Why do Irish plot so closely on GEDMatch with Scandinavians? is it...

[Sikeliot]

Viking input? Or is it that the original population of Ireland descends from a Nordic population -- Bell Beaker or something -- close to modern Scandinavians?

I think it might be both, as I think some people here like Septentrion are in huge denial of a large Germanic input in Ireland both from Norse Vikings and indirectly from English and Scottish settlers.

[J. Ketch]

It has to be mostly Bronze Age/Bell Beaker similarity. Septentrion is right in that the relatively low Germanic Y-dna of the Irish doesn't lie.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

Bell Beakers.

[Grace O'Malley]

It has to be mostly Bronze Age/Bell Beaker similarity. Septentrion is right in that the relatively low Germanic Y-dna of the Irish doesn't lie.

It's an odd thing really. Irish plot close to Scandinavians but there were Vikings in Ireland so I find it dubious they haven't left a genetic footprint. They intermarried with a lot of Irish families. In many instances you would be aware that many Irish plot closer to Scandinavians than English so what is causing that?

I go around in circles on this but what should be interesting is when that paper by Lara Cassidy is published as there are genomes from every period in Irish history. That will be a very informative paper.

[Sikeliot]

It's an odd thing really. Irish plot close to Scandinavians but there were Vikings in Ireland so I find it dubious they haven't left a genetic footprint. They intermarried with a lot of Irish families. In many instances you would be aware that many Irish plot closer to Scandinavians than English so what is causing that?

I go around in circles on this but what should be interesting is when that paper by Lara Cassidy is published as there are genomes from every period in Irish history. That will be a very informative paper.

The question becomes why is it not reflected in y-dna but is reflected autosomally? I think the autosomal record is more informative and when the two disagree, discard y-dna.

And as I mentioned I find it is people from western Ireland who have the greatest Scandinavian shift. I don't necessarily think just because Vikings started in eastern Ireland that their descendants all stayed there.

[J. Ketch]

It's an odd thing really. Irish plot close to Scandinavians but there were Vikings in Ireland so I find it dubious they haven't left a genetic footprint. They intermarried with a lot of Irish families. In many instances you would be aware that many Irish plot closer to Scandinavians than English so what is causing that?

I go around in circles on this but what should be interesting is when that paper by Lara Cassidy is published as there are genomes from every period in Irish history. That will be a very informative paper.
As I said in another thread, I think Irish plot closer to Scandinavians because they've had very little mixing with Continental populations to dilute their Nordic like Bronze Age ancestry. The English ought to be closer to Scandinavians with their higher Germanic y-dna, so the population the Anglo-Saxons conquered and mixed with must have been significantly more Southern/Gallic like than the Irish, and I think that's reflected in the position of England IA in the Germanic vs Celtic PCA.

[Grace O'Malley]

As I said in another thread, I think Irish plot closer to Scandinavians because they've had very little mixing with Continental populations to dilute their Nordic like Bronze Age ancestry. The English ought to be closer to Scandinavians with their higher Germanic y-dna, so the population the Anglo-Saxons conquered and mixed with must have been significantly more Southern/Gallic like than the Irish, and I think that's reflected in the position of England IA in the Germanic vs Celtic PCA.

Anything is possible but looking at ancient genomes like Hinxton shows them to not be much different than the Irish. Also Britain got the same Bell Beakers as the Irish so not sure what populations would make them plot a bit more south than the Irish and Scots. Irish and Scots plot closely and English also but just a smidgen more south. If the British got more Anglo-Saxon and the Irish have remained the same since Bell Beaker days the only explanation is that all those populations including the later Anglo-Saxons were always similar autosomally anyway.

[Peterski]

It's an odd thing really. Irish plot close to Scandinavians but there were Vikings in Ireland so I find it dubious they haven't left a genetic footprint. They intermarried with a lot of Irish families. In many instances you would be aware that many Irish plot closer to Scandinavians than English so what is causing that?

I go around in circles on this but what should be interesting is when that paper by Lara Cassidy is published as there are genomes from every period in Irish history. That will be a very informative paper.

Yes but wasn't Early Bronze Age Irish sample (Rathlin) even closer to Scandinavians than modern Irish? Quite ironic that before the Vikings the Irish were genetically even closer to Scandinavians than after the Vikings, LOL. Genetic drift has been moving them apart over time.

But I agree that some Viking admixture (no more than 10% of overall ancestry I guess) is legit.

[J. Ketch]

Anything is possible but looking at ancient genomes like Hinxton shows them to not be much different than the Irish. Also Britain got the same Bell Beakers as the Irish so not sure what populations would make them plot a bit more south than the Irish and Scots. Irish and Scots plot closely and English also but just a smidgen more south. If the British got more Anglo-Saxon and the Irish have remained the same since Bell Beaker days the only explanation is that all those populations including the later Anglo-Saxons were always similar autosomally anyway.
Obviously they're all relatively similar, but I'm trying to find reasons for the small differences that exist, and explain why the y-dna and autosomal picture are not contradictory. The Hinxton samples are more Southern/Gallic shifted than both modern Irish and Bell Beakers. (Hinxton in purple)
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-optx810q0Ww/W6wo_3TtzTI/AAAAAAAAHP0/SBpyoC044r8yEr7xR_E7XidiMxUhIRABACLcBGAs/s1600/Prehistoric_Britain_%2526_Ireland_PCA.png

The Southern tribes of Britain at the time of Caesar were considered Belgae, and he differentiated them from the native Britons of the 'interior' of the country.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Map_Gallia_in_1st_Century_BC.jpg

The spread of Hallstatt culture
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png

I thought it was well known that there was a significant Continental Celtic incursion into Britain in the Iron Age. Add to that centuries of immigration from all over the Roman Empire, as well as French and Flemish influence in England since 1066, and it's understandable why Iron Age Britons and even modern English are more genetically southern and further from Scandinavians than the long isolated Irish, despite being more Germanic by ancestry. You just have to look at the Cornish, arguably the most 'Celtic' people in Britain and easily the most Southern shifted, they're autosomally close to Bretons. I think even the English are closer to the Irish than the Cornish. Perhaps they are the closest thing to what Southern Britons looked like before they were conquered by Saxons.

[Peterski]

As I said in another thread, I think Irish plot closer to Scandinavians because they've had very little mixing with Continental populations to dilute their Nordic like Bronze Age ancestry.

Yes, but even in the absence of 3rd party admixtures, genetic drift is slowly having an impact.

So Bronze Age Irish could actually be closer to Scandinavians than modern (post-Viking Age) Irish are. Because of drift (in both populations) over time. As well as due to some mixing with 3rd parties (such as Finno-Ugric admixture in Scandinavia).

[Peterski]

The Irish do have Viking admixture, but it is likely not more than 10% of their overall autosomal composition.

If a White American with 5% of Native American admixture identified as Pocahontas, most of you would find it odd.

But enthusiastic discussions about 5% Visigothic impact in Spain or Viking impact in Ireland are considered normal.

=====

PS:

I'm just exposing TA hipocrisy, I actually think that 5% is a large enough amount to cherish such heritage. But any heritage with 5% is non-negligible (including Pocahontas - so no surprise that the number of Native Americans has been skyrocketing lately):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?264184-The-country-of-Patawomeck-Indians-and-self-identified-Germans

https://i.imgur.com/Zr9vgeX.png

Some badass identities like Sioux, Apache or Viking are simply popular and won't be submerged.

[Sikeliot]

As I said in another thread, I think Irish plot closer to Scandinavians because they've had very little mixing with Continental populations to dilute their Nordic like Bronze Age ancestry. The English ought to be closer to Scandinavians with their higher Germanic y-dna, so the population the Anglo-Saxons conquered and mixed with must have been significantly more Southern/Gallic like than the Irish, and I think that's reflected in the position of England IA in the Germanic vs Celtic PCA.

The Irish have been significantly admixed with both English and Scots though, according to the Insular Celtic paper, no less than an average of 20% in any part of Ireland, with it approaching 40% in the southeast.

[Peterski]

The Irish have been significantly admixed with both English and Scots though, according to the Insular Celtic paper, no less than an average of 20% in any part of Ireland, with it approaching 40% in the southeast.

This is based on ADMIXTURE so it can be just ancient similarity.

As for Scotland - remember that Gaelic is an originally Irish language. And Scotland is a kingdom established by Gaels (who originally came from Ireland). There were Irish migrations not only to Scotland but also Wales and all of western coastline regions of Great Britain at the same time when Anglo-Saxons migrated to eastern coastline areas. So migrations were in both directions, not just from Britain to Ireland.

During the Industrial Revolution also many Irish moved to Britain.

[Peterski]

One of the reasons Romano-Britons invited the Anglo-Saxons in the 400s, was to defend them against Irish invasions...

After the Romans evacuated Brittania, the Picts and Irish were the first invaders - only later Anglo-Saxons joined them.

There was Irish settlement not just in Scotland (where they created Dal Riata), but all along the western coast of Britain:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata

The Irish also settled in the Isle of Man and in southern Wales:

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

Irish inscriptions (red dots) in Wales:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Ogham.Inscriptions.Wales.jpg/800px-Ogham.Inscriptions.Wales.jpg

Irish inscriptions (red dots) in Cornwall:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Ogham.Inscriptions.Cornwall.jpg/800px-Ogham.Inscriptions.Cornwall.jpg

[Grace O'Malley]

The Irish do have Viking admixture, but it is likely not more than 10% of their overall autosomal composition.

If a White American with 5% of Native American admixture identified as Pocahontas, most of you would find it odd.

But enthusiastic discussions about 5% Visigothic impact in Spain or Viking impact in Ireland are considered normal.

=====

PS:

I'm just exposing TA hipocrisy, I actually think that 5% is a large enough amount to cherish such heritage. But any heritage with 5% is non-negligible (including Pocahontas - so no surprise that the number of Native Americans has been skyrocketing lately):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?264184-The-country-of-Patawomeck-Indians-and-self-identified-Germans

https://i.imgur.com/Zr9vgeX.png

Some badass identities like Sioux, Apache or Viking are simply popular and won't be submerged.

People don't identify as Viking though. The reason why people discuss it is because of the two papers that came out late last year. I always thought before that the Irish were just Bell Beakers and had no Germanic ancestry at all. People discuss these topics on boards like this and get down to the nitty gritty like you with your Scots in Poland. :p

I'm basically baffled by it and now don't know what to believe anymore which is why I'm waiting on the Lara Cassidy paper which probably won't be published until about 2020 unfortunately.

Northwest Europeans though all appear quite close autosomally but I think the ancient genomes will answer these questions more conclusively and we will be getting plenty of those from not only Ireland but also other areas.

[Peterski]

I always thought before that the Irish were just Bell Beakers and had no Germanic ancestry at all.

Already Eupedia's Maciamo identified Germanic admixture based on Y-DNA from the Irish DNA Project on FTDNA:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27895-Were-the-Irish-pure-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions?styleid=44

Of course his analysis is a bit obsolete because for example he associated all of I2a2 in Ireland with Germanics.

Now we know that I2a2 (together with I2a1) was actually the main haplogroup in Neolithic Britain and Ireland.

[Grace O'Malley]

Already Eupedia's Maciamo identified Germanic admixture based on Y-DNA from the Irish DNA Project on FTDNA:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27895-Were-the-Irish-pure-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions?styleid=44

Of course his analysis is a bit obsolete because for example he associated all of I2a2 in Ireland with Germanics.

Now we know that I2a2 (together with I2a1) was actually the main haplogroup in Neolithic Britain and Ireland.

I definitely identify as Gaelic (of course). We have lots of badass historical figures of our own. Some interesting papers coming out in the next few years which should start lots of interesting discussions and hopefully answer some questions. Hard waiting for them though.

[Peterski]

I think Gildas (6th century British chronicler) wrote something like "the Anglo-Saxons push us towards the sea and the Irish push us back towards the Anglo-Saxons."

So no, it wasn't all peaceful between the Celts.

[Fantomas]

Viking input? Or is it that the original population of Ireland descends from a Nordic population -- Bell Beaker or something -- close to modern Scandinavians?

I think it might be both, as I think some people here like Septentrion are in huge denial of a large Germanic input in Ireland both from Norse Vikings and indirectly from English and Scottish settlers.
There's distinct correlation between genetic data and historical migrations

https://i.imgur.com/q3QuKhr.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/aT3iUjS.jpg

Given the big distance from Baltic populations i doubt that Scandinavians are closely related to Bell Beakers.Thus consequently prehistoric populations not caused this similarity. Rather that's the result of historical Scandinavian migrations

[Coastal Elite]

I believe Scandinavians and Irish share many of the same ancient Indo-European ancestors. On top of that, Vikings invaded and intermixed with Irish along the coast of Ireland. Vikings established such Irish cities as Dublin, Waterford, and Cork.

[Fantomas]

I think Gildas (6th century British chronicler) wrote something like "the Anglo-Saxons push us towards the sea and the Irish push us back towards the Anglo-Saxons."

So no, it wasn't all peaceful between the Celts.
That was period before complete Christianization of Ireland. Gildas described British Christian high king of Britain which based on Anglesey, so by the middle of 6 century that conflict was over mostly

[Graham]

One of the reasons Romano-Britons invited the Anglo-Saxons in the 400s, was to defend them against Irish invasions...

After the Romans evacuated Brittania, the Picts and Irish were the first invaders - only later Anglo-Saxons joined them.

There was Irish settlement not just in Scotland (where they created Dal Riata), but all along the western coast of Britain:

Not sure how true I may well be but have read that the Romans used to call the Irish Scots as a way that meant pirates and reivers.

[Cernunnos]

The Crowds of Irish people I've seen in anthrofora, look very Northern European. The myth of Black Irish (Mediterranean Irish being more common than in Britain) seems odd with the pics I've seen, but there are some famous Irish who are dark. The Welsh have more Mediterranean influence.

[Bellbeaking]

There's distinct correlation between genetic data and historical migrations

https://i.imgur.com/q3QuKhrmgur.com/aT3iUjS.jpg

Given the big distance from Baltic populations i doubt that Scandinavians are closely related to Bell Beakers.Thus consequently prehistoric populations not caused this similarity. Rather that's the result of historical Scandinavian migrations

Of course it is Bell Beakers (who cam from north germany to Britain and where an offshoot of the single grave culture (in denmark)). The viking migrations where not enough in Wales and Ireland to have much genetic impact as demonstrated by Y-DNA

https://i.redd.it/ahrzdn7lmyh21.png

[Imperator Biff]

The fact that there’s an embargo on the next major Irish ancient dna paper for well over another year really triggers the ever living fuck out of me. Can’t wait that long. :mad:

[Grace O'Malley]

The fact that there’s an embargo on the next major Irish ancient dna paper for well over another year really triggers the ever living fuck out of me. Can’t wait that long. :mad:

Me as well. The Spanish paper has really shown how useful it is to look at ancient dna to see population changes. A year seems such a long time to have to wait. I hope there might be some leaks from it in the meantime. :nun:

[Imperator Biff]

Me as well. The Spanish paper has really shown how useful it is to look at ancient dna to see population changes. A year seems such a long time to have to wait. I hope there might be some leaks from it in the meantime. :nun:

Hopefully the preprint gets uploaded to bioxriv sometime this year. From what I’ve heard SW Irish BA samples have more neolithic ancestry.

[Bellbeaking]

why have they done that?

[Grace O'Malley]

Hopefully the preprint gets uploaded to bioxriv sometime this year. From what I’ve heard SW Irish BA samples have more neolithic ancestry.

That makes it very interesting. I did hear a podcast from Lara Cassidy but it was more in general terms. Here it is if anyone wants to listen.

Irish genetics over the past 10,000 years.

http://insitome.libsyn.com/irish-genetics-over-the-past-10000-years

[Imperator Biff]

That makes it very interesting. I did hear a podcast from Lara Cassidy but it was more in general terms. Here it is if anyone wants to listen.

Irish genetics over the past 10,000 years.

http://insitome.libsyn.com/irish-genetics-over-the-past-10000-years

Listened to it. She sounded......a little off to me.

[nittionia]

It's not surprising

[nittionia]

One of my grandpas who came from Sweden has y-dna R-S660, which is ancient Irish :D

[Grace O'Malley]

One of my grandpas who came from Sweden has y-dna R-S660, which is ancient Irish :D

Do you mean S660 under M222 Niall of the Nine Hostages? My father's subclade is just above that at S588. That's definitely Irish / Scottish if it is S660 under M222 and is part of the Northern Ui Neill. That's pretty cool really. I know there are some M222 in Norway and Sweden. I'd say something like that was spread there due to the Vikings. Could it be more recent? Does he only have Scandinavian names in his family line.

[Coastal Elite]

https://youtu.be/ms3-rhnbw9U

[Grace O'Malley]

Of course it is Bell Beakers (who cam from north germany to Britain and where an offshoot of the single grave culture (in denmark)). The viking migrations where not enough in Wales and Ireland to have much genetic impact as demonstrated by Y-DNA


I think the only way to solve this question is with ancient dna. There was migrations into Ireland after the Bell Beakers which we know from history and Lara Cassidy commented on this. Ydna does not tell the whole picture and anyway I'm not sure of all the ydna breakdown in Ireland but what I do know is that Ireland has very skewed ydna due to some powerful clans/dynasties in the past controlling a lot of Ireland so this made some ydna very successful i.e. M222, L226 etc. Lara Cassidy is from the same team that wrote the Insular Celtic paper and I do think they know what they are talking about. They have access to all the ancient dna so I want to see what will be said in her paper. Viking activity lasted a century longer in Ireland than England and I find it difficult to believe that settlements like Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Cork and others didn't leave an impact as some people on here think. We are all amateurs here after all so I do give more credibility to genetic studies over what people say here. I find discussion interesting and do value people's opinions but it is interesting how some people here think they know more than the geneticists that publish these papers. Not having a dig at anyone here of course as I enjoy hearing everyone's opinion and much prefer these sort of discussions than the many numerous threads about how big my cock is or who is darker or lighter. :)

In short we need more studies with ancient dna so it is great that more of these are being done. :thumb001:

[nittionia]

Do you mean S660 under M222 Niall of the Nine Hostages? My father's subclade is just above that at S588. That's definitely Irish / Scottish if it is S660 under M222 and is part of the Northern Ui Neill. That's pretty cool really. I know there are some M222 in Norway and Sweden. I'd say something like that was spread there due to the Vikings. Could it be more recent? Does he only have Scandinavian names in his family line.

Yep it is under R-M222! He is completely Swedish and some Finnish for as much as I can trace (nothing recent for sure). Spread from the Vikings was my first thought as well.

[Grace O'Malley]

Yep it is under R-M222! He is completely Swedish and some Finnish for as much as I can trace (nothing recent for sure). Spread from the Vikings was my first thought as well.

He should get on Alex Wiliamson's tree if he hasn't already. There are some Scandinavians under M222 there already. The reason why I think it must have been Viking activity that brought it to Scandinavia is because it is only about 1,500 years old so not a really ancient subclade. The only people outside of Britain and Ireland under M222 are some Scandinavians. The vast majority are Irish and Scots.

[nittionia]

He should get on Alex Wiliamson's tree if he hasn't already. There are some Scandinavians under M222 there already. The reason why I think it must have been Viking activity that brought it to Scandinavia is because it is only about 1,500 years old so not a really ancient subclade. The only people outside of Britain and Ireland under M222 are some Scandinavians. The vast majority are Irish and Scots.

I'll look into joining that project. And yeah it looks like they are all Irish, Scottish, and a couple French. My grandpa got lucky lol.

[Peterski]

He should get on Alex Wiliamson's tree if he hasn't already. There are some Scandinavians under M222 there already. The reason why I think it must have been Viking activity that brought it to Scandinavia is because it is only about 1,500 years old so not a really ancient subclade. The only people outside of Britain and Ireland under M222 are some Scandinavians. The vast majority are Irish and Scots.

There was British immigration to Norway also in Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, long after the Viking Age. I think it was after the depopulation of Norway by the Black Death in the 1300s.

[Grace O'Malley]

There was British immigration to Norway also in Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, long after the Viking Age. I think it was after the depopulation of Norway by the Black Death in the 1300s.

Well that could be a possibility as well but the ones on Alex Williamson's tree have Scandinavian names but they could have taken Scandinavian names of course. It's strange how M222 doesn't show up in other parts of Europe. It did show up in the Cotentin in that Viking study. I'd say some of it spread with the Vikings. I know L21 is in Scandinavia as well but that could be from Bronze Age times and people would have to test further to find out subclades to know origin but M222 is definitely Irish and Scots.

This might be of interest.

https://www.irishorigenes.com/content/spread-m222

[Peterski]

^^^ What about Bretagne?

[Grace O'Malley]

^^^ What about Bretagne?

No oddly enough. I'm not sure how much testing they do there though. The only ones I've seen from France are the ones from the Cotentin. This is the study. The original was in French so I used the translate function.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://hagdik.fr/tag/dna-vikings-normandy/&prev=search

[Imperator Biff]

Well that could be a possibility as well but the ones on Alex Williamson's tree have Scandinavian names but they could have taken Scandinavian names of course. It's strange how M222 doesn't show up in other parts of Europe. It did show up in the Cotentin in that Viking study. I'd say some of it spread with the Vikings. I know L21 is in Scandinavia as well but that could be from Bronze Age times and people would have to test further to find out subclades to know origin but M222 is definitely Irish and Scots.

This might be of interest.

https://www.irishorigenes.com/content/spread-m222
My terminal SNP R1b-Z255 is also found in Norway and even Sweden apparently. I think it definitely got there with thralls and not recent migration.

[Bellbeaking]

I think the next Cassidy paper will raise a second beaker wave into Britain and Ireland from the NW french beakers. Who had more Neolithic farmer ancestry and more of it that was Iberian type farmer.

[Grace O'Malley]

I think the next Cassidy paper will raise a second beaker wave into Britain and Ireland from the NW french beakers. Who had more Neolithic farmer ancestry and more of it that was Iberian type farmer.

Really looking forward to that paper. We have to wait a year though. :irishdancer: Can't do much about that unfortunately.

[Russki]

Because of North_Atlantic bullshit.

North_Atlantic and Baltic should be lumped lumped in one.

[SouthDutch7991]

The Anglo Saxons being something substantially different from British Celts to begin with is a false dichotomy. Assuming that British Anglo Saxons were not mostly culturally assimilated British Celts to begin with, they are still all very genetically similar people. I think people expect the Irish to plot more southern and more "different" because of the centuries of history of division between the English and all the other inhabitants of the British Isles. So people expect to have this very distinct genetic division where you can see "german" anglo saxons and "celtic" british celts being easily separated groups. But genetically this idea doesn't hold up, it's not that the English are less Germanic than expected, but that British Celts were never really something different from what the average person considers "germanic" northwest european in the first place. Not compared to the differences between any other Northwest European group. I would argue that the English are exactly the same people that were there before the Anglo Saxons "invaded", and that on a genetic level all British "Celts" are just a subdivision of "Germanic" genetics ( a terrible term for it though ). The Irish, English, and other British are just where they belong genetically, it's our perception of history that makes us look for an error.