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.

[Creoda]

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.

[Creoda]

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.

[Creoda]

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)


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.


The spread of Hallstatt culture


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).