2.649204
11 Irish + Irish + Irish + Swedish @ 2.650396
12 Irish + Irish + Swedish + West_Scottish @ 2.662073
13 North_Dutch + Norwegian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 2.664009
14 Irish + North_Dutch + North_Dutch + Norwegian @ 2.674993
15 North_Dutch + North_Dutch + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.680257
16 Danish + Irish + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.693465
17 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + North_Dutch @ 2.712084
18 North_Dutch + Norwegian + Norwegian + West_Scottish @ 2.718063
19 Irish + North_Dutch + Swedish + West_Scottish @ 2.736863
20 Irish + North_Dutch + Norwegian + Norwegian @ 2.741791

Icelandic K15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 35.61
2 Atlantic 30.89
3 Baltic 12.34
4 Eastern_Euro 9.65
5 West_Asian 6.31
6 West_Med 4.41
7 South_Asian 0.68
8 Amerindian 0.11

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish 4.12
2 West_Scottish 4.39
3 Danish 4.56
4 North_German 4.73
5 North_Dutch 5.06
6 Southeast_English 5.77
7 Orcadian 6.35
8 Southwest_English 7.47
9 Norwegian 8.5
10 West_Norwegian 9.07
11 Swedish 9.07
12 South_Dutch 9.8
13 North_Swedish 11.42
14 West_German 11.59
15 East_German 13.82
16 French 14.82
17 Southwest_Finnish 15.19
18 Austrian 17.27
19 Hungarian 18.5
20 Finnish 18.7

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 95.7% Irish + 4.3% Chechen @ 3.5
2 95.5% Irish + 4.5% Tabassaran @ 3.53
3 54.7% West_Scottish + 45.3% North_German @ 3.54
4 95.7% Irish + 4.3% Lezgin @ 3.55
5 94.9% West_Scottish + 5.1% Chechen @ 3.55
6 96.2% Irish + 3.8% North_Ossetian @ 3.57
7 60.3% Irish + 39.7% North_German @ 3.58
8 95.3% West_Scottish + 4.7% North_Ossetian @ 3.58
9 96.1% Irish + 3.9% Kabardin @ 3.6
10 96.3% Irish + 3.7% Adygei @ 3.61
11 95.2% West_Scottish + 4.8% Kabardin @ 3.64
12 96.3% Irish + 3.7% Balkar @ 3.65
13 95.4% West_Scottish + 4.6% Adygei @ 3.65
14 96.5% Irish + 3.5% Ossetian @ 3.66
15 95.1% West_Scottish + 4.9% Lezgin @ 3.67
16 95% West_Scottish + 5% Tabassaran @ 3.7
17 95.5% West_Scottish + 4.5% Balkar @ 3.7
18 93.8% Irish + 6.2% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.7
19 97.2% Irish + 2.8% Abhkasian @ 3.73
20 92.2% West_Scottish + 7.8% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.73

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% North_German +50% West_Scottish @ 4.075808


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% North_German +25% West_Scottish +25% West_Scottish @ 4.075808


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
1 North_German + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 4.075808
2 Irish + North_German + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.093308
3 Irish + Irish + North_German + North_German @ 4.150496
4 Irish + Irish + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.168126
5 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.174350
6 Irish + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 4.205389
7 Danish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 4.209558
8 Danish + Irish + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.228806
9 Irish + North_German + North_German + Orcadian @ 4.240007
10 North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 4.267347
11 North_German + North_German + Orcadian + West_Scottish @ 4.269166
12 Danish + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 4.316081
13 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + North_German @ 4.346132
14 Irish + North_Dutch + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.363055
15 Danish + North_German + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.405104
16 Danish + Irish + North_German + North_German @ 4.419870
17 North_Dutch + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 4.423066
18 Irish + Irish + North_German + Orcadian @ 4.434235
19 Danish + Danish + Irish + North_German @ 4.482058
20 North_Dutch + North_German + North_German + West_Scottish @ 4.484777

My K15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 37.04
2 Atlantic 29.88
3 Baltic 11.89
4 Eastern_Euro 8.75
5 West_Asian 5.16
6 West_Med 4.95
7 Amerindian 1.15
8 Red_Sea 1.1
9 Siberian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish 3.03
2 West_Scottish 3.18
3 North_Dutch 3.71
4 Danish 3.92
5 Orcadian 4.92
6 Southeast_English 5.05
7 North_German 5.1
8 Southwest_English 6.72
9 Norwegian 7.23
10 West_Norwegian 7.49
11 Swedish 8.02
12 South_Dutch 9.76
13 West_German 10.83
14 North_Swedish 10.95
15 East_German 14.23
16 French 14.47
17 Southwest_Finnish 15.54
18 Austrian 18.1
19 Hungarian 18.79
20 Finnish 18.91

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 85.3% Irish + 14.7% Swedish @ 2.74
2 96.9% West_Scottish + 3.1% Chechen @ 2.76
3 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% North_Ossetian @ 2.77
4 97.4% Irish + 2.6% Tabassaran @ 2.78
5 89.9% Irish + 10.1% North_Swedish @ 2.79
6 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Chechen @ 2.8
7 67.9% Irish + 32.1% North_Dutch @ 2.81
8 74.3% West_Scottish + 25.7% North_German @ 2.82
9 97.7% Irish + 2.3% Lezgin @ 2.82
10 97.2% West_Scottish + 2.8% Kabardin @ 2.82
11 86.3% Irish + 13.7% West_Norwegian @ 2.83
12 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Adygei @ 2.83
13 97% West_Scottish + 3% Tabassaran @ 2.83
14 98% Irish + 2% North_Ossetian @ 2.84
15 97.1% West_Scottish + 2.9% Lezgin @ 2.84
16 86.3% Irish + 13.7% Norwegian @ 2.84
17 97.3% West_Scottish + 2.7% Balkar @ 2.85
18 94.8% Irish + 5.2% Finnish @ 2.85
19 96% Irish + 4% Estonian @ 2.86
20 98% Irish + 2% Kabardin @ 2.86

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +50% North_Dutch @ 3.203073


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Irish +25% North_Dutch +25% West_Scottish @ 3.143203


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
1 Irish + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 3.125094
2 North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 3.128713
3 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + West_Scottish @ 3.143203
4 Irish + Irish + North_German + Orcadian @ 3.144938
5 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_Dutch @ 3.150105
6 Irish + North_German + Orcadian + West_Scottish @ 3.159487
7 Irish + Irish + North_German + West_Scottish @ 3.182833
8 North_Dutch + North_German + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 3.183386
9 Irish + North_Dutch + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 3.193700
10 Irish + North_Dutch + North_German + West_Scottish @ 3.195021
11 North_German + Orcadian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 3.202463
12 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + North_Dutch @ 3.203073
13 Danish + Irish + Irish + North_Dutch @ 3.235043
14 Danish + Irish + Irish + Irish @ 3.235556
15 Irish + North_Dutch + North_Dutch + West_Scottish @ 3.238354
16 Danish + Irish + Irish + West_Scottish @ 3.248949
17 Irish + Irish + North_Dutch + North_German @ 3.252259
18 Irish + Irish + Irish + Swedish @ 3.254036
19 Irish + North_Dutch + North_German + Orcadian @ 3.259177
20 Irish + Irish + Irish + North_German @ 3.268316

Done.

You've got to admit they are quite similar.

[Aren]

Irish, English, Scots, Danes or Norwegians etc are already closely related to the Icelandic population. For example on the Global 25 my closest modern population is Icelandic. They were part of the founding population so how can they be as foreign as some other group when Icelandic people are close to those populations anyway? Not sure why you can't understand this?

West and East Slavs are also close to Scandinavians, Brits and French on Global 25 since it takes into account only ancient components and not recent modern drift. But on these modern calculators like on Gedmatch(Eurogenes K13, 15 etc) Icelanders are very close to Norwegians, more so than to Irish or Brits.

[Grace O'Malley]

West and East Slavs are also close to Scandinavians, Brits and French on Global 25 since it takes into account only ancient components and not recent modern drift. But on these modern calculators like on Gedmatch(Eurogenes K13, 15 etc) Icelanders are very close to Norwegians, more so than to Irish or Brits.

Well what do you think of the kit on the previous page? Very similar to mine. On the Global 25 my closest population in moderns are to the Icelandics not ancient populations. There is definitely a connection to Gaelic populations which you are constantly trying to downplay. I have to wonder why? Of course they are Scandinavians and close to other Scandinavians but they do have Gaelic input which shows in their genetics.

[Sikeliot]

Irish and Scots already have Scandinavian ancestry so it is difficult to tell what is going on in Iceland.

[Jana]

Irish and Scots already have Scandinavian ancestry so it is difficult to tell what is going on in Iceland.

I think study exeggarate Gaelic input in Icelanders (50%, they say), but it is there for sure, and if you exclude 20% of it (average amont of norse in Irish/Scots), it come around being 30% Gaelic which sound resonable to me.
Wonder what Grace think of it and how much would she estimate Gaelic input in Iceland (in %)

[Sikeliot]

I think study exeggarate Gaelic input in Icelanders (50%, they say), but it is there for sure, and if you exclude 20% of it (average amont of norse in Irish/Scots), it come around being 30% Gaelic which sound resonable to me.
Wonder what Grace think of it and how much would she estimate Gaelic input in Iceland (in %)

The Scandinavian input into Irish and Scots would not have been there when the Gaelic people went to Iceland. It is clear there are no pure Gaels in modern Ireland and certainly much less so in Scotland.

[Jana]

The Scandinavian input into Irish and Scots would not have been there when the Gaelic people went to Iceland. It is clear there are no pure Gaels in modern Ireland and certainly much less so in Scotland.

when did they went there ? Didn't Vikings capture some Irish slaves ? That wasn't so long ago, norse input could already be in Irish.
Also it is possible Gaelic migration arrived in Iceland in more than one wave, so in different time periods.

[Grace O'Malley]

I think study exeggarate Gaelic input in Icelanders (50%, they say), but it is there for sure, and if you exclude 20% of it (average amont of norse in Irish/Scots), it come around being 30% Gaelic which sound resonable to me.
Wonmder what Grace think of it and how much would she estimate Gaelic input in Iceland (in %)

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm especially intrigued about Iceland because I do have some pull to there in genetics. On the Global25 I match especially well one Icelandic sample so I always assumed it was because of the Irish ancestry in the Icelanders. I also have a couple of Icelandic cousins on 23andMe so it's not like it isn't there.

[Sikeliot]

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm especially intrigued about Iceland because I do have some pull to there in genetics. On the Global25 I match especially well one Icelandic sample so I always assumed it was because of the Irish ancestry in the Icelanders. I also have a couple of Icelandic cousins on 23andMe so it's not like it isn't there.


It could also be due to Scandinavian input into the Irish.

[Grace O'Malley]

It could also be due to Scandinavian input into the Irish.

Looking into it further some Icelanders are descended from O'Carroll of Ossory who I'm also connected to.


Kjarvalr Írakonungr, a figure in the Norse sagas who appears as an ancestor of many prominent Icelandic families, is identified with Cerball.[5]


The Icelandic Landnámabók describes Cerball (Kjarvalur) as ruler of Dublin and Earl of Orkney and opens with a list of the most prominent rulers in Viking-age Europe, listing this Ossorian king alongside Popes Adrian II and John VIII; Byzantine Emperors Leo VI the Wise and his son Alexander; Harald Fairhair, king of Norway; Eric Anundsson and his son Björn Eriksson rulers of Sweden; Gorm the Old king of Denmark; and Alfred the Great, king of England.[16]

While it is unsurprising that Cerball's great-great-grandson should have commissioned a work in which his most illustrious ancestor was portrayed in a heroic light, it is less obvious why Cerball in particular should have such a prominent place in the Icelandic sagas and in the genealogies of the founding families of Iceland as recorded by the Landnámabók. The Landnámabók mentions "Kormlöð", "Rafarta, the daughter of Kjarval", "Dufnial, who was the son of Kjarval" and "Friðgerðr, the daughter of Kjarval". Rafarta or Raforta is also mentioned in Njál's saga and the Laxdæla saga, and Friðgerðr in the Vinland sagas. The marriage of "Eithne, daughter of King Kjarval of Ireland" and Hlodvir Thorfinnsson, Earl of Orkney is reported in the Orkneyinga saga and Earl Sigurd the Stout, who was killed at the battle of Clontarf is called their son.[36]

Some of these names are Irish: Kormlöð is the common name Gormflaith, Eithne too is clearly Irish as is Dufnial. It is doubtful whether Rafarta or Fridgerd are Irish, and there are clearly difficulties with the supposed number of generations. Insofar as any conclusions have been reached by historians of Ireland, it appears that the supposed descendants of Cerball left for Iceland in the generation before Donnchad mac Gilla Patraic, towards the end of the tenth century. Given the likely date at which the Landnámabók was compiled, this is rather too far in the past for the genealogies to be considered very reliable. Adding to the uncertainty, the genealogies of the Osraige themselves were subject to comprehensive rewriting in Cerball's time and immediately afterwards, attaching them to the Laigin of Leinster.

It has been suggested that the importance of Cerball in Icelandic writings stems from the popularity of the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland among the Norse-Gaels of eleventh century Ireland, who passed these accounts on to the Icelanders, who then attached this famous and warlike king to their ancestry. Whether Cerball was in fact an ancestor of many prominent settler families is, however, of rather less importance than the fact that the Icelanders considered it worth reporting their descent from Cerball mac Dúnlainge, whether real or contrived. As with the adoption of Norse names, sagas and other features, and the creation of the Norse-Gael culture, Cerball's adoption in Iceland is an example of the contacts between Norse and Gaelic society in the Viking Age.

You can read more about the connections here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerball_mac_D%C3%BAnlainge



The Icelanders do have connections to the Irish even in their sagas they mention this. I'm sure if there were Icelanders on here they would back this up.

[Leto]

And what sense in that? Migrant is migrant. Either you have original people who came and can proof it in IX century (then no migrants) either any migrant, as he is not original anyway. Brit, Pole, Greek - the same foreign migrant. You use very bizzare logic.
Come on, you can't be serious. Genetically similar Irish and Norwegian people would blend in easily unlike Syrians, Chinese or even Eastern Europeans who are still white but more different from those two groups.

[Leto]

How how? They are not Icelanders, are they? My neighbour can be racially identical to me, but if he kicks me out from my house and will move to it, would you say, that the same people are living in my house? Really?



They can be racially similar, but they are different. These are people - persons - not walking uncoucious breeding material. They have different history, provenance, families aso. They have common origin, but now they are different. It is like saying, that becasue all Indo-europeans have the same origin, you can replace Poles with Hindus, and the people will still be the same. Racially? Ok, the same, if you would replace all Poles with Ukrainians, and still it would be the same people who lived here 1000 years ago. Really would it make sense? Are you serious?



And still, you are not Icelander.



but you do, sugesting, that (partial)replacment of Icelanders by Irelanders would change nothing. It is just stupid, thinking, that Irish are/would be Icelanders, and not being able to get, that these people are distinct people, no matter what race they are of.
For fuck's sake, no one was talking about replacement. What I meant is that a few Irishmen and Norwegians wouldn't alter the country's gene pool as they are closely related to the natives. Just like a few Ukrainians in Poland won't change a thing unlike Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Indians, Vietnamese, etc. (I'm not even mentioning Africans).

[Ayman Vasconic]

For fuck's sake, no one was talking about replacement. What I meant is that a few Irishmen and Norwegians wouldn't alter the country's gene pool as they are closely related to the natives. Just like a few Ukrainians in Poland won't change a thing


They same few Poles or Russians wouldn't change anything there - if you mean a race. But if they would blend with other, darker people, then they would also blen well, as then would be something in the middle, and all would be looking the same - then noone would have problem. But whoever you chose, this would be other people, not the original one. I am talking about people, persons, not a walking sacks of meat with some very peculiar hidden specifics only known for people, who will tested from which farming it comes. Everyone has his own provenance, regarding meat in him. The same nations, which are founded by particular people of particular provenance - not by just anyone, even if is similar in his corporal structure.

[Aren]

Well what do you think of the kit on the previous page? Very similar to mine. On the Global 25 my closest population in moderns are to the Icelandics not ancient populations. There is definitely a connection to Gaelic populations which you are constantly trying to downplay. I have to wonder why? Of course they are Scandinavians and close to other Scandinavians but they do have Gaelic input which shows in their genetics.

Hmm why take one kit when there's an Icelandic Average on Gedmatch. Also I'm not sure why you would say something like that when we all know that everyone nowadays loves the Irish and the Celts and overplays the Irish and Celtic admix everywhere, I'm just playing the devils advocate here nothing else. Weird how you think I'm against Celts or something when people talk like that about other ethnicities and no one bats an eye. You know not everyone is a blatant Celtophile.

Eurogenes K13
Population Irish
North_Atlantic 52.23
Baltic 24.02333333
West_Med 12.39333333
West_Asian 6.32
East_Med 1.41
Red_Sea 0.823333333
South_Asian 1.09
East_Asian 0.086666667
Siberian 0.03
Amerindian 0.986666667
Oceanian 0.333333333
Northeast_African 0.18
Sub-Saharan 0.1

Population,Icelandic
North_Atlantic,51.29166667
Baltic,28.10666667
West_Med,10.81666667
West_Asian,4.288333333
East_Med,1.353333333
Red_Sea,0.74
South_Asian,1.343333333
East_Asian,0.123333333
Siberian,0.488333333
Amerindian,1.123333333
Oceanian,0.19
Northeast_African,0.001666667
Sub-Saharan,0.133333333

Population,Norwegian
North_Atlantic,51.14666667
Baltic,28.61
West_Med,9.906666667
West_Asian,5.596666667
East_Med,1.73
Red_Sea,0.43
South_Asian,0.416666667
East_Asian,0.36
Siberian,0.64
Amerindian,0.91
Oceanian,0.15
Northeast_African,0.01
Sub-Saharan,0.096666667

See basically identical to Norwegians.

[Ayman Vasconic]

You've got to admit they are quite similar.

Did I negate it somewhere? Your neighbour is also similar to you, but still you are two different families, arent't you? Welsh and English are very similar, but still, they are two different entities. You are fighting with non-existing claims.

[Leto]

They same few Poles or Russians wouldn't change anything there - if you mean a race. But if they would blend with other, darker people, then they would also blen well, as then would be something in the middle, and all would be looking the same - then noone would have problem. But whoever you chose, this would be other people, not the original one. I am talking about people, persons, not a walking sacks of meat with some very peculiar hidden specifics only known for people, who will tested from which farming it comes. Everyone has his own provenance, regarding meat in him. The same nations, which are founded by particular people of particular provenance - not by just anyone, even if is similar in his corporal structure.
Poles and Russians are not a Celtic-Norse mix.

[Ayman Vasconic]

Poles and Russians are not a Celtic-Norse mix.

It was an exaple. Situation would be the same.

[Leto]

It was an exaple. Situation would be the same.
What perspective are you arguing from? I seriously doubt that even an Icelandic ethnic nationalist would mind a handful of British and Scandinavian people living in Iceland, learning the language and assimilating culturally.

[Ayman Vasconic]

What perspective are you arguing from?

This what I said - in such and in such case people would be outsiders.


I seriously doubt that even an Icelandic ethnic nationalist would mind a handful of British and Scandinavian people living in Iceland, learning the language and assimilating culturally.

It has nothing to do with it. They could, I don;t mind. But they can;t claim, that such inhabitants would be originals.

[J. Ketch]

Hmm why take one kit when there's an Icelandic Average on Gedmatch. Also I'm not sure why you would say something like that when we all know that everyone nowadays loves the Irish and the Celts and overplays the Irish and Celtic admix everywhere, I'm just playing the devils advocate here nothing else. Weird how you think I'm against Celts or something when people talk like that about other ethnicities and no one bats an eye. You know not everyone is a blatant Celtophile.

Eurogenes K13
Population Irish
North_Atlantic 52.23
Baltic 24.02333333
West_Med 12.39333333
West_Asian 6.32
East_Med 1.41
Red_Sea 0.823333333
South_Asian 1.09
East_Asian 0.086666667
Siberian 0.03
Amerindian 0.986666667
Oceanian 0.333333333
Northeast_African 0.18
Sub-Saharan 0.1

Population,Icelandic
North_Atlantic,51.29166667
Baltic,28.10666667
West_Med,10.81666667
West_Asian,4.288333333
East_Med,1.353333333
Red_Sea,0.74
South_Asian,1.343333333
East_Asian,0.123333333
Siberian,0.488333333
Amerindian,1.123333333
Oceanian,0.19
Northeast_African,0.001666667
Sub-Saharan,0.133333333

Population,Norwegian
North_Atlantic,51.14666667
Baltic,28.61
West_Med,9.906666667
West_Asian,5.596666667
East_Med,1.73
Red_Sea,0.43
South_Asian,0.416666667
East_Asian,0.36
Siberian,0.64
Amerindian,0.91
Oceanian,0.15
Northeast_African,0.01
Sub-Saharan,0.096666667

See basically identical to Norwegians.
Almost identical to my dad's K13

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 51.56
2 Baltic 28.02
3 West_Med 12.6
4 West_Asian 3.06
5 East_Med 2.27
6 South_Asian 1.09
7 Oceanian 0.65
8 Amerindian 0.53
9 Sub-Saharan 0.22

[Morena]

Doesn't this confirm what we already knew from their history? Very interesting.

[Acubens]

Doesn't this confirm what we already knew from their history? Very interesting.

Yup. Norsemen took wives in Ireland and Scotland. That's why ancient Icelanders were a mix of both.

[Grace O'Malley]

Hmm why take one kit when there's an Icelandic Average on Gedmatch. Also I'm not sure why you would say something like that when we all know that everyone nowadays loves the Irish and the Celts and overplays the Irish and Celtic admix everywhere, I'm just playing the devils advocate here nothing else. Weird how you think I'm against Celts or something when people talk like that about other ethnicities and no one bats an eye. You know not everyone is a blatant Celtophile.

Eurogenes K13
Population Irish
North_Atlantic 52.23
Baltic 24.02333333
West_Med 12.39333333
West_Asian 6.32
East_Med 1.41
Red_Sea 0.823333333
South_Asian 1.09
East_Asian 0.086666667
Siberian 0.03
Amerindian 0.986666667
Oceanian 0.333333333
Northeast_African 0.18
Sub-Saharan 0.1

Population,Icelandic
North_Atlantic,51.29166667
Baltic,28.10666667
West_Med,10.81666667
West_Asian,4.288333333
East_Med,1.353333333
Red_Sea,0.74
South_Asian,1.343333333
East_Asian,0.123333333
Siberian,0.488333333
Amerindian,1.123333333
Oceanian,0.19
Northeast_African,0.001666667
Sub-Saharan,0.133333333

Population,Norwegian
North_Atlantic,51.14666667
Baltic,28.61
West_Med,9.906666667
West_Asian,5.596666667
East_Med,1.73
Red_Sea,0.43
South_Asian,0.416666667
East_Asian,0.36
Siberian,0.64
Amerindian,0.91
Oceanian,0.15
Northeast_African,0.01
Sub-Saharan,0.096666667

See basically identical to Norwegians.

I used that kit because it was the only one I had. I don't really think you are against Celts but you have to admit that Icelanders do have significant Irish/Scots ancestry which they themselves acknowledge.

Just adding they are doing further dna studies on this and looking into the Irish/Scots admixture in Iceland.

[Graham]

Was there R-L21?

[Grace O'Malley]

Was there R-L21?

As far as I can make out there are 3?? You can check as here is the list.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2s8356u.png
http://i64.tinypic.com/euhe1y.jpg

For people interested here is the mtdna
http://i65.tinypic.com/27e6h.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/10zb8lv.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/i3xpao.jpg

[Graham]

As far as I can make out there are 3?? You can check as here is the list.



There were 4. One was a drifted Icelander. You can see how they drifted by being a smaller inward population on this table

https://image.ibb.co/fyfAco/image.png

[Grace O'Malley]

There were 4. One was a drifted Icelander. You can see how they drifted by being a smaller inward population on this table

https://image.ibb.co/fyfAco/image.png

Cool.

[Aren]

I used that kit because it was the only one I had. I don't really think you are against Celts but you have to admit that Icelanders do have significant Irish/Scots ancestry which they themselves acknowledge.

Just adding they are doing further dna studies on this and looking into the Irish/Scots admixture in Iceland.

They acknowledge Icelanders have drifted quite significantly, but that they still can be modeled as 70% Norse, not 50/50 as some suggested. And I think it's even higher of the Norse component if they use pre-viking era genomes from Ireland and Scotland.
Either way, the Celtic input is overestimated and talked about a lot cause many Westerners have an enormous Celtophilia.

[Profileid]

Here is a GEDmatch kit of a native from Iceland: T661186



k13 is really similar to mine, even has south asian

[Dominicanese]

k13 is really similar to mine, even has south asian

that means u r made for strength

[Grace O'Malley]

They acknowledge Icelanders have drifted quite significantly, but that they still can be modeled as 70% Norse, not 50/50 as some suggested. And I think it's even higher of the Norse component if they use pre-viking era genomes from Ireland and Scotland.
Either way, the Celtic input is overestimated and talked about a lot cause many Westerners have an enormous Celtophilia.

I think the 50/50 is from the original population. That is what the study says. Overtime the Norse has increased which is understandable as over the last centuries there has been more Scandinavians going to Iceland. Also Iceland has lost a lot of her population at certain times which can increase things like drift.

Not sure what "enormous Celtophilia" you are talking about? I doubt they have this in Scandinavia and it definitely wouldn't influence the scientific community.

[Grace O'Malley]

k13 is really similar to mine, even has south asian

Yes that particular Icelander is similar to most northwest Euros. They all are quite close genetically anyway.

[Profileid]

Yes that particular Icelander is similar to most northwest Euros. They all are quite close genetically anyway.

There doesn't seem to be much distance between even Irish and Dutch on most oracles I've looked at. I would guess Icelanders would be more distant but it's like almost 2 distances.

[Grace O'Malley]

There doesn't seem to be much distance between even Irish and Dutch on most oracles I've looked at. I would guess Icelanders would be more distant but it's like almost 2 distances.

One of the few calculators that include Icelanders is the MDLP K16. This is the Icelander's result on that so it does look pretty good.

# Population Percent
1 NorthEastEuropean 30
2 Neolithic 27.43
3 Steppe 25.86
4 Caucasian 15.48
5 Indian 1.09
6 NorthAfrican 0.14

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Norwegian (Norwegia) 2.1
2 Icelandic (Iceland) 2.29
3 Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) 2.44
4 Scottish (Argyll_bute) 2.93
5 Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) 4.42
6 English (Cornwall) 4.53
7 Swede (Sweden) 4.56
8 Irish (Ulster) 4.96
9 Irish (Connacht) 4.97
10 Irish (Munster) 5.1
11 Irish (Cork_Kerry) 5.18
12 Scottish (Highlands) 5.18
13 English (Kent) 5.3
14 Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) 5.59
15 Irish (Leinster) 5.68
16 English (England) 5.86
17 Dutch (Netherlands) 5.9
18 Scottish (Borders) 5.93
19 Scottish (Grampian) 6.02
20 Scottish (Fife) 6.05

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 68.6% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 31.4% Scottish (Argyll_bute) @ 1.82
2 61.3% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 38.7% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) @ 1.84
3 88.7% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 11.3% Lithuanian (Lithuania) @ 1.89
4 88.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 11.8% Latvian_Dobele (Dobele) @ 1.93
5 64.1% Icelandic (Iceland) + 35.9% Scottish (Argyll_bute) @ 1.93
6 84.5% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 15.5% English (Cornwall) @ 1.96
7 55% Icelandic (Iceland) + 45% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) @ 1.96
8 87.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 12.7% Belarusian (Belarus) @ 1.97
9 88.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 11.1% Latvian (Latvia) @ 1.97
10 89.3% Icelandic (Iceland) + 10.7% German (Germany) @ 1.98
11 87.8% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 12.2% Irish (Cork_Kerry) @ 1.99
12 89.4% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 10.6% Estonian (Estonia) @ 2
13 89.8% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 10.2% English (England) @ 2
14 78% Icelandic (Iceland) + 22% Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) @ 2
15 78.6% Icelandic (Iceland) + 21.4% English (Cornwall) @ 2.01
16 88.4% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 11.6% Irish (Connacht) @ 2.01
17 98.1% Icelandic (Iceland) + 1.9% Georgian (Tbilisi) @ 2.01
18 80.6% Icelandic (Iceland) + 19.4% Irish (Connacht) @ 2.01
19 83.6% Icelandic (Iceland) + 16.4% Dutch (Netherlands) @ 2.02
20 98.1% Icelandic (Iceland) + 1.9% Turk (Trabzon) @ 2.02


My result to compare.

# Population Percent
1 Neolithic 28.78
2 NorthEastEuropean 28.47
3 Steppe 24.76
4 Caucasian 17.25
5 Indian 0.58
6 Amerindian 0.16

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) 2.8
2 Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) 3.08
3 Irish (Connacht) 3.15
4 English (Cornwall) 3.17
5 Scottish (Argyll_bute) 3.33
6 Scottish (Highlands) 3.43
7 English (Kent) 3.52
8 Irish (Ulster) 3.59
9 Irish (Munster) 3.64
10 Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) 3.69
11 Norwegian (Norwegia) 3.71
12 Irish (Cork_Kerry) 3.78
13 Irish (Leinster) 4.17
14 Scottish (Grampian) 4.19
15 English (England) 4.2
16 Scottish (Fife) 4.23
17 Icelandic (Iceland) 4.28
18 Scottish (Borders) 4.3
19 French (WestFrance) 4.35
20 Dutch (Netherlands) 4.38

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 75.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 24.8% German (Germany) @ 2.02
2 69.5% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 30.5% German (Germany) @ 2.05
3 65.2% Icelandic (Iceland) + 34.8% German (Germany) @ 2.08
4 78.8% English (Kent) + 21.2% Belarusian (Belarus) @ 2.11
5 82.4% English (Kent) + 17.6% Lithuanian (Lithuania) @ 2.14
6 83.2% English (Kent) + 16.8% Russians-West (WestRussian) @ 2.16
7 63.6% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 36.4% Dutch (Netherlands) @ 2.17
8 86% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 14% Italian (Bergamo) @ 2.21
9 85% English (Kent) + 15% Latvian_Cesis (Cesis) @ 2.22
10 72.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 27.1% German_Lipsian ((Saxony)) @ 2.24
11 80.1% English (Kent) + 19.9% Pole (Poland) @ 2.24
12 57.2% Irish (Connacht) + 42.8% Norwegian (Norwegia) @ 2.25
13 55.7% Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) + 44.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) @ 2.26
14 86.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 13.1% Serbian (Serbia) @ 2.26
15 52.2% English (Kent) + 47.8% Norwegian (Norwegia) @ 2.28
16 70.2% Norwegian (Norwegia) + 29.8% French (France) @ 2.29
17 74.2% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 25.8% German (Germany) @ 2.29
18 89.8% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 10.2% Bulgarian (Bulgaria) @ 2.3
19 85.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 14.1% Serbian (Bosnia-Herzegovina) @ 2.31
20 58.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 41.5% Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) @ 2.31

What do you get on the MDLP K16 Profileid?

[Profileid]

One of the few calculators that include Icelanders is the MDLP K16. This is the Icelander's result on that so it does look pretty good.



What do you get on the MDLP K16 Profileid?

It even gets the areas in Scotland with higher Viking influence.
My MDLP K16. This calc always gives me really Celtic results for whatever reason.

# Population Percent
1 Neolithic 27.14
2 NorthEastEuropean 26.45
3 Steppe 25.57
4 Caucasian 17.59
5 Indian 1.27
6 Australian 0.78
7 SouthEastAsian 0.6
8 Oceanic 0.4
9 NorthAfrican 0.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish (Munster) 2.73
2 Irish (Cork_Kerry) 2.8
3 Irish (Connacht) 2.8
4 Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) 2.96
5 Scottish (Argyll_bute) 2.99
6 Scottish (Highlands) 3.04
7 English (Cornwall) 3.12
8 Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) 3.36
9 English (England) 3.38
10 Irish (Ulster) 3.42
11 Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) 3.52
12 Irish (Leinster) 3.57
13 Scottish (Grampian) 3.59
14 Scottish (Fife) 3.66
15 Dutch (Netherlands) 4.26
16 English (Kent) 4.27
17 French (WestFrance) 4.39
18 Scottish (Borders) 4.4
19 Norwegian (Norwegia) 4.89
20 Icelandic (Iceland) 5.27

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 94.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 5.7% Turk (Trabzon) @ 1.66
2 94% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6% Georgian (Megrelia) @ 1.66
3 93.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.1% Abkhazian (Gudauta) @ 1.7
4 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Abkhazian_Lykhny (Lykhny) @ 1.73
5 93.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.1% Georgians (Zugdidi) @ 1.73
6 93.8% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.2% Georgian (Georgia) @ 1.74
7 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Adygei (Adygea) @ 1.75
8 94% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6% Abhkasian (Abkhasia) @ 1.76
9 93.8% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.2% Georgian_Abkhazia (Abkhazia) @ 1.79
10 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Balkar (Kabardino-Balkaria) @ 1.8
11 94.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 5.8% Armenian (Armenia) @ 1.8
12 93.7% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.3% Adjar (Adjaria) @ 1.8
13 93.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.7% Ossetian (North_Ossetia) @ 1.8
14 93.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.8% Kumyk (Dagestan) @ 1.82
15 95.6% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 4.4% Turk (Trabzon) @ 1.83
16 86.9% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 13.1% Macedonian (Macedonia) @ 1.83
17 92.8% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 7.2% Greek (Greece) @ 1.83
18 88% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 12% Bulgarian (Bulgaria) @ 1.85
19 90.6% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 9.4% Greek (Thessaloniki) @ 1.85
20 93.6% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.4% Chechen (Chechnya) @ 1.85

[Peterski]

https://www.mupload.nl/img/0ok54bzz6ko.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/7oipi3.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/wx0doa8doo7k.png

[Myanthropologies]

You are contradicting yourself because both studies used ADMIXTURE. You can't nitpick like that.

Well technically the Icelandic study uses both dstats and admixture. However, the dstats were very messy.

[Graham]

Not sure what "enormous Celtophilia" you are talking about?

Outside Ireland, Wales & Scotland it isn't really a thing and we are big on vikings too.

[TEUTORIGOS]

It even gets the areas in Scotland with higher Viking influence.
My MDLP K16. This calc always gives me really Celtic results for whatever reason.

# Population Percent
1 Neolithic 27.14
2 NorthEastEuropean 26.45
3 Steppe 25.57
4 Caucasian 17.59
5 Indian 1.27
6 Australian 0.78
7 SouthEastAsian 0.6
8 Oceanic 0.4
9 NorthAfrican 0.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Irish (Munster) 2.73
2 Irish (Cork_Kerry) 2.8
3 Irish (Connacht) 2.8
4 Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) 2.96
5 Scottish (Argyll_bute) 2.99
6 Scottish (Highlands) 3.04
7 English (Cornwall) 3.12
8 Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) 3.36
9 English (England) 3.38
10 Irish (Ulster) 3.42
11 Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) 3.52
12 Irish (Leinster) 3.57
13 Scottish (Grampian) 3.59
14 Scottish (Fife) 3.66
15 Dutch (Netherlands) 4.26
16 English (Kent) 4.27
17 French (WestFrance) 4.39
18 Scottish (Borders) 4.4
19 Norwegian (Norwegia) 4.89
20 Icelandic (Iceland) 5.27

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 94.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 5.7% Turk (Trabzon) @ 1.66
2 94% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6% Georgian (Megrelia) @ 1.66
3 93.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.1% Abkhazian (Gudauta) @ 1.7
4 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Abkhazian_Lykhny (Lykhny) @ 1.73
5 93.9% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.1% Georgians (Zugdidi) @ 1.73
6 93.8% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.2% Georgian (Georgia) @ 1.74
7 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Adygei (Adygea) @ 1.75
8 94% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6% Abhkasian (Abkhasia) @ 1.76
9 93.8% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.2% Georgian_Abkhazia (Abkhazia) @ 1.79
10 93.5% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.5% Balkar (Kabardino-Balkaria) @ 1.8
11 94.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 5.8% Armenian (Armenia) @ 1.8
12 93.7% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.3% Adjar (Adjaria) @ 1.8
13 93.3% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.7% Ossetian (North_Ossetia) @ 1.8
14 93.2% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.8% Kumyk (Dagestan) @ 1.82
15 95.6% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 4.4% Turk (Trabzon) @ 1.83
16 86.9% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 13.1% Macedonian (Macedonia) @ 1.83
17 92.8% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 7.2% Greek (Greece) @ 1.83
18 88% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 12% Bulgarian (Bulgaria) @ 1.85
19 90.6% Scottish (Argyll_bute) + 9.4% Greek (Thessaloniki) @ 1.85
20 93.6% Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) + 6.4% Chechen (Chechnya) @ 1.85

Me too , I think the best current technology is AncestryDNA genetic communities Gedmatch has not seemed to have evolved. Genetic communities says I am Ulster Irish but MDLP 16 says this (Ancestrydna says my Norse admix is about 6%) :

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Neolithic 29.32
2 Steppe 25.37
3 NorthEastEuropean 25.36
4 Caucasian 16.5
5 Indian 2.12
6 Oceanic 0.94
7 Ancestor 0.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 English (Cornwall) 2.07
2 Irish (Cork_Kerry) 2.35
3 Irish (Connacht) 2.58
4 Irish (Ulster) 2.65
5 English (Kent) 2.81
6 Irish (Leinster) 2.93
7 Scottish (Highlands) 2.94
8 Scottish (Grampian) 3.1
9 English (England) 3.1
10 Shetlandic (Shetland_Islands) 3.15
11 Irish (Munster) 3.26
12 French (WestFrance) 3.54
13 Scottish (Fife) 3.72
14 Scottish (Dumfries_Galloway) 3.81
15 Scottish (Argyll_bute) 3.83
16 Orcadian (Orkney_Islands) 4
17 Scottish (Borders) 4.03
18 French (France) 5.63
19 Dutch (Netherlands) 5.77
20 Norwegian (Norwegia) 5.93

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 98.4% English (Cornwall) + 1.6% Chechen (Chechnya) @ 1.94
2 98.7% English (Cornwall) + 1.3% Georgian (Tbilisi) @ 1.94
3 98.5% English (Cornwall) + 1.5% Adygei (Adygea) @ 1.95
4 98.5% English (Cornwall) + 1.5% Abkhazian_Lykhny (Lykhny) @ 1.95
5 98.6% English (Cornwall) + 1.4% Georgian (Megrelia) @ 1.95
6 98.5% English (Cornwall) + 1.5% Balkar (Kabardino-Balkaria) @ 1.95
7 98.7% English (Cornwall) + 1.3% Abkhazian (Gudauta) @ 1.96
8 98.6% English (Cornwall) + 1.4% Georgian (Kakheti) @ 1.96
9 98.2% English (Cornwall) + 1.8% Ava (Dagestan_Khunzakh) @ 1.96
10 98.7% English (Cornwall) + 1.3% Georgians (Zugdidi) @ 1.96
11 98.7% English (Cornwall) + 1.3% Georgian (Georgia) @ 1.96
12 98.6% English (Cornwall) + 1.4% Georgian_Abkhazia (Abkhazia) @ 1.96
13 98.7% English (Cornwall) + 1.3% Abhkasian (Abkhasia) @ 1.97
14 98.3% English (Cornwall) + 1.7% Tabasaran (Dagestan) @ 1.97
15 98.6% English (Cornwall) + 1.4% Kumyk (Dagestan) @ 1.97
16 98.4% English (Cornwall) + 1.6% Lezgin (Dagestan) @ 1.97
17 98.6% English (Cornwall) + 1.4% Ossetian (North_Ossetia) @ 1.97
18 98.9% English (Cornwall) + 1.1% Turk (Trabzon) @ 1.97
19 98.4% English (Cornwall) + 1.6% Lak (Dagestan) @ 1.98


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELH0ivexKA

[Aren]

Outside Ireland, Wales & Scotland it isn't really a thing and we are big on vikings too.

Really? Yet there are loads of Americans and other New Worlder who identify much more with their Irish ancestry than say English or Dutch or French. There are people who are 1/8 or 1/16th Irish and identify with it over their predominant heritage. In fact of all the White Americans it seems like the Irish(and also Italians and Jews) are the only ones who are "allowed" to be proud of their heritage, everything else especially the English heritage is looked over and frowned upon even.
Self reported English Americans were almost 50 million in the 1980 census, and they dropped to 25 million by the 2000 census...
This has spread ofc via Holloywood to Western Europe aswell. The evil English and the happy, drunk and kind Irish/Scots etc.

[Grace O'Malley]

Really? Yet there are loads of Americans and other New Worlder who identify much more with their Irish ancestry than say English or Dutch or French. There are people who are 1/8 or 1/16th Irish and identify with it over their predominant heritage. In fact of all the White Americans it seems like the Irish(and also Italians and Jews) are the only ones who are "allowed" to be proud of their heritage, everything else especially the English heritage is looked over and frowned upon even.
Self reported English Americans were almost 50 million in the 1980 census, and they dropped to 25 million by the 2000 census...
This has spread ofc via Holloywood to Western Europe aswell. The evil English and the happy, drunk and kind Irish/Scots etc.

Wow Aren. Showing your true colours here.


The evil English and the happy, drunk and kind Irish/Scots etc.

[Peterski]

I thought modern day Icelandic people are a mixture of Vikings and Irish slaves.

Yes, Scandinavian proto-incels enslaved Irish women:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?247694-Was-the-Viking-Age-the-First-Incel-Rebellion

[Grace O'Malley]

Yes, Scandinavian proto-incels enslaved Irish women:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?247694-Was-the-Viking-Age-the-First-Incel-Rebellion

Well to be fair some of them were Norse-Gaels who were already mixed. It wasn't all down to slavery although some of it was of course. A lot of Norse-Gaels or Gall Gaels went to Iceland from the Irish and Scottish Viking areas.

[Myanthropologies]

I'm not a racist but I think you are being very obtuse. The original Icelanders were a mix of Gaels i.e. Irish and Scots and Scandinavians. If present day Scandinavians and Gaels settle there how is that different than the original population? That's what Leto was saying. Even today Icelanders will be similar to Norwegians, Danes and Irish, Scots. As I've pointed out I have Icelandic cousins so there is obviously still a connection. I also have very strong matches to Icelandic people on the Global 25.

It is not the same as Poles or some other European group migrating to Iceland. How can people that are very genetically similar alter the Icelandic genepool like someone from a less similar group? You're not making any sense.

It IS different than the population of modern Icelandic people because modern Icelandic people are genetically different from their source populations, who are genetically closer to Gaelic and Norse populations. That's the whole point of this study. Icelandic people have went through years of unique genetic shift, and have their own unique gene pool. This is what Arsen was meaning when he said ADMIXTURE isn't everything. Having Irish and Scandinavian immigrants would certainly alter that (not that gene pool should even matter, really. Humans have been mixing since they left Africa).

[Myanthropologies]

Also fun fact, some of the ancient samples in the study who were a mixture of Gaelic and Norse were migrants (the ones labeled as such). They were able to assess they were migrants from the significant levels of strontium in their teeth, which exceeds the amount of what would have been possible in Iceland's environment. This means that the same mixing took place outside of Iceland, too, possibly in Ireland is my guess.

[Graham]

Really? Yet there are loads of Americans and other New Worlder who identify much more with their Irish ancestry than say English or Dutch or French. There are people who are 1/8 or 1/16th Irish and identify with it over their predominant heritage. In fact of all the White Americans it seems like the Irish(and also Italians and Jews) are the only ones who are "allowed" to be proud of their heritage, everything else especially the English heritage is looked over and frowned upon even.
Self reported English Americans were almost 50 million in the 1980 census, and they dropped to 25 million by the 2000 census...
This has spread ofc via Holloywood to Western Europe aswell. The evil English and the happy, drunk and kind Irish/Scots etc.

This is more of a modern thing than the topic of Celts and Vikings.

The oldstock Americans who were once English before they gained Independence for America. The Irish came in the mid 19th century as an immigrant group that stood out a bit more. I don't think it is frowned upon, but lost the link. Americans when they talk Ireland have this 19th century, early 20th century view rather than much earlier or the Ireland of today.

I can't speak for others but we celebrate the vikings in our history also.

[Graham]

Btw they say Gaels, but many would have been Picts and the odd Briton. :P just to be awkward.

[Aren]

Wow Aren. Showing your true colours here.

Excuse me? I'm just saying what some of the Irish stereotypes are according to the US. You've ever seen "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"? These are not my actual opinions of the Irish obviously.
What do you have against me?

[Peterski]

Self reported English Americans were almost 50 million in the 1980 census

This is true, but also the Irish were 40 million (including 10 million fully Irish):

https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/pc80-s1-10/tab02.pdf

[Gwydion]

Btw they say Gaels, but many would have been Picts and the odd Briton. :P just to be awkward.

Yea probably gets fuzzy in the Western Isles where the Norse-Gael ethnogenesis occurred because, at least based on Ptolmey's tribal names and the Brythonic tradition of the Brythonic unity of the whole island of Britain, the Hebrides seem to have once been Brythonic before being Gaelicized sometime during Late Antiquity. So likely it would have been a stew of Brittono/Pictish-Norse-Gaels.

[Aren]

This is true, but also the Irish were 40 million (including 10 million fully Irish):

https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/pc80-s1-10/tab02.pdf

English Ancetry was probably already at that time heavily underreported. I would say there are much more fully English, or close to fully English Americans today than fully German or Irish. Especially in the South and Colorado/Nevada/Utah area.

[Leto]

English Ancetry was probably already at that time heavily underreported. I would say there are much more fully English, or close to fully English Americans today than fully German or Irish. Especially in the South and Colorado/Nevada/Utah area.
Many Southerners and New Englanders identify as American but they are largely of British descent. Those people are basically "ethnic Americans", their families have been in North America for 300-400 years.

[TEUTORIGOS]

Many Southerners and New Englanders identify as American but they are largely of British descent. Those people are basically "ethnic Americans", their families have been in North America for 300-400 years.

No duh !basically all the founding fathers of America were British we just decided we did not want to pay taxes to King George.

[Grace O'Malley]

Excuse me? I'm just saying what some of the Irish stereotypes are according to the US. You've ever seen "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"? These are not my actual opinions of the Irish obviously.
What do you have against me?

Nothing against you Aren. Yes I realise you were only repeating some stereotypes. :)

[Profileid]

This is true, but also the Irish were 40 million (including 10 million fully Irish):

https://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/files/pc80-s1-10/tab02.pdf

The fully Irish number is probably bullshit. Let alone a lot of these people have ancestors from Northern Ireland.
I myself have ones from Ulster and Cork.

[Dominicanese]

The fully Irish number is probably bullshit. Let alone a lot of these people have ancestors from Northern Ireland.
I myself have ones from Ulster and Cork.

ulster = appalachians

cork = white jamaicans

[Peterski]

Icelandic MyHeritage results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSQrlB38WY

https://i.imgur.com/dq3f9n3.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSQrlB38WY

[J. Ketch]

Icelandic MyHeritage results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSQrlB38WY

https://i.imgur.com/dq3f9n3.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mSQrlB38WY
Separating Nordic from Insular Celtic ancestry might be the one thing MyHeritage is good for, that is probably a close approximation of her Medieval ancestral makeup.

I wonder how accurate it is for my mother therefore, who gets 46% each for I/S/W and Scandinavian, with no English.

[Grace O'Malley]

Separating Nordic from Insular Celtic ancestry might be the one thing MyHeritage is good for, that is probably a close approximation of her Medieval ancestral makeup.

I wonder how accurate it is for my mother therefore, who gets 46% each for I/S/W and Scandinavian, with no English.

I don't think MyHeritage is very good from quite a few results I've seen. I wish they'd do an update.

[Matxe92]

Look at Benedikt Magnusson Icelandic powerlifter. I thought he was like Irish before i saw his name.

The celtic influence is real for sure.

[Imperator Biff]

Interesting to read this thread now that we know Irish have very little Norse dna.

[PaleoEuropean]

Here is a GEDmatch kit of a native from Iceland: T661186

There are Celtic toponyms in Iceland - do you think they predate Viking colonization or date back to the same period? When Pytheas of Massalia visited Scotland around 330 BC, its inhabitants (Picts or other Celts) informed him about a land in the north, that he later called Thule. That was most probably Iceland, implying that Celts had discovered Iceland long before Vikings (if Thule was Iceland).

In 56 BC Roman fleet of Julius Caesar fought a naval battle against Celtic fleet near the southern coast of what later became Bretagne (in 56 BC that part of Bretagne was inhabited by a tribe known as the Weneted). In his "Gallic Wars", Caesar left a unique description of Celtic ships:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/dbg3.htm

"(...) For their ships were built and equipped after this manner. The keels were somewhat flatter than those of our ships, whereby they could more easily encounter the shallows and the ebbing of the tide: the prows were raised very high, and, in like manner the sterns were adapted to the force of the waves and storms [which they were formed to sustain]. The ships were built wholly of oak, and designed to endure any force and violence whatever; the benches which were made of planks a foot in breadth, were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather. These [were used] either through their want of canvas and their ignorance of its application, or for this reason, which is more probable, that they thought that such storms of the ocean, and such violent gales of wind could not be resisted by sails, nor ships of such great burden be conveniently enough managed by them. The encounter of our fleet with these ships' was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone, and the plying of the oars; other things, considering the nature of the place [and] the violence of the storms, were more suitable and better adapted on their side; for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them; and for the same reason they were less readily locked in by rocks. To this was added, that whenever a storm began to rage and they ran before the wind, they both could weather the storm more easily and heave to securely in the shallows, and when left by the tide feared nothing from rocks and shelves: the risk of all which things was much to be dreaded by our ships. (...)"

This description shows that Ancient Celts were good seafarers and that their ships were well-adapted to conditions in northern seas. The naval battle in 56 BC took place in the Quiberon Bay, between 100 Roman galleys and 220 Celtic ships:

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

Rome won that one thanks to using a clever fighting technique and exploiting weak points of the enemy:

"(...) The bay has seen several important naval battles. The first recorded in history was the Battle of Morbihan in 56 BCE, between the Romans led by Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus and the local Veneti [Weneted] tribe. The Romans had struggled to overcome the Veneti, who had coastal fortresses that could easily be evacuated by their powerful navy. Eventually the Romans built galleys and met the Veneti sailing fleet in Quiberon Bay. Despite being outnumbered 220 to 100 by a fleet of heavier ships, the Romans used hooks on long poles to shred the halyards holding up the leather sails of the Veneti, leaving the Veneti fleet dead in the water (...)"

Plutarch (ca. 40 - 120 AD) wrote also about another island located far to the west of Britain, bearing a name similar to the name of titan Kronos from Greek mythology. The Sea of Kronos is how later waters between Iceland and Greenland were referred too. So that could be Greenland (Greenland is of course a name invented much later, probably by Eric the Red, to attract settlers).

Sagas (including the Saga of Eric the Red) mention the land of "Hvitramannaland" ("White Man's Land", Latin: "Albania") also known as "Írland it Mikla" ("Great Ireland", Latin: "Hibernia Maior") - located supposedly about six-day sail west from Ireland, and also not far away from Vínland (Vineland). Unless it was fictional, it could refer to some Celtic settlement existing in - perhaps - Greenland.

In year 825, an Irish monk named Dicuil wrote "Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae", in which we can find a detailed description of the Faroe Islands, and a claim that hermit monks from Ireland had lived in those islands for 100 years before the "Northmen pirates" took them. He also describes the island of Thule (Iceland), beyond the Faroes, and writes that Irish hermit monks had been staying on Thule during the summer months for 30 years (since around 795 - about one century before first Vikings settled in Iceland). But were there also settlers, or just monks? And if just monks, then why?

The "Book of Settlements" (one of most important sources for early history of Iceland, alongside the "Book of Icelanders") claims that first Viking settlers in Iceland found traces of an earlier people, a Christian one, such as bells and crooks. Perhaps those were remains of hermitages of Irish monks.

"The Voyage of Saint Brendan the Navigator", a story first recorded around year 900 AD, indicates that certain Brendan (born in 484 AD in Kerry county, Ireland) reached Iceland, Greenland, the island of Jan Mayen in the Arctic Ocean, and maybe even the coast of America.

The Voyage of Saint Brendan is unique because it was recorded in 900 AD, before Viking travels to America took place. But there are more legends about Celtic travellers reaching America, such as this Welsh story about Madog ab Owain Gwynedd, who supposedly came to America in 1170:

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

It is claimed that after 400 AD, when climate in the region started to gradually get warmer, Pictish and other Celtic sailors regularly visited Iceland, gathering exotic resources such as eiderdown, and exporting them to the Mediterranean world. For sea travels Picts and Britons were using wooden ships, while Irish people were using currachs, covered by bovine skins. Such ships could transport up to 20 people, they were propelled by sails and oars.

"People of the West" (Vestmenn), as they were later called by Norsemen, probably visited Iceland already before 400 AD - findings of coins from that period may indicate this. On the other hand, coins produced long before 400 AD could get there long after that date too.

But a more controversial issue is whether Celts actually established some settlements there or not (apart from some hermitages of monks). Farley Mowat in one of his books claimed that Eric the Red found an Irish house in Greenland.

Celts contributed with some advancements in shipbuilding techniques in Northern Europe (check for example Ellmers, "Celtic plank boats and ships 500 BC - AD 1000" and Casson, "Ships and seamanship in the ancient world").

A small archipelago of Vestmannaeyjar (near Iceland) is named so after Insular Celts, but the origins of this name are unclear. One theory is that it is relatively recent and comes from Celtic slaves who escaped from Viking captivity and settled there. So this is probably not a sign of Celtic settlement predating Viking settlement. There are some other Celtic toponyms in Iceland as well (for example Írafell, Írafellsbunga, Kjaransvík, etc.).

My cousin

https://i.imgur.com/woK79Vr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/T313EXY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/n9s0fA6.jpg