PDA

View Full Version : How Celtic is Scotland?



Pages : [1] 2

BillMC
02-14-2016, 12:34 PM
Yes the nation of may well have been founded by a union of two 'Celtic' tribes - Picts and Scotti in 843AD, but by the 14th century there were two lingustic ethnic groups. Gaelic speakers in the Highlands and Lalland Scots speakers in the Lowlands.

Recent DNA testing of Scots have shown that they are not too dissimilar to the English. Even in the Gaelic speaking communities of the Hebridees there are high levels of Norse DNA. Before the Treaty of Union in 1707 the offical language of Scotland was Lalland Scots - a Germanic languge. This language was never imposed upon Scots by foreign invaders.

Despite this many Scots take pride in being 'Celtic', which political organisations campaigning for independence are enthusiasic about promating the Gaelic language, despite the fact that the majority of Scots find that language to be a foreign as Chinese.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-14-2016, 01:05 PM
The Scots and the Welsh seem to have a natural cultural affinity, as could be seen yesterday during the Rugby international, although it does seem there are genetic differences, with Scots being closer to some English groups than they are to the Welsh, If I've understood things correctly. You can see similar differences within Wales, although maybe we are still quite long way from understanding exactly how things happened in the past, like why there is a relatively high proportion of U106 in the West of Scotland and the Isles?
Personally I think "Identity" is defined more by individual experience, heritage and culture than DNA, others might disagree. :)

rms2
02-14-2016, 01:28 PM
I think Scottish history shows that English was an intrusive language in Scotland, spread at first from the south by the Anglian Northumbrians, forwarded along in the 13th century by King David I, and then really put over the top following the triumph of Protestantism in Scotland, which depended on works in English brought up from the south. Just as English was imposed on the people of Ireland by the English, a similar process occurred in Scotland but with its own particular history. Due to its proximity to England, Scotland was subjected to English settlement to an even greater degree than Ireland was.

If one accepts L21 as a proxy for the Celts, then Scotland remains Celtic to a great extent in its y-dna, since the frequency of L21 there is about 50%, which is about the same as the frequency of L21 in Wales and much higher than the frequency of L21 in England.

MacUalraig
02-14-2016, 01:53 PM
Yes the nation of may well have been founded by a union of two 'Celtic' tribes - Picts and Scotti in 843AD, but by the 14th century there were two lingustic ethnic groups. Gaelic speakers in the Highlands and Lalland Scots speakers in the Lowlands.

Recent DNA testing of Scots have shown that they are not too dissimilar to the English. Even in the Gaelic speaking communities of the Hebridees there are high levels of Norse DNA. Before the Treaty of Union in 1707 the offical language of Scotland was Lalland Scots - a Germanic languge. This language was never imposed upon Scots by foreign invaders.

Despite this many Scots take pride in being 'Celtic', which political organisations campaigning for independence are enthusiasic about promating the Gaelic language, despite the fact that the majority of Scots find that language to be a foreign as Chinese.

At the time of Webster's census of 1755 (roughly where most Scots trace their ancestry back to) there were more people in the highlands than the lowlands.
So a majority, if they bothered to do some genealogy, would find Gaelic speaking ancestors. I can understand some antipathy in the ex-Norse controlled areas though.

Dubhthach
02-14-2016, 02:32 PM
Even within Lowlands there are signs of placenames of Old/Middle Irish origin. Alot of them to do with estates granted to specific lords etc after Lothian was incorporated in Scottish realm.

Leaving that aside most of the Lowlands would have been Celtic speaking 500 years prior, with renements of Brythonic persisting into the 12th/13th century (William Wallace name for example points at potential origin among Brythonic speakers of Cumbria/Strathclyde). Circa 1400 the linguistic situation looked like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Gaelic1400Loch.png

The expansion of "Inglis" as it was known at the time (Scottis was reserved for Gaidhlig at time) was probably due to Burgh formation by the likes of David I (and invitation in of Norman lords etc.)

Caratacus
02-14-2016, 09:14 PM
Genetically, the one element that possibly stands out in the People of the British Isles study as being Celtic is the ancient ancestry from NW France. It is highest in the Welsh (at about 40%), then the Scots (~25%), then the Cornish, then the northern English and lowest in the other English (~12%). But overall, the British look strikingly similar to each other. I don't think it makes sense to define Celts genetically merely in terms of paternal DNA since it comprises a tiny proportion of the overall genetic profile. There are a few native Englishmen with African Y-DNA but it would clearly be meaningless to assign them to some African tribe on that basis alone.

Linguistically/culturally, the Scots are obviously modern, English-speaking Westerners whose lifestyles bear little resemblance to those of the Ancient Celts!

kevinduffy
02-15-2016, 03:21 AM
What research shows that there is a relatively high proportion of U106 in the West of Scotland?

kevinduffy
02-15-2016, 03:25 AM
Actually, my reading of the POBI study was that the Scots and the Welsh were genetically distinct from the English.

kevinduffy
02-15-2016, 03:29 AM
Genetically, the one element that possibly stands out in the People of the British Isles study as being Celtic is the ancient ancestry from NW France. It is highest in the Welsh (at about 40%), then the Scots (~25%), then the Cornish, then the northern English and lowest in the other English (~12%). But overall, the British look strikingly similar to each other. I don't think it makes sense to define Celts genetically merely in terms of paternal DNA since it comprises a tiny proportion of the overall genetic profile. There are a few native Englishmen with African Y-DNA but it would clearly be meaningless to assign them to some African tribe on that basis alone.

Linguistically/culturally, the Scots are obviously modern, English-speaking Westerners whose lifestyles bear little resemblance to those of the Ancient Celts!

But how much of that is due to English imperialism?

avalon
02-15-2016, 08:43 AM
Actually, my reading of the POBI study was that the Scots and the Welsh were genetically distinct from the English.

One thing I would say about the POBI paper is that the sampling of Scotland was quite patchy. There were large parts of the highlands where they didn't collect any samples at all.

However, in the POBI supplementary paper there were some quite detailed maps and PCA charts and the Scottish samples (yellow circles in PCA) were somewhat shifted towards the English red cluster, certainly at least when compared to the North Welsh and Orcadian samples which showed greater autosomal separation from the English.

Cinnamon orange
02-15-2016, 09:26 AM
Actually, my reading of the POBI study was that the Scots and the Welsh were genetically distinct from the English.

If I recall correctly from the POBI study, south east Scotland was similar to north east England and seemed to follow the lines of Northumbria and Bernicia, Germanic speaking kingdoms. There are similarities with Scots and northern English dialects. After looking at the study, I thought, oh my new found Border and southern Scots ancestors are pretty much the same people as my north east English ancestors.

Dubhthach
02-15-2016, 01:16 PM
There's also the fact that they redacted the Irish (Republic of Ireland) sample for if you ask me spurious reasons when it came to doing admixture analysis of the PoBI clusters. In many ways looking at their earlier presentation which included "Cluster 24" it reminds me of what AncestryDNA is showing with it's distinct Irish sample.

Guestimate breakdown of clusters (pie charts):
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Breakdown_of_UK_DNA.gif

Royal Society Presentation:
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/RoyalSociety_exhibit_Jul2012.pdf

Cluster 17 (France) was specific to sample from North-West France, it wouldn't surprise me given it's high level in Welsh samples that we are looking at a composite Brythonic "component" there (composite as the French sample probably include people without recent Breton ancestry)

avalon
02-15-2016, 04:02 PM
There's also the fact that they redacted the Irish (Republic of Ireland) sample for if you ask me spurious reasons when it came to doing admixture analysis of the PoBI clusters.

I think the reasoning they gave for stripping out the Irish ancestry profile was that generally speaking in prehistory, gene flow was from Britain to Ireland and so ultimately both the Irish and the British are going to have ancestry profiles from continental Europe. This seems sensible to me.

Also, the European ancestry profiles were just one type of analysis, they also did the PCA plots and other admixture tests I believe.

Dubhthach
02-15-2016, 04:31 PM
I think the reasoning they gave for stripping out the Irish ancestry profile was that generally speaking in prehistory, gene flow was from Britain to Ireland and so ultimately both the Irish and the British are going to have ancestry profiles from continental Europe. This seems sensible to me.

Also, the European ancestry profiles were just one type of analysis, they also did the PCA plots and other admixture tests I believe.

If we were to follow that logic to it's extreme you could argue that they should leave out all other clusters other than French (given human migration was from what is now France to Britain) and the Low countries (due to historically attested migration in sub-roman period).

It's rather simplistic plus I think it also throw's the results. The admixture analysis is only as good as the sample populations fed into it, if you leave out one neighbouring population the algorithm will make up for lack of dataset and try find next closet match. (The same was seen in aDNA analysis before CHG was known about -- they knew Yamnaya was made up of ANE and a distinct population but had no reference for it)

We know the history of Ireland from point of view of migrations for certain from 5th century onwards, in the period beforehand archaeology provides certain glimpse. For example the fact that Ireland appears to go into a 500 year dark age at end of Atlantic Bronze age (800BC onwards) only to end with renewed contact from Northern Britain into Northern half of Ireland after 300BC. Likewise we know that there are signs of contact with Roman-Britain through trade but no signs of mass movement (there's no signs of mass-movement at all in Iron age, leaving aside renewed contacts in archaeological record)

Given the differentiation between Goidelic and Brythonic it's reasonable to expect that there was likewise development of novel variants in one population not shared with other due to isolation.

What's interesting in their chart is the "Irish" sample was basically 99% Cluster 24, which hints at isolation from what was going on in Britain in comparison. If Ireland was really a sink of movement over last 1,500 years you'd expect a bit more "variety", the homogeneity of their irish sample if anything hints at isolation from what was going on in Britain after 500AD.

My own feeling is that "Cluster 24" (which seems to map onto ancestryDNA so-call "Irish" cluster) is actually a proxy for part of a earlier Northwest insular population structure (eg. Bronze age population), which underwent differenation due to divergence in history between the two islands after about 800BC. This divergence led to differentiation of proto-Celtic into Goidelic and Brythonic.

It would be interesting if they did a Cladogram of various clusters as it wouldn't surprise me that 24 and 17 are probably closely related compared to some of the others.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-15-2016, 06:15 PM
What research shows that there is a relatively high proportion of U106 in the West of Scotland?

CymruDNA haplogroup distribution map :-

7799

Dubhthach
02-15-2016, 06:24 PM
CymruDNA haplogroup distribution map :-

7799

Not particularly clear to me but does "Scotland North and West" also include Orkney and Shetland in it? (on first glance it appear to)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-15-2016, 06:26 PM
Not particularly clear to me but does "Scotland North and West" also include Orkney and Shetland in it? (on first glance it appear to)

Looks like it to me.

avalon
02-15-2016, 07:48 PM
Genetically, the one element that possibly stands out in the People of the British Isles study as being Celtic is the ancient ancestry from NW France. It is highest in the Welsh (at about 40%), then the Scots (~25%), then the Cornish, then the northern English and lowest in the other English (~12%).

The other substantial genetic component in the project was the GER6 component which I believe was sampled in Western Germany (Rhineland area).

I am not sure it is possible to link modern components with ancient migrations but I am going to anyway. Maybe GER6 is connected to Rhenish BB?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-15-2016, 08:18 PM
Not a recent article, but interesting regarding early human presence in Scotland and links to the continent.

http://linkis.com/blogspot.com/cfU6W

rms2
02-16-2016, 03:36 PM
. . . I don't think it makes sense to define Celts genetically merely in terms of paternal DNA since it comprises a tiny proportion of the overall genetic profile . . .

When discussing ancient Indo-European peoples with a patriarchal society, it makes perfect sense to look at the y-dna profile as a strong indicator of tribal and linguistic affiliation.

Y-dna may be "a tiny proportion of the overall genetic profile", but all males have it and all females have fathers. Every line in one's pedigree has y-dna involved in it. It's also a lot easier to track than autosomal dna.



Linguistically/culturally, the Scots are obviously modern, English-speaking Westerners whose lifestyles bear little resemblance to those of the Ancient Celts!

Well, obviously. I interpreted the title of this thread to be about heritage rather than asking whether or not the Scots have been frozen in time for the last 2,000 years or so.

kevinduffy
02-16-2016, 08:00 PM
CymruDNA haplogroup distribution map :-

7799

From what I can see Scotland South West has the lowest levels of S21/U106 in the island of Britain.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-16-2016, 09:07 PM
From what I can see Scotland South West has the lowest levels of S21/U106 in the island of Britain.

I suppose I should have said North West.

alan
02-16-2016, 10:46 PM
Thing is although the Scots dialect of English became the language of power eventually, this was a long drawn out process. Other than in the south-east and borders area of Scotland where the Angles of Northumbria settled c. 600AD and the very lightly populated areas of the extreme north and north-west where the Norwegian vikings settled after 800AD there is no record of a large scale Germanic intrusion into Scotland. Other than them we are talking about nobles granted lands, some retainers and small pocket urban-esque populations in Burghs in the south and east coast of Scotland and they were of a mixture of French, Fleming, Norman, English origins. In general with the exception of the south-east and the islands and headlands of the extreme north and north-west fringe (in the latter case a small invasion could make a big impact - the population is still very sparse today), it is hard to believe that the knights granted lands, their handful of retainers and the 'alien' pocket populations of small burghs, towns and fishing stations could have had a dominant genetic impact on the population of Scotland. I think that the population has a strong majority of Celtic blood in the sense of being descended genetically from Picts, Scots and Britons (newcomers of the last century or so aside of course).

The cultural impact was far higher than the genetic impact as the native elites were progressively replaced from 1100 to 1500 and their languages and cultures lost prestige too. It appears Gaelic still ran to the east coasts of Scotland from Fife to the far north as late as 1400AD with English/Scots dialect in pockets in burghs. Now there was no major intrusion from anywhere after that date so the decline and retreat of Gaelic towards the highland line was cultural not demographic. All those east coast lowland rural people from Fife to Inverness who spoke Gaelic c. 1400 didnt just move anywhere. Their language was simply displaced over time as Scots-English became the dialect of prestige and opportunity. The fact Gaelic was the dominant language of most of Scotland except the south and extreme north from c. 840-1400AD, even in the lowlands means that of the c. 800 years when Scotland was an entity of its own, 600 were in a period when Gaelic was the common language of most of the lowlands as well as the highlands. You get people who deny this but it is what linguists have shown.

However today most of the highland population is in the lowlands and has been for many generations so the highland and lowland elements have blended as the two peoples have blended and most sensible Scots celebrate both the Gaelic and Lowland Scottish dialects. You get people who try and take sides and totally reject one or the other but they are generally assholes. The reality is lowland Scots today are a blend of Lowland and Highland lineages with vast majority of families being a mixture. Denying any part of your heritage is rather stupid IMO. You even see Scots with gloriously Gaelic surnames spouting that Gaelic has nothing to do with them but that is cognitive dissonance

alan
02-16-2016, 11:05 PM
I would add that its a bad idea to do any anthropological conclusions from a Scottish rugby crowd. In Scotland rugby is only the game of the ordinary person (as it is in Wales) in the southernmost parts of Scotland (the bit that most Angles settled) and in posh schools elsewhere. It is not a hugely popular sport of the ordinary Scots in most of the country and little interest will be shown except at international games where people will back tiddlywinks if it has their nations flag on it.

IMO if you wanted to find the closest to the picto-scottish population of 840AD it is probably would until a century or so ago have been found in the landlocked bits of the Highlands where neither norse from the north and west nor Angles from the south nor many Medieval urban type settlers arrived. There were Norman knights given lands in the highlands but I doubt they made much impact genetically. Although there has been a lot of lowland and beyond migration into these areas in the last century or so I would still bet that is the best bet to see most Celtic blood with least Germanic input.

It is also probably fair to say that the blood of the Scots as in the Gaelic people with Irish links is probably strong in Argyll and the southern Hebrides because the north impact in placenames and apparently genetics drops off as you move from north to south down the highland and island Atlantic seaboad. So that area has a little Norse overlay but not a huge amount - it is far higher in the northern Isles, the outer Hebrides and adjacent lowlands - as can be seen from the U106 count.

alan
02-16-2016, 11:23 PM
Certainly it would take a person with a poor grasp on pre-industrial Scottish history to conclude anything other than that there is a predominant Celtic (by which I mean speakers of various Celtic branches already in Scotland by 500AD) core in Scottish genetics which only reduces (but even then is still probably important) where history confirms that Angles or Norse or to a lesser degree High Medieval settlers are known to have settled. IMO none of those settlers remotely came close to displacing the population that was there before them - possible exception being the Orkneys and Shetlands but from what I can see of the genetic evidence they still absorbed a lot of local autosomal and mtDNA from the Picts and Scots. I would add that in my experience its rare to see truly Norwegian looking individuals in these areas with the most Norse settlement which confirms my feeling that the Norse input even there fell way short of wiping out local genes.

Broadly speaking the L21-U106 ration is probably a good indicator of Celtic-Germanic relative importance although remember in sparsely populated areas like small islands strange founder effects can happen. I also wouldnt say L21 is the totality of pre-Germanic yDNA in Scotland. There are probably several other lineages that were present in small quantities in pre-Germanic Scotland in modest numbers including possibly a little U152 and various I, G etc people.

GoldenHind
02-16-2016, 11:31 PM
There are probably several other lineages that were present in small quantities in pre-Germanic Scotland in modest numbers including possibly a little U152 and various I, G etc people.

To this you can add P312>L624/S389, which appears to have very strong associations with Scotland.

alan
02-17-2016, 12:02 AM
To this you can add P312>L624/S389, which appears to have very strong associations with Scotland.

it would be interesting to see a list of all isles yDNA lines of all branches listed as either pre-Roman or post-Roman (or Roman). There is probably a way of reasoning what is most likely for each line. The non-R minority dont seem to get much attention in this regard.

alan
02-17-2016, 12:32 AM
Scottish history is peculiar in that once the state of Scotland or Alba existed by 840 or so, a big enough chunk of it was a strong enough and centalised enough state to resist significant invasion other than lightly populated fringes in the extreme north - the northern Isles etc. A core of the kingdom was solid from that time. No invaders subsequently permanently annexed any of Scotland and no hostile wave of settlers happened.

Indeed the seeds of the much later eclipse of the Gaelic culture and language began when the early kingdom of Alba or Scotland annexed the Angles territory in south-east Scotland bringing for the first time a large group of English speakers politically into the Scottish kingdom. Then Scottish kings especially after 1100AD then sought to introduce small numbers of knights from a continental/Anglo-Norman type tradition to form shock troops loyal to the Scottish crown as well as settlers from broadly similar backgrounds who formed the early tiny trading towns (unlike in Ireland the Vikings had not founded towns so towns only appeared 300 years later in Scotland), And in may ways that is it.

All the later cultural and linguistic changes from c. 1200-1603AD (including the retreat of Gaelic language back to the highlands) were essentially internal political-cultural changes and not due to invasion or significant amounts of settlers. As far as I am aware from 850-1603AD Scotland only suffered a handful or two years with invaders holding down parts of Scotland and none of them led to permanent settlement. So in this respect Scotlands history is very different from Ireland. Scotland kind of colonised itself culturally or rather a once minor Germanic element restricted to the south of Scotland and in pockets in tiny towns up the east coast came to culturally eclipse the Gaelic. Up until around the 1500s the languages of Scotland were called Scottis (meaning Gaelic) ane Inglis (meaning lowland Scots dialect of English). However, from around 1500 with Gaelic language retreating to the highland line and its loss of prestige relative to English, a weird invertion of identity and historical reality happened - Inglis started to be called Scottis while Gaelic was falsely alienised by calling it Erse (Irish). So, identities can morph or even turn reality on its head. However, in the case of Scotland the first waves of reduction of Gaelic to a retreating language was an internal process.

So again it is a very different sort of story from Ireland where a divided island was half conquered and colonised by the Normans followed by a several centuries long shifting stalemate before further conquests in the Tudor/Elizabethan era, Ulster and other plantation, Cromwell etc.

vettor
02-17-2016, 06:18 AM
Yes the nation of may well have been founded by a union of two 'Celtic' tribes - Picts and Scotti in 843AD, but by the 14th century there were two lingustic ethnic groups. Gaelic speakers in the Highlands and Lalland Scots speakers in the Lowlands.

Recent DNA testing of Scots have shown that they are not too dissimilar to the English. Even in the Gaelic speaking communities of the Hebridees there are high levels of Norse DNA. Before the Treaty of Union in 1707 the offical language of Scotland was Lalland Scots - a Germanic languge. This language was never imposed upon Scots by foreign invaders.

Despite this many Scots take pride in being 'Celtic', which political organisations campaigning for independence are enthusiasic about promating the Gaelic language, despite the fact that the majority of Scots find that language to be a foreign as Chinese.

Question is where the indigenous picts ever really celtic ........and ............where the invading Irish Gaels ( scotti ) celtic or not ?
IMO , maybe the Gaels could be celts , but I doubt the indigenous picts ( caledonians ) where celts

the union of the 2 to create the people called Scots might have brought the full populace into celtic traits and culture over time from 900AD

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-17-2016, 07:55 AM
I would add that its a bad idea to do any anthropological conclusions from a Scottish rugby crowd. In Scotland rugby is only the game of the ordinary person (as it is in Wales) in the southernmost parts of Scotland (the bit that most Angles settled) and in posh schools elsewhere. It is not a hugely popular sport of the ordinary Scots in most of the country and little interest will be shown except at international games where people will back tiddlywinks if it has their nations flag on it.

IMO if you wanted to find the closest to the picto-scottish population of 840AD it is probably would until a century or so ago have been found in the landlocked bits of the Highlands where neither norse from the north and west nor Angles from the south nor many Medieval urban type settlers arrived. There were Norman knights given lands in the highlands but I doubt they made much impact genetically. Although there has been a lot of lowland and beyond migration into these areas in the last century or so I would still bet that is the best bet to see most Celtic blood with least Germanic input.

It is also probably fair to say that the blood of the Scots as in the Gaelic people with Irish links is probably strong in Argyll and the southern Hebrides because the north impact in placenames and apparently genetics drops off as you move from north to south down the highland and island Atlantic seaboad. So that area has a little Norse overlay but not a huge amount - it is far higher in the northern Isles, the outer Hebrides and adjacent lowlands - as can be seen from the U106 count.

One thing that confuses me. I read posts which say U106 in Britain is basically Saxon and not Norse, but that doesn't seem fit with the map for the North West of Scotland. It is also said that there is little U106 in Ireland where there was also a Norse presence.

MacUalraig
02-17-2016, 08:33 AM
Thing is although the Scots dialect of English became the language of power eventually, this was a long drawn out process. Other than in the south-east and borders area of Scotland where the Angles of Northumbria settled c. 600AD and the very lightly populated areas of the extreme north and north-west where the Norwegian vikings settled after 800AD there is no record of a large scale Germanic intrusion into Scotland. Other than them we are talking about nobles granted lands, some retainers and small pocket urban-esque populations in Burghs in the south and east coast of Scotland and they were of a mixture of French, Fleming, Norman, English origins. In general with the exception of the south-east and the islands and headlands of the extreme north and north-west fringe (in the latter case a small invasion could make a big impact - the population is still very sparse today), it is hard to believe that the knights granted lands, their handful of retainers and the 'alien' pocket populations of small burghs, towns and fishing stations could have had a dominant genetic impact on the population of Scotland. I think that the population has a strong majority of Celtic blood in the sense of being descended genetically from Picts, Scots and Britons (newcomers of the last century or so aside of course).

The cultural impact was far higher than the genetic impact as the native elites were progressively replaced from 1100 to 1500 and their languages and cultures lost prestige too. It appears Gaelic still ran to the east coasts of Scotland from Fife to the far north as late as 1400AD with English/Scots dialect in pockets in burghs. Now there was no major intrusion from anywhere after that date so the decline and retreat of Gaelic towards the highland line was cultural not demographic. All those east coast lowland rural people from Fife to Inverness who spoke Gaelic c. 1400 didnt just move anywhere. Their language was simply displaced over time as Scots-English became the dialect of prestige and opportunity. The fact Gaelic was the dominant language of most of Scotland except the south and extreme north from c. 840-1400AD, even in the lowlands means that of the c. 800 years when Scotland was an entity of its own, 600 were in a period when Gaelic was the common language of most of the lowlands as well as the highlands. You get people who deny this but it is what linguists have shown.

However today most of the highland population is in the lowlands and has been for many generations so the highland and lowland elements have blended as the two peoples have blended and most sensible Scots celebrate both the Gaelic and Lowland Scottish dialects. You get people who try and take sides and totally reject one or the other but they are generally assholes. The reality is lowland Scots today are a blend of Lowland and Highland lineages with vast majority of families being a mixture. Denying any part of your heritage is rather stupid IMO. You even see Scots with gloriously Gaelic surnames spouting that Gaelic has nothing to do with them but that is cognitive dissonance

My family lived on the Menzies estate on Rannoch and other nearby Kennedys lived on Stewart land eg Foss, Grandtully etc. Both names are common in the parish - these are the surname rankings of baptisms:

Stewart (1001)
MacGregor (914)
Cameron (740)
Campbell (523)
McDonald (398)
Robertson (394)
Menzies (275)
Kennedy (148)

I have always been intrigued by the question of how many of those Menzies still show a genetic link with Normandy. Their testing seems to be furtive/non existent.

Dubhthach
02-17-2016, 10:00 AM
So again it is a very different sort of story from Ireland where a divided island was half conquered and colonised by the Normans followed by a several centuries long shifting stalemate before further conquests in the Tudor/Elizabethan era, Ulster and other plantation, Cromwell etc.

It's worth pointing out that Ireland in the 12th century was in the process of centralisation, you basically looking at repeat of process seen 2-300 years earlier in both Scotland and England. This is evident throughout the whole "High-Kings with opposition" era and with such things as Church reform/centralisation (creation of Dicoese structure which persists to this day). The arrival of Cambro-Norman's if anything was due to a central authority trying to exert authority over a "subservient lord" (eg. Diarmait -- King of Leinster), who resorted to bringing in mercanaries (kinda like Scots inviting in Norman knights) to regain his lordship (the untimely death of Diarmait precipitated the arrival of Henry II on the scene).

The end result of course was fragmentation which can be seen also by decline of use of words for administrative words/office holders in Irish language (words that had grown in importance during "centralisation" phase of 11th/12th centuries)

Dubhthach
02-17-2016, 10:03 AM
One thing that confuses me. I read posts which say U106 in Britain is basically Saxon and not Norse, but that doesn't seem fit with the map for the North West of Scotland. It is also said that there is little U106 in Ireland where there was also a Norse presence.

With regards to that map, it would be interesting if Orkney/Shetland was spilt out into their own group. What should also be pointed out that Norse settlement in Ireland was

Highly Urbanised
Limited usually to boundaries of major Kingdom's -- due to successful defeats of Norse forces by local Irish kings



In context of Outer Hebrides the evidence is that you had heavy Norse settlement as evident by placename with subsequent later "re-"Gaelicisation (you could argue that some areas were potentially still Pictish speaking at arrival of Norse). In comparison in Ireland the Norse became Gaelicised very early.

avalon
02-17-2016, 10:10 AM
Alan gives a good summary of Scottish history but IMO the results of the POBI project still need some explaining and I would point out that POBI was autosomalDNA which gives a better guide to overall ancestry than Y-DNA.

One thing that the PCA chart shows is that when compared to Orcadians and North Welsh the Scottish samples (yellow circles) show a shift towards the English. Now it could be that POBI didn't collect samples from the right people in Scotland (there are big gaps in the highlands on the map) but I would be interested if anyone has an explanation on this particular point re. PCA charts?


7823

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-17-2016, 10:17 AM
With regards to that map, it would be interesting if Orkney/Shetland was spilt out into their own group. What should also be pointed out that Norse settlement in Ireland was

Highly Urbanised
Limited usually to boundaries of major Kingdom's -- due to successful defeats of Norse forces by local Irish kings



In context of Outer Hebrides the evidence is that you had heavy Norse settlement as evident by placename with subsequent later "re-"Gaelicisation (you could argue that some areas were potentially still Pictish speaking at arrival of Norse). In comparison in Ireland the Norse became Gaelicised very early.

Thanks for the reply. As someone mentioned,I suppose it's possible that relatively few vikings could have had a bigger genetic impact over time in an area where there might have been a relatively sparse and isolated population. I wonder if there is any data on the Isle of Man?
I still ponder where U106 stands in relation to "Norse" because unless I'm missing something it seems unlikely to have had a Saxon origin in this region.

Dubhthach
02-17-2016, 10:28 AM
Alan gives a good summary of Scottish history but IMO the results of the POBI project still need some explaining and I would point out that POBI was autosomalDNA which gives a better guide to overall ancestry than Y-DNA.

One thing that the PCA chart shows is that when compared to Orcadians and North Welsh the Scottish samples (yellow circles) show a shift towards the English. Now it could be that POBI didn't collect samples from the right people in Scotland (there are big gaps in the highlands on the map) but I would be interested if anyone has an explanation on this particular point re. PCA charts?


7823

Well the Scottish cluster in that diagram are intermediate (with some overlap) between East English (red) and North-Welsh. Two things to consider
1. As English are clearly an admixed Brythonic/Germanic grouping you'd expect some overlap between them and other populations with less "Germanic" input
2. North Welsh show some interesting Y-DNA haplogroups (high level's of E), so perhaps we are looking at certain level of isolation and novel variants developing that weren't shared in the wider pre-AS period "British" population, as a result divergent population history
3. Orkney is obviously shifted due to Norse influence -- if a Norwegian sample was included in PCA it would probably even more shifted that way.
4. PCA space is determined by the samples included -- I imagine if you included a Dutch sample it would lead to English (red) samples been drawn towards that pole.

I'm reminded of the PCA graph from several years ago when they compared sample from Ireland (Dublin no less), Scotland (Aberdeen) and England (London), which unsurprising show the Scots as intermediate between Irish and English sample. Though to be honest I don't think Dublin would be representative sample for Ireland in general.

Dubhthach
02-17-2016, 10:31 AM
Thanks for the reply. As someone mentioned,I suppose it's possible that relatively few vikings could have had a bigger genetic impact over time in an area where there might have been a relatively sparse and isolated population. I wonder if there is any data on the Isle of Man?
I still ponder where U106 stands in relation to "Norse" because unless I'm missing something it seems unlikely to have had a Saxon origin in this region.

Well the evidence is pointing at widespread Norse settlement in insular Scotland, in comparison it was realtively minor in Ireland. What I would say is the Viking era is really the beginning of the seperation of common Irish-Scottish historical narrative (eg. Gaeldom). Scotland gets considerably more Viking input, than with difference of history with regards to Norman in both Ireland and Scotland you get further divergence.

In general modern Irish and modern Scottish Gaidhlig are said diverge at the Middle Irish period (1000-1200AD) there's some debate that divergence actually starts during the Old Irish period (600-1000AD), with emphasis on later stage. What's interesting though on related note that some have proposed that Old Irish got introduce to Isle of Man by the Norse (eg. Gall-Ghaeil == "Norse-Gaels").

Jean M
02-17-2016, 11:18 AM
Question is where the indigenous picts ever really celtic .

Yes they were. They had Celtic names. They had a Celtic culture. They left Celtic place-names behind them. They were exactly the same as the other Celtic tribes of Britain when the Romans invaded, and the Romans saw them as such. It just so happens that certain tribes of Britons ended up north of the border created by the Romans. When these tribes attacked across the border into the Roman province of Britannia, the Romans first of all wrote of attacks by Britons. It is only in 305 AD that we get the first reference to "Picti", as a collective name for those Britons north of the Roman border. This name was useful in distinguishing between the settled Britons of Britannia and those to the north. That is all it is.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml

zamyatin13
02-17-2016, 01:07 PM
Well the Scottish cluster in that diagram are intermediate (with some overlap) between East English (red) and North-Welsh. Two things to consider
1. As English are clearly an admixed Brythonic/Germanic grouping you'd expect some overlap between them and other populations with less "Germanic" input
2. North Welsh show some interesting Y-DNA haplogroups (high level's of E), so perhaps we are looking at certain level of isolation and novel variants developing that weren't shared in the wider pre-AS period "British" population, as a result divergent population history
3. Orkney is obviously shifted due to Norse influence -- if a Norwegian sample was included in PCA it would probably even more shifted that way.
4. PCA space is determined by the samples included -- I imagine if you included a Dutch sample it would lead to English (red) samples been drawn towards that pole.

I'm reminded of the PCA graph from several years ago when they compared sample from Ireland (Dublin no less), Scotland (Aberdeen) and England (London), which unsurprising show the Scots as intermediate between Irish and English sample. Though to be honest I don't think Dublin would be representative sample for Ireland in general.

The presentation from the Irish DNA Atlas study (I think it was called that), shows the Scots as clearly separate from the main English cluster. That's a simple result of adding in more Irish samples I believe. The Scots, despite some confusing labelling on the diagram, are again intermediate between English and Irish, just as the study you mentioned suggests.

Dubhthach
02-17-2016, 01:37 PM
The presentation from the Irish DNA Atlas study (I think it was called that), shows the Scots as clearly separate from the main English cluster. That's a simple result of adding in more Irish samples I believe. The Scots, despite some confusing labelling on the diagram, are again intermediate between English and Irish, just as the study you mentioned suggests.

Indeed well I think one major problem with PoBI is that the English sample overwhelms all the others, there's over 1,000 people left in the "Red Cluster" even after something like K=15

I'd be curious if they ran the PoBI PCA again with all the foreign clusters (including the Republic of Ireland redacted cluster) and than did a zoom in to say cover their partipants. eg. you'd have two PCA diagrams one showing PoBI plus 24 (or so) foreign clusters, and than zoom-in on specific region of diagram showing only PoBI members

I'd imagine the second PCA diagram would look somewhat different from above one.

I think Gerard post these on pininterest from talk given about Irish DNA atlas:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ae/13/2a/ae132ae80e5b17ed3526cfbdcf8ce89a.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/30/f8/b3/30f8b3143781b287a0b76ef1bfe3e60f.jpg

I imagine having a Dutch or North German Cluster would lead to English cluster been pulled somewhat in that direction.

avalon
02-17-2016, 06:19 PM
I'd be curious if they ran the PoBI PCA again with all the foreign clusters (including the Republic of Ireland redacted cluster) and than did a zoom in to say cover their partipants. eg. you'd have two PCA diagrams one showing PoBI plus 24 (or so) foreign clusters, and than zoom-in on specific region of diagram showing only PoBI members

I'd imagine the second PCA diagram would look somewhat different from above one.


You raise some good points but in what way do you think a PCA that included the foreign clusters (Fra14, Ger6, Bel, etc) would differ? I can see how it might show the English shifted towards the Dutch but would it necessarily change the positioning of the Scottish samples in relation to the English samples? And if such a PCA did pull Scottish samples away from English then presumably there would be a similar net effect on Welsh and Orcadian samples.

Regarding the Irish DNA Atlas, it looks to me as though they have taken the POBI dataset and then obviously added further Irish samples. I am just trying to reconcile the differences between the different PCA graphics, POBI showing an overlap between Scottish and English whereas the Irish project does not.

avalon
02-17-2016, 07:31 PM
Well the Scottish cluster in that diagram are intermediate (with some overlap) between East English (red) and North-Welsh.


Are you sure you are looking at the yellow circles cluster, not the yellow triangles which is South Wales. To my eye if you enlarge the jpeg then the South Wales cluster has an overlap with North Wales but the Scottish cluster (yellow circles) overlaps with the left hand side of the red English cluster.

rms2
02-18-2016, 12:52 AM
Alan gives a good summary of Scottish history but IMO the results of the POBI project still need some explaining and I would point out that POBI was autosomalDNA which gives a better guide to overall ancestry than Y-DNA . . .

I think in one sense that is right, inasmuch as autosomal dna reflects the contributions of many more ancestors than the single paternal line. However, if one looks at the entire y-dna profile of a people or nation, it provides a pretty good picture of overall ancestry, especially in terms of patriarchal Indo-European cultures and ethnolinguistic groups like the Celts and Germans.

Besides, we are dealing with the autosomal dna of Northern Europeans who are very similar to one another to begin with. As I recall, PoBI itself said it had to take extraordinary measures to tease apart the various geographical groups in its sample population.

The y-dna profile of Scotland is very different from that of England in terms of the relative proportions of the two largest components in both populations, P312 (especially L21) and U106. It seems to me pretty plain that the fundamental difference in those proportions is reflective of the fundamental ancestral difference between the two nations: Scotland is basically a Celtic nation with a substantial Germanic component due chiefly to English influence, and England is a mixed nation with a Germanic plurality built on top of the original Celtic population of lowland Britain.

Dubhthach
02-18-2016, 08:30 AM
Are you sure you are looking at the yellow circles cluster, not the yellow triangles which is South Wales. To my eye if you enlarge the jpeg then the South Wales cluster has an overlap with North Wales but the Scottish cluster (yellow circles) overlaps with the left hand side of the red English cluster.

Overlap with English cluster is what I meant not North Wales, point though is in 2d space the Scottish cluster in that diagram is somewhat intermediate in PCA space with North Welsh and "East English" (eg. red) if you look at the "progression of clusters" in that diagram you are seeing something like this:

North Welsh -> South Welsh -> Non Differentiated Scottish/Northern Irish -> North English -> East English (Red)

What you are probably seeing here is (a) a cline of admixture (b) Scottish samples without other populations showing up closest to nearest available matching population

(a) makes lot of sense for South-Welsh/North English samples given history, obviously in middle ages you have English admixture into South of Wales (Little England beyond Wales -- this is reforced as higher K level when this cluster spilts into two, with one cluster been closer to "North Wales" one)

(b) If you don't have other populations (say "Irish DNA Atlas" or some of European clusters in PoBI) than when you run the algorithm it will try to group samples together with the nearest closet sample available to the algorithm.

Now if you look at the "Irish DNA" atlas it looks like they only used a subset of PoBI dataset (did they include Cornwall or is in their "English" sample), the additon of the Irish sample pulls the Scottish samples in a different plane in the PCA chart (due to high sharing of rare alleles with Irish sample that aren't evident in English sample?)

What's interesting is that the "South Scottish" (which they confusingly call "West Scottish" -- basically West Lowlands etc.) in intermediate in between "Highlands/Northern Ireland" PoBI cluster and the "English cluster" that actually makes sense historically as Lowlands was spilt between an Anglian speaking population and a Brythonic speaking population.

What's notable in that Orkney cluster now appears somewhat closer to English cluster than it did to previous Scottish cluster in PoBI, what's probably happening here is the fact that both Orkney and English sample share rare-allelles from Northern Europe not seen in other insular populations.

Adding a Dutch sample would probably lead to the easternmost English samples pulling apart, revealing increased sub-structure within the English (Red cluster) due to perhaps geography. Likewise a Norwegian sample would help not only with Orkney but with Scottish mainland samples that have "enriched" scandinavian ancestry, so might for example spilt out some samples from "Highland" group who have origins in Hebrides.

avalon
02-18-2016, 10:29 AM
(b) If you don't have other populations (say "Irish DNA Atlas" or some of European clusters in PoBI) than when you run the algorithm it will try to group samples together with the nearest closet sample available to the algorithm.

Adding a Dutch sample would probably lead to the easternmost English samples pulling apart, revealing increased sub-structure within the English (Red cluster) due to perhaps geography. Likewise a Norwegian sample would help not only with Orkney but with Scottish mainland samples that have "enriched" scandinavian ancestry, so might for example spilt out some samples from "Highland" group who have origins in Hebrides.

I see what you are saying about algorithms in PCAs and that samples will only group with nearest available samples. Again, what strikes me in the PoBI PCA is that in the absence of further Irish samples, the Scottish samples are still closer to the English cluster than they are to to the North Welsh. I think this is noteworthy.

With more European samples on a PCA then, we might expect the East English to shift towards the north Germans/Dutch, the Scottish to shift towards Irish (as seen on Irish DNA Atlas chart), the Orcadians shifted towards Norway and presumably if a PCA included a NW France sample then the Welsh would shift in that direction too as we know from the ancestry profiles that the Welsh are very high in the NW France component and the English are very low.

Dubhthach
02-18-2016, 10:53 AM
I see what you are saying about algorithms in PCAs and that samples will only group with nearest available samples. Again, what strikes me in the PoBI PCA is that in the absence of further Irish samples, the Scottish samples are still closer to the English cluster than they are to to the North Welsh. I think this is noteworthy.


Part of the reason for that is due to "Genetic Drift" within the Welsh sample. What strikes me about the PCA from Irish DNA atlas is if you invert it on the horizontal axis it almost looks like geography, except of course that the Irish instead of been to west are to the "North" Really what we need to anchor these PCA's graphs is for the aDNA samples form Ireland and Britain added in.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Atlas02.jpg
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Atlas01.jpg

If you consider that the English are an admixed population made up of 50-70% from a population that spoke Proto-Brythonic and 30-50% a population that spoke "proto-Old-English" (if such a beastie could be said to exist)

Than it's quite possible that we are seeing in the PCA graph the pre-existing genetic variation that existed in Britain due to geographic isolation of regions from each other. Ergo the "Proto-Brythonic" element in modern English sits in middle between that found in modern Scots (particulary South Scots) and modern Welsh. If you leave aside stuff like post-Roman migration from a purely geographic point of view it kinda make sense.

My feeling is a Norwegian sample would actually drag the "Orkney" sample northward in the PCA graph (my inverted version of Irish Atlas one) as instead of trying to find a best match with English sample for rare Allelles (from Northern Europe) these would match better with Norwegian sample. Likewise the "Brythonic" (Orkney was regarded as Pictish speaking) element in their ancestry would than probably cluster closer to their geographic neighbours in Scotland.

As for French, I think PoBI kinda coloured their results by saying that Cluster 17 (in old 24 cluster analysis) was French, if you ask me it looks like a common "Brythonic" cluster. After all NW France happens to be home to a Brythonic language.

avalon
02-18-2016, 11:02 AM
I think in one sense that is right, inasmuch as autosomal dna reflects the contributions of many more ancestors than the single paternal line. However, if one looks at the entire y-dna profile of a people or nation, it provides a pretty good picture of overall ancestry, especially in terms of patriarchal Indo-European cultures and ethnolinguistic groups like the Celts and Germans.

Besides, we are dealing with the autosomal dna of Northern Europeans who are very similar to one another to begin with. As I recall, PoBI itself said it had to take extraordinary measures to tease apart the various geographical groups in its sample population.

The y-dna profile of Scotland is very different from that of England in terms of the relative proportions of the two largest components in both populations, P312 (especially L21) and U106. It seems to me pretty plain that the fundamental difference in those proportions is reflective of the fundamental ancestral difference between the two nations: Scotland is basically a Celtic nation with a substantial Germanic component due chiefly to English influence, and England is a mixed nation with a Germanic plurality built on top of the original Celtic population of lowland Britain.

I would mostly agree with you re. y-dna, it puts us in the right ball park. But there may be occasions where just looking at y-dna is slightly misleading.

For example, South Pembrokeshire could well have elevated levels of U106 (Busby paper hinted at this with a sample from Haverfordwest) and this can be attributed to the influx of Flemings/English in the 12th century.

But, if we look at the PoBI autosomal clusters then the South Pembrokeshire samples are very close to the North Pembrokeshire samples and appear much more Welsh-like than English-like, so this may be a case of the y-dna saying significant Germanic input into South Pembrokeshire but the autosomalDNA saying less so.

kevinduffy
02-18-2016, 01:17 PM
Part of the reason for that is due to "Genetic Drift" within the Welsh sample. What strikes me about the PCA from Irish DNA atlas is if you invert it on the horizontal axis it almost looks like geography, except of course that the Irish instead of been to west are to the "North" Really what we need to anchor these PCA's graphs is for the aDNA samples form Ireland and Britain added in.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Atlas02.jpg
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/Atlas01.jpg

If you consider that the English are an admixed population made up of 50-70% from a population that spoke Proto-Brythonic and 30-50% a population that spoke "proto-Old-English" (if such a beastie could be said to exist)

Than it's quite possible that we are seeing in the PCA graph the pre-existing genetic variation that existed in Britain due to geographic isolation of regions from each other. Ergo the "Proto-Brythonic" element in modern English sits in middle between that found in modern Scots (particulary South Scots) and modern Welsh. If you leave aside stuff like post-Roman migration from a purely geographic point of view it kinda make sense.

My feeling is a Norwegian sample would actually drag the "Orkney" sample northward in the PCA graph (my inverted version of Irish Atlas one) as instead of trying to find a best match with English sample for rare Allelles (from Northern Europe) these would match better with Norwegian sample. Likewise the "Brythonic" (Orkney was regarded as Pictish speaking) element in their ancestry would than probably cluster closer to their geographic neighbours in Scotland.

As for French, I think PoBI kinda coloured their results by saying that Cluster 17 (in old 24 cluster analysis) was French, if you ask me it looks like a common "Brythonic" cluster. After all NW France happens to be home to a Brythonic language.

Are you talking about the Bretons? Wouldn't the researchers have taken measures to exclude them?

rms2
02-18-2016, 04:45 PM
I would mostly agree with you re. y-dna, it puts us in the right ball park. But there may be occasions where just looking at y-dna is slightly misleading.

For example, South Pembrokeshire could well have elevated levels of U106 (Busby paper hinted at this with a sample from Haverfordwest) and this can be attributed to the influx of Flemings/English in the 12th century.

But, if we look at the PoBI autosomal clusters then the South Pembrokeshire samples are very close to the North Pembrokeshire samples and appear much more Welsh-like than English-like, so this may be a case of the y-dna saying significant Germanic input into South Pembrokeshire but the autosomalDNA saying less so.

I disagree with your South Pembrokeshire example. In fact, I think it illustrates how the y-dna profile mirrors history (i.e., the influx of English and Flemish). In that case the autosomal dna actually proves deceptive, probably because it is less amenable to being successfully traced than uniparental markers are.

Remember too that autosomal dna is a random crap shoot, while y-dna provides a steady, unbreakable trail to one's paternal line, in fact, to all the paternal lines of a people, once the entire y-dna profile is known.

Dubhthach
02-18-2016, 05:52 PM
Are you talking about the Bretons? Wouldn't the researchers have taken measures to exclude them?

Bingo, nope the sample was just form "North West France", if you look at Page 6 of following PDF
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/RoyalSociety_exhibit_Jul2012.pdf

"Cluster 17" makes up big chunk (guestimate 30-40%) of the "Northwest Cluster", that is probably made up of cohort of people from Brittany and surronding areas. This "Cluster 17" component actually shows it's highest level in "North Wales" cluster (in that PDF).

moesan
02-18-2016, 10:49 PM
I disagree with your South Pembrokeshire example. In fact, I think it illustrates how the y-dna profile mirrors history (i.e., the influx of English and Flemish). In that case the autosomal dna actually proves deceptive, probably because it is less amenable to being successfully traced than uniparental markers are.

Remember too that autosomal dna is a random crap shoot, while y-dna provides a steady, unbreakable trail to one's paternal line, in fact, to all the paternal lines of a people, once the entire y-dna profile is known.


autosomals are a good tool, it depends on how they are used (diverse criteria for admixture, rare alleles, length of common sets of genes etc...), it proves only that spite reliable for male ligneages, Y-DNA haplos doesn't weight the real weight of every "parent" population; even if the situation of the Barbarians of Late Neolithic Bronze Age where elite males mated with different conquired people females of married elite females of other groups, as shown by heterogenous autosomals along with very homogenous series of haplos-Y, it seems the new masters and their men took often local females often enough in Wales still centurieslater; nothing new.
Concerning this thread in general, I think someones had it: Scottish people overlap with English people, but still shows clearly a shift towards other "Celts" of the Isles.
Spite moked by the new wave, ancient anthropology showed it well;and it showed more precisely than the autsomals surveys (for problematics not enough clearly fixed) the local and regional differences, very well in accord with linguistic and history.
I have to read it complitely but I think the POBI study relies too much upon clusterings based upon late drifts and not enough upon admixtureS. the result being a fragmentation of the outspred old celtic refuges and a too "homogenous" english population where more circulation and less isolation did not permit too much local drifts. Even if individuals could be far enough one from another according to region, the England territory did not give way to clear cut between merging regions; but a gradiant existed still in the 50's between West and East Englishmen? ofr I know, surely more striking among peasants and among fishers.

moesan
02-18-2016, 10:52 PM
Scotland can be homogenous concerning national feeling but on the genetic ground, it is compound of regions with different stories, even if all that is melting since a long time in the 'Lallands', the scottish within melting pot.
Sorry for my "of"s in place of "or" in my posts

alan
02-19-2016, 01:05 AM
One thing that confuses me. I read posts which say U106 in Britain is basically Saxon and not Norse, but that doesn't seem fit with the map for the North West of Scotland. It is also said that there is little U106 in Ireland where there was also a Norse presence.

The north-west of Scotland had a Norse settlement that was basically island hopping and bit of nearby mainland - a classic situation ripe for founder effects. That is probably why U106 is well represented. Those lands had very few Normans and zero Angles etc so really Norse are the only realistic option. As for Ireland, the situation if very different - they raided and formed towns, didnt conquer a lot of land to farm or become rural populations. Those towns were taken into native Irish control in the last couple of pre-Norman invasion centuries. The Normans then took the very same towns over after defeating remaining Norse-derived populations within them. Basically I dont think the Norse had much lasting impact at all in Ireland and that is down to the way they settled. In places like NW Scotland and the islands around there, they were settling in very sparse areas where a few Viking boats could conquer island by island who could do little to resist them and they became a significant component of the rural farmer-fisher populations there and were never really driven out from some of those islands.

alan
02-19-2016, 01:13 AM
Well the Scottish cluster in that diagram are intermediate (with some overlap) between East English (red) and North-Welsh. Two things to consider
1. As English are clearly an admixed Brythonic/Germanic grouping you'd expect some overlap between them and other populations with less "Germanic" input
2. North Welsh show some interesting Y-DNA haplogroups (high level's of E), so perhaps we are looking at certain level of isolation and novel variants developing that weren't shared in the wider pre-AS period "British" population, as a result divergent population history
3. Orkney is obviously shifted due to Norse influence -- if a Norwegian sample was included in PCA it would probably even more shifted that way.
4. PCA space is determined by the samples included -- I imagine if you included a Dutch sample it would lead to English (red) samples been drawn towards that pole.

I'm reminded of the PCA graph from several years ago when they compared sample from Ireland (Dublin no less), Scotland (Aberdeen) and England (London), which unsurprising show the Scots as intermediate between Irish and English sample. Though to be honest I don't think Dublin would be representative sample for Ireland in general.

Unless it was filtered by parent/grandparent origins, Aberdeen is a disasterous choice to sample because in the last 35 years it has had a huge influx of people from other bits of Scotland, large nos from England (especially north-east England) and other parts of the UK to work in the oil industry. The influx has been so significant that its distinctive accent has virtually died off in one generation.

alan
02-19-2016, 02:05 AM
I think in one sense that is right, inasmuch as autosomal dna reflects the contributions of many more ancestors than the single paternal line. However, if one looks at the entire y-dna profile of a people or nation, it provides a pretty good picture of overall ancestry, especially in terms of patriarchal Indo-European cultures and ethnolinguistic groups like the Celts and Germans.

Besides, we are dealing with the autosomal dna of Northern Europeans who are very similar to one another to begin with. As I recall, PoBI itself said it had to take extraordinary measures to tease apart the various geographical groups in its sample population.

The y-dna profile of Scotland is very different from that of England in terms of the relative proportions of the two largest components in both populations, P312 (especially L21) and U106. It seems to me pretty plain that the fundamental difference in those proportions is reflective of the fundamental ancestral difference between the two nations: Scotland is basically a Celtic nation with a substantial Germanic component due chiefly to English influence, and England is a mixed nation with a Germanic plurality built on top of the original Celtic population of lowland Britain.

That is a very good summary IMO. History backs this of course. The basiline IMO is a map of dominance of Celtic languages from 0-1300AD would show some form of Celtic dominated the vast bulk of both the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland across that entire period. The key thing to not is the bulk of the non-Celtic linguistic cultural expansion was after 1300, indeed after 1400. There was a very rapid retreat of Gaelic to the highland line c. 1350-1500 - a period where there is no invasion or wave of settlement to explain this.

So that really just leaves the core non-Celtic input events as being:

1. The Northumbrian (Bernician subset) Angles occupying eastern Scotland from the Tweed to the Forth and to a less convincing degree overlording a wider area of southern Scotland to the west. General feeling is that they didnt wipe out the local Britons. This group of Angles and their Britisih sustrate held onto their lands despite the destruction of Northumbian kingdom into a rump state until they were annexed into the expanding Gaelic kingdom of Alba c. 1000AD but without any great displacement of those English speakers (a thin Gaelic elite superstrate seems to have been the height of it). The upshot of this is that south-east and Borders area Scotland took in a an Anglo-Brittonic population of considerable density c. 1000AD. I suspect the genetic mix was very similar to the English side of the border in Northumberland where the population history c. 0-1000AD is very similar to south-east Scotland i.e. a relatively late Anglian overlay on a brittonic population.

2. A small numbers but big impact (due to low existing pop density) movement of Norse settlers in the extreme north and north-west and its islands, apparently including a u106 founder effect factor.

3. A high Medieval influx of knights, and burgh founding settlers/traders/fishers of a mix of Norman, Breton, Fleming, Anglo-Saxon and other NW European origins mostly c. 1100-1200AD. This added a further non-Celtic element to the south of Scotland and also sent a thin scatter of these non-Celtic nobles and burgh settlers northwards up much of the eastern seaboard of Scotland who formed high prestige islands in a sea of Celtic people. They seem to still have formed little islands of non-Celtic peoples until 1400 but thereafter their cultural-economic-prestige influence really expanded leading to the highland-lowland division in time.

Now those three elements are pretty well the sum total of significant recorded non-Celtic invaders, annexed or invited settlers in Scotland from 0AD to 1700Ad.

IMO far more people have probably settled Scotland from England in the last 100 years than ever had before that. I understand that today about one in ten residents of Scotland are actually English born and I presume many more have parents or grandparents from the south. Generally this is a movement of better off people. I wouldnt be surprised if 20% of today;s Scots had an English grandparent. Also large flux of Irish (overwhelming from Ireland northern third) in the 19th century means a similar amount likely have a grandparent or great grandparent who was largely of Irish ancestry. Without doubt unless careful selection in done this will blur the autosomal differences that may have been much clearer 200 years ago.

Surname selection can reduce this effect on yDNA studies but its a lot harder to do that for autosomal DNA because many people dont know their genenealogy past their grandparents and wont know the birth surnames and origins of their 8 great grandparents or 16 GG grandparents or 32 GGG grandparents. It is back to the latter sort of generation who lived in the early 19th century you really need to go to get back to the age before industrial UK led to a lot of movement. Very very few people have that sort of personal genealogical knowledge so autosomal DNA studies cannot filter out this factor in the way surnames can for yDNA. Basically its already 2 or 3 generations too late to hope to be able to blind select autosomally 'pure' samples of any area.

That all said, I still believe if you are careful about selection to eliminate the factor of a lot of influx from other parts of the British Isles in the last few generations then worthwhile studies can be done.

alan
02-19-2016, 02:13 AM
Scotland can be homogenous concerning national feeling but on the genetic ground, it is compound of regions with different stories, even if all that is melting since a long time in the 'Lallands', the scottish within melting pot.
Sorry for my "of"s in place of "or" in my posts

But the highlanders who didnt migrate abroad mostly migrated into lowland Scotland. So today there is barely any families in Scotland who are not a genetic blend of both lowland and highland Scots and often have a bit of Irish too. So for most families in Scotland today both Gaelic and Lallans is part of their heritage.So taking pride in both heritage rather than setting them against each other isnt just an identity expediency, its a realistic reflection of their recent genealogy. That doesnt stop some people from taking sides but usually this is somewhat absurd given their own mixed recent genealogy.

alan
02-19-2016, 02:20 AM
autosomals are a good tool, it depends on how they are used (diverse criteria for admixture, rare alleles, length of common sets of genes etc...), it proves only that spite reliable for male ligneages, Y-DNA haplos doesn't weight the real weight of every "parent" population; even if the situation of the Barbarians of Late Neolithic Bronze Age where elite males mated with different conquired people females of married elite females of other groups, as shown by heterogenous autosomals along with very homogenous series of haplos-Y, it seems the new masters and their men took often local females often enough in Wales still centurieslater; nothing new.
Concerning this thread in general, I think someones had it: Scottish people overlap with English people, but still shows clearly a shift towards other "Celts" of the Isles.
Spite moked by the new wave, ancient anthropology showed it well;and it showed more precisely than the autsomals surveys (for problematics not enough clearly fixed) the local and regional differences, very well in accord with linguistic and history.
I have to read it complitely but I think the POBI study relies too much upon clusterings based upon late drifts and not enough upon admixtureS. the result being a fragmentation of the outspred old celtic refuges and a too "homogenous" english population where more circulation and less isolation did not permit too much local drifts. Even if individuals could be far enough one from another according to region, the England territory did not give way to clear cut between merging regions; but a gradiant existed still in the 50's between West and East Englishmen? ofr I know, surely more striking among peasants and among fishers.

One thing worth noting is that geographical mobility - moving large distances within the country to find work - apparently was extremely common in England even back in the 1600s and this was generally not practiced on anything like the same scale in Scotland and Ireland until a couple of centuries later. So England has had a much longer period of mass geographical mobility and this may explain the relative homogenising effect on English autosomal DNA rather than anything to do with the Anglo-Saxons etc.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-19-2016, 07:30 AM
The north-west of Scotland had a Norse settlement that was basically island hopping and bit of nearby mainland - a classic situation ripe for founder effects. That is probably why U106 is well represented. Those lands had very few Normans and zero Angles etc so really Norse are the only realistic option. As for Ireland, the situation if very different - they raided and formed towns, didnt conquer a lot of land to farm or become rural populations. Those towns were taken into native Irish control in the last couple of pre-Norman invasion centuries. The Normans then took the very same towns over after defeating remaining Norse-derived populations within them. Basically I dont think the Norse had much lasting impact at all in Ireland and that is down to the way they settled. In places like NW Scotland and the islands around there, they were settling in very sparse areas where a few Viking boats could conquer island by island who could do little to resist them and they became a significant component of the rural farmer-fisher populations there and were never really driven out from some of those islands.

Thank you. That seems a logical conclusion.The only possibilities I could see would be Norse or earlier, the latter seeming unlikely. Unless I have missed something, I have hardly seen any reference to U106 being associated with a Norse population.

avalon
02-19-2016, 11:00 AM
Bingo, nope the sample was just form "North West France", if you look at Page 6 of following PDF
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/RoyalSociety_exhibit_Jul2012.pdf

"Cluster 17" makes up big chunk (guestimate 30-40%) of the "Northwest Cluster", that is probably made up of cohort of people from Brittany and surronding areas. This "Cluster 17" component actually shows it's highest level in "North Wales" cluster (in that PDF).

The NW France sample was taken from a hospital in Rennes so yes, likely to include people from Brittany and nearby regions Loire and Normandy.

To confuse matters more, in the pdf you posted the NW France component was cluster 17 but in the final paper this component became cluster FRA14 and they actually labelled a different Northern France cluster as FRA17.

It looks to me as though in the final analysis, the Irish cluster is stripped out and and sort of transplanted to the Northern France cluster FRA17 (final paper). What is very strange though is that the Welsh have none of this FRA17 cluster and all the other UK clusters do. This is probably down in some way to genetic drift and relative isolation of Welsh samples.

BillMC
02-19-2016, 11:36 AM
I
The y-dna profile of Scotland is very different from that of England in terms of the relative proportions of the two largest components in both populations, P312 (especially L21) and U106. It seems to me pretty plain that the fundamental difference in those proportions is reflective of the fundamental ancestral difference between the two nations: Scotland is basically a Celtic nation with a substantial Germanic component due chiefly to English influence, and England is a mixed nation with a Germanic plurality built on top of the original Celtic population of lowland Britain.

I am relatively new to this subject WRT things such as 'L21 and U106'. I am gradually learning though and I do have some knowledge of ancient British history. One of the things that I do know is that we should be careful not to confuse 'celtic' DNA markers with that of the DNA markers of post Ice Age settlers. According to researches about 75% of the inhabitants of the British Isles are post Ice Age and that only a small percentage are Celts, Saxons or Vikings.

Yes the 'Celtic' countries such as Scotland, Wales and Ireland along with the western parts of England will have the most the 10% of British Isles claimed to have been from Celts. Eastern England - so its been claimed had Germanic settlers prior to the Roman invasion. Eastern Scotland probably had them too - Tacitus the Roman historain noticed the similarities of appearance shared by Caledonian tribes and the ttribes of northern Germany. He also noticed the similarities of appearance shared by the Silures of south Wales and the Iberian tribes of Spain

Researchers using DNA samples have now confirmed that the ancient Celts originated in northern Spain as opposed to Central Europe. This point was first raised by Simon James in his book the Atlantic Celts. The central Europe origin was due to a misiunderstanding of Herodotus, a Greek historian of the 5th century BC He thought that the Danube ended near Pyrenese mountains - the Celts homeland and modern historians thought that was supposed to be referring to the Alpine mountains in central Europe.

Recent research into ethnic origins via DNA markers by people such as Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenhiemer have confirmed the origin of the Celts to be in the northern Spain region. Celtic regions such as Ireland, Wales and the west of Scotland have higher levels of Y chromosones with the R1B haplogroup than other parts of the British Ilses. They also have the highest levels outside the northern Spain region.

So the question is: how do we know if L21 and U106 are Celtic or post Ice Age?

BillMC
02-19-2016, 11:57 AM
I think Scottish history shows that English was an intrusive language in Scotland, spread at first from the south by the Anglian Northumbrians, forwarded along in the 13th century by King David I, and then really put over the top following the triumph of Protestantism in Scotland, which depended on works in English brought up from the south.

You have confused Lallands Scots with English - they are two separate languages. Anglic Northumbrain may well have been an intrusion upon the Brythonic speakers of southern Scotland, but north of the rivers Forth & Clyde were the lands of the Picts and Dalradian Scots. The Angles did for a short period conquor southern Pictland but were beaten back by the Pictish king Nechtan in 685AD.

IMO it is quite possibel that there were tiny Germanic speaking comminties on Scotland's eastern coasts in ancient pre Roman times. Especially if they had trading links with the other side of the North Sea. It was only during the 11th century that Northumbrian Anglic started to form the basis of Lallands. Malcolm III married a West Saxon princess: Margaret whose family along with many other Anglo Saxons sought refugue in Scotland from the Norman conquest. King David actually encouraged the settlement of French speaking Normans with mostly northern English places along with their Anglo-Danish serfs and servants - this along with the settlement of Flemish merchants and other west Germanic peoples such as Brabanters contributed to the eventual establishment of Lallands Scots as the official language of Scotland. None of these things could hardly be claimed as an intrusion.

The speaking of actual Standard English was an intrusion in the post Treaty of Union era - after 1707. When English people refer to Scots as speaking a dialect of 'broken English' - what they actually mean is that Scots speak broken Lallands due to the intrusion of Standard English.

avalon
02-19-2016, 11:59 AM
IMO far more people have probably settled Scotland from England in the last 100 years than ever had before that. I understand that today about one in ten residents of Scotland are actually English born and I presume many more have parents or grandparents from the south. Generally this is a movement of better off people. I wouldnt be surprised if 20% of today;s Scots had an English grandparent. Also large flux of Irish (overwhelming from Ireland northern third) in the 19th century means a similar amount likely have a grandparent or great grandparent who was largely of Irish ancestry. Without doubt unless careful selection in done this will blur the autosomal differences that may have been much clearer 200 years ago.

Surname selection can reduce this effect on yDNA studies but its a lot harder to do that for autosomal DNA because many people dont know their genenealogy past their grandparents and wont know the birth surnames and origins of their 8 great grandparents or 16 GG grandparents or 32 GGG grandparents. It is back to the latter sort of generation who lived in the early 19th century you really need to go to get back to the age before industrial UK led to a lot of movement. Very very few people have that sort of personal genealogical knowledge so autosomal DNA studies cannot filter out this factor in the way surnames can for yDNA. Basically its already 2 or 3 generations too late to hope to be able to blind select autosomally 'pure' samples of any area.

That all said, I still believe if you are careful about selection to eliminate the factor of a lot of influx from other parts of the British Isles in the last few generations then worthwhile studies can be done.

The same sort of thing has actually being going on in North Wales for decades. It's often the case of fairly well off English relocating from towns/cities in search of some tranquility in the Welsh countryside or the lure of Welsh coastal resorts, etc. A staggering statistic from the 2011 census was that 21% of the Welsh population was born in England, which goes to show how mobile modern Britons are.

Of course, this is why modern DNA studies need to be very careful in who they sample. The PoBI wasn't perfect but it is about the best we have and they did select rural samples so this would hopefully filter out urban samples which are more likely to have been impacted by 200 years of industrialisation. The further criteria was that all grandparents were born within a 40 mile radius and the average age of PoBI participants was 60-69 so you're looking at a rural generation whose grandparents were born early in the 20th century so this would pre-date the hyper mobility of 20th century Britons.

I think it is possible to do even further useful autosomalDNA testing actually because it is fairly easy to do genealogical research on the net nowadays.

BillMC
02-19-2016, 12:13 PM
At the time of Webster's census of 1755 (roughly where most Scots trace their ancestry back to) there were more people in the highlands than the lowlands.

I read somewhere that one third of Scots lived in the Highlands prior to the Clearences. Here's a copy of Webster's census, but \i can't find that bit MacUalraig: http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/research/census-records/websters-census-of-1755-scottish-population-statistics.pdf



So a majority, if they bothered to do some genealogy, would find Gaelic speaking ancestors. I can understand some antipathy in the ex-Norse controlled areas though.

The question is though how much of the Highland population were actual Celts? i.e. with the Celtic DNA as opposed to being merely Celtic speakers. I've already pointed out in a previous thread that I have a Celtic Highland surname with an Anglo-Saxon DNA haplo-type and after doing a second reading of Oppenheimer's Origin of the British, I found out that I am not the only one - according to Oppenheimer 3.8% of Scots have Anglo Saxon haplotypes and this compares with 5.5% of the English. I expect that my Anglo Saxon ancesters may have been on the run from the Norman conquerors. It seems as if the Highlands may have more of a diverse DNA/ethnic population as previously thought. Let's face it though apart from beautifil landscapes and excellent hunting and fishings grounds - it is not a good place for growing crops. IMO it musthave had its attration for people on the run or who decided to 'drop out' of mainstrean society.

MacUalraig
02-19-2016, 12:49 PM
I read somewhere that one third of Scots lived in the Highlands prior to the Clearences. Here's a copy of Webster's census, but \i can't find that bit MacUalraig: http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/research/census-records/websters-census-of-1755-scottish-population-statistics.pdf




p xviii
Population in thousands:
Highlands 652 51% of total
Central 464 37%
Lowland 149 11%

rms2
02-19-2016, 01:02 PM
You have confused Lallands Scots with English - they are two separate languages . . .

It's an English dialect of much the same origin, coming up from what is now England, and was intrusive in Scotland.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-19-2016, 01:05 PM
I read somewhere that one third of Scots lived in the Highlands prior to the Clearences. Here's a copy of Webster's census, but \i can't find that bit MacUalraig: http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/research/census-records/websters-census-of-1755-scottish-population-statistics.pdf




The question is though how much of the Highland population were actual Celts? i.e. with the Celtic DNA as opposed to being merely Celtic speakers. I've already pointed out in a previous thread that I have a Celtic Highland surname with an Anglo-Saxon DNA haplo-type and after doing a second reading of Oppenheimer's Origin of the British, I found out that I am not the only one - according to Oppenheimer 3.8% of Scots have Anglo Saxon haplotypes and this compares with 5.5% of the English. I expect that my Anglo Saxon ancesters may have been on the run from the Norman conquerors. It seems as if the Highlands may have more of a diverse DNA/ethnic population as previously thought. Let's face it though apart from beautifil landscapes and excellent hunting and fishings grounds - it is not a good place for growing crops. IMO it musthave had its attration for people on the run or who decided to 'drop out' of mainstrean society.

I'm pretty new to this subject myself and don't have the same knowledge of ancient history as some others. You pose some interesting questions. I'm Welsh with a family history in the Welsh borders and am U106, which could well be accounted for by Saxon influence and proximity. It just seems less likely to me that you would have the same effect in the remoter parts of Scotland.

rms2
02-19-2016, 01:09 PM
. . .

I've already pointed out in a previous thread that I have a Celtic Highland surname with an Anglo-Saxon DNA haplo-type and after doing a second reading of Oppenheimer's Origin of the British, I found out that I am not the only one - according to Oppenheimer 3.8% of Scots have Anglo Saxon haplotypes and this compares with 5.5% of the English
. . .

Oppenheimer's book was obsolete by the time it was published, based as it was on what became known as "bikini haplotypes" of six markers.

I myself belong to Oppenheimer's six-marker "Frisian Modal Haplotype" and should therefore be classed as the y-dna descendant of Anglo-Saxon invaders. However, I am L21+>DF13+>DF41+>BY160+.

I wouldn't put much if any stock in that entertaining, well written, but largely erroneous and misleading book.

Surnames are of relatively recent provenance; Norse and English intrusion and settlement in Scotland predates them.

MacUalraig
02-19-2016, 01:25 PM
Oppenheimer's book was obsolete by the time it was published, based as it was on what became known as "bikini haplotypes" of six markers.

I myself belong to Oppenheimer's six-marker "Frisian Modal Haplotype" and should therefore be classed as the y-dna descendant of Anglo-Saxon invaders. However, I am L21+>DF13+>DF41+>BY160+.

I wouldn't put much if any stock in that entertaining, well written, but largely erroneous and misleading book.

Surnames are of relatively recent provenance; Norse and English intrusion and settlement in Scotland predates them.

Yes there are a few books worth looking at that are more recent not to mention the papers discussed elsewhere. Moffat and Wilson's Scots a Genetic journey has some interesting maps.

Nicolaisen's Scottish Place names has a chapter on early English names which has maps of 7 different Anglian names plus one of Anglian type crosses. They show a small number of datapoints in Galloway/Ayrshire and in the NE but are overwhelmingly SE up to around the Edinburgh area

BillMC
02-19-2016, 02:38 PM
It's an English dialect of much the same origin, coming up from what is now England, and was intrusive in Scotland.

Part of Lallands originated with the Northumbrain intrusion into north Britain where the people spoke Brythonic. Scotland was originally called Alba and this kingdom only existed on the north side of rivers Forth and Clyde. By the 11th century Alba extended its boundaries into Brythonic and Anglic speaking areas, thus creating the existing border with England.

The Lallands language represnts the diversity of the Scots people. Along with the Northumbrian Anglic there are contributions from the Flemmish, Danish, French and Gaelic languages. None of the peoples who contributed to Lallands were violent intruders. They were either people coming in to seek safe refugue or were people invited in for the contributions that they made to Scotland's development during the Middle Ages.

BillMC
02-19-2016, 02:45 PM
Oppenheimer's book was obsolete by the time it was published, based as it was on what became known as "bikini haplotypes" of six markers.

I myself belong to Oppenheimer's six-marker "Frisian Modal Haplotype" and should therefore be classed as the y-dna descendant of Anglo-Saxon invaders. However, I am L21+>DF13+>DF41+>BY160+.

I wouldn't put much if any stock in that entertaining, well written, but largely erroneous and misleading book.

Surnames are of relatively recent provenance; Norse and English intrusion and settlement in Scotland predates them.

The only other books I've read on this subject are: Moffet's 'Scots a Genetic journey' which IMO was a bit superficial and Brian Sykes 'Blood of the Isles' which was superficial and a bit frivolous. It was only Oppenheimers 'Origin of the British' which IMO went into greater deapth.

MacUalraig
02-19-2016, 03:41 PM
The only other books I've read on this subject are: Moffet's 'Scots a Genetic journey' which IMO was a bit superficial and Brian Sykes 'Blood of the Isles' which was superficial and a bit frivolous. It was only Oppenheimers 'Origin of the British' which IMO went into greater deapth.

Yes, but you have to bear in mind how fast our knowledge of the tree, and data collection expands. Moffat's two books even if light on detail are several significant years more recent. Even better catch up on some of the papers that have come out. Not sure we have a good list of the must-read ones to go to but use Google scholar to look for papers say since 2012 covering Y chromosome haplogroups in the British Isles like the 2012 Busby paper. Then read or skim at least the papers since then that have cited it (67 of them).

rms2
02-19-2016, 04:28 PM
The only other books I've read on this subject are: Moffet's 'Scots a Genetic journey' which IMO was a bit superficial and Brian Sykes 'Blood of the Isles' which was superficial and a bit frivolous. It was only Oppenheimers 'Origin of the British' which IMO went into greater deapth.

It doesn't really matter how deep Oppenheimer attempted to go. He got things seriously wrong. That book's chief value now is as a paper weight.

It's a shame, because he is obviously an intelligent man and an excellent writer. It's too bad he didn't wait a few years and have the advantages of ancient y-dna results, NGS SNP test results, and the fuller phylogenetic tree we have now.

Dubhthach
02-19-2016, 05:13 PM
BillMC -- it's worth pointing out that we now have aDNA from the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and Iron ages. Something that wasn't available when any of those books were written. What's evident in evidence so far is total lack of anytype of R1b (be it U106 or P312 subclades such as L21) before the Bronze age.

BillMC
02-19-2016, 07:18 PM
BillMC -- it's worth pointing out that we now have aDNA from the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and Iron ages. Something that wasn't available when any of those books were written. What's evident in evidence so far is total lack of anytype of R1b (be it U106 or P312 subclades such as L21) before the Bronze age.

Now that is interesting because it is telling me that the first inhabitants of the British Isles didn't come from SW Europe, but from the east and maybe the NE and would suggest that settlers brought the I1a haplogroup into the gene-pool.

Dubhthach
02-19-2016, 07:26 PM
Now that is interesting because it is telling me that the first inhabitants of the British Isles didn't come from SW Europe, but from the east and maybe the NE and would suggest that settlers brought the I1a haplogroup into the gene-pool.

I2 is a better bet, as it appears to be dominant in continental European Mesolithic remains (with some showing up in Neolithic -- where Haplogroup G appears dominant so far) of course we are lacking any mesolithic aDNA from Britain, actually oldest aDNA from Britain is from 1st century BC.

jdean
02-19-2016, 07:38 PM
I2 is a better bet, as it appears to be dominant in continental European Mesolithic remains (with some showing up in Neolithic -- where Haplogroup G appears dominant so far) of course we are lacking any mesolithic aDNA from Britain, actually oldest aDNA from Britain is from 1st century BC.

I think we can add the Irish aDNA to that group as well though, pretty hard to imagine anybody getting to Ireland in those days without passing through Britain.

BillMC
02-19-2016, 07:44 PM
It doesn't really matter how deep Oppenheimer attempted to go. He got things seriously wrong. That book's chief value now is as a paper weight.

It's a shame, because he is obviously an intelligent man and an excellent writer. It's too bad he didn't wait a few years and have the advantages of ancient y-dna results, NGS SNP test results, and the fuller phylogenetic tree we have now.

So are there any books available which put these findings into an histrorical framework giving details of the various settlers and their places of origin?

Dubhthach
02-19-2016, 07:45 PM
I think we can add the Irish aDNA to that group as well though, pretty hard to imagine anybody getting to Ireland in those days without passing through Britain.

;) Ye just gonna have to wait until some bright spark over in museum there sequence a local of equivalent age. But yes I'm in general agreement the Irish Neolithic/Bronze age samples, just probably give us an insight into what population structure in Britain was.

What would be nice though is if we could get some Bronze age/Iron age samples from France/Belgium to add to the stew.

MacUalraig
02-19-2016, 08:00 PM
So are there any books available which put these findings into an histrorical framework giving details of the various settlers and their places of origin?

Jean Manco's books are the most up-to-date, before that Mallory's one but that was on the Irish. But it is very difficult to keep up with the aDNA in particular.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Celts-The-Ancestral-Story/dp/0500051836

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestral-Journeys-Peopling-Venturers-Vikings/dp/0500292078

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Irish-J-P-Mallory/dp/0500291845

jdean
02-19-2016, 08:14 PM
;) Ye just gonna have to wait until some bright spark over in museum there sequence a local of equivalent age. But yes I'm in general agreement the Irish Neolithic/Bronze age samples, just probably give us an insight into what population structure in Britain was.

What would be nice though is if we could get some Bronze age/Iron age samples from France/Belgium to add to the stew.

Second that, not the same but apparently Rollo is getting his DNA done at last : )

http://explicofund.org/predictions-for-2016/

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-19-2016, 08:20 PM
Now that is interesting because it is telling me that the first inhabitants of the British Isles didn't come from SW Europe, but from the east and maybe the NE and would suggest that settlers brought the I1a haplogroup into the gene-pool.

The early archeology of some of the Scottish Islands is interesting. Obviously this was not an isolated,simple, remote or (relatively) depopulated area in the distant past. It doesn't seem likely to me they came up from the South.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKoJOT0ITLAhXH1RoKHXwkCi4QjhwIBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archaeology.org%2Fissues%2F61-1301%2Ffeatures%2F327-scotland-orkney-neolithic-brodgar&psig=AFQjCNE_pOm53fxWDB18qyaFBFae6HBWwA&ust=1455998657818409

BillMC
02-20-2016, 12:07 AM
We tend to regard the Northern Ilses of Scotland as windswept backwards having to significance apart from their role in the north sea oil and gas industries. Yet from the Neolithic era to the Viking era they seem to have been of strategic significance.

BillMC
02-20-2016, 12:09 AM
Jean Manco's books are the most up-to-date, before that Mallory's one but that was on the Irish. But it is very difficult to keep up with the aDNA in particular.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Celts-The-Ancestral-Story/dp/0500051836

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancestral-Journeys-Peopling-Venturers-Vikings/dp/0500292078

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Irish-J-P-Mallory/dp/0500291845

Thanks - I'll look out for them.

rms2
02-20-2016, 12:44 AM
Sorry I did not see your question about books earlier, but I second MacUalraig's recommendations.

Saetro
02-20-2016, 03:06 AM
Unless it was filtered by parent/grandparent origins, Aberdeen is a disasterous choice to sample because in the last 35 years it has had a huge influx of people from other bits of Scotland, large nos from England (especially north-east England) and other parts of the UK to work in the oil industry. The influx has been so significant that its distinctive accent has virtually died off in one generation.

Fairly certain that POBI British samples were filtered by grandparent origins.
(A similar Irish study is filtering by great-grandparents, so it is taking a long time to recruit volunteers.)
It was much harder to find filtering basis for European samples among the supplementary information.

avalon
02-20-2016, 08:15 AM
I disagree with your South Pembrokeshire example. In fact, I think it illustrates how the y-dna profile mirrors history (i.e., the influx of English and Flemish). In that case the autosomal dna actually proves deceptive, probably because it is less amenable to being successfully traced than uniparental markers are.

Remember too that autosomal dna is a random crap shoot, while y-dna provides a steady, unbreakable trail to one's paternal line, in fact, to all the paternal lines of a people, once the entire y-dna profile is known.

In terms of tracking historical migrations then y-dna is best. It also gives a good overview at a national or regional level but in terms of looking at individual or local ancestry then autosomalDNA is better.

Hypothetically, let's take two men: an R1a guy from Anglesey and a L21 guy from Norfolk. The R1a guy is descended from a Norse Viking who shipwrecked off the Anglesey coast in 912AD and by some stroke of luck married in to the local Welsh community. The L21 man is descended from a from a Celt who survived the Anglo-Saxon advance in Norfolk and whose descendants became culturally Anglo-Saxon and then English.

In terms of autosomalDNA the R1a guy would now fit into the North Wales cluster (i.e. very Welsh and very Celtic) but the L21 guy from Norfolk would now sit in the large English cluster (i.e much more Germanic).

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-20-2016, 08:35 AM
We tend to regard the Northern Ilses of Scotland as windswept backwards having to significance apart from their role in the north sea oil and gas industries. Yet from the Neolithic era to the Viking era they seem to have been of strategic significance.

We tend to think of continental migration as being from the South, but it seems fairly evident there has been significant migration from the North/North East over a long period. You don't arrive in the South of Britain and tramp all the way up through better farming land to the Scottish Islands surely? I posted this "J" haplogroup map (First Farmers) on another thread. Could the "hotspot" in North East Scotland be associated with early migration patterns or maybe there is another reason?

7893

rms2
02-20-2016, 01:40 PM
In terms of tracking historical migrations then y-dna is best. It also gives a good overview at a national or regional level but in terms of looking at individual or local ancestry then autosomalDNA is better.

Hypothetically, let's take two men: an R1a guy from Anglesey and a L21 guy from Norfolk. The R1a guy is descended from a Norse Viking who shipwrecked off the Anglesey coast in 912AD and by some stroke of luck married in to the local Welsh community. The L21 man is descended from a from a Celt who survived the Anglo-Saxon advance in Norfolk and whose descendants became culturally Anglo-Saxon and then English.

In terms of autosomalDNA the R1a guy would now fit into the North Wales cluster (i.e. very Welsh and very Celtic) but the L21 guy from Norfolk would now sit in the large English cluster (i.e much more Germanic).

All very true, but again autosomal dna is masking important parts of the stories of the origins of those two y-dna lines and might fool some simple people into thinking that there was a Celtic R1a clade in Anglesey and a Germanic L21 clade in Norfolk.

Another problem with that scenario is it does not take into account the entire y-dna profile of the regions in question. The y-dna profiles of Anglesey and Norfolk are undoubtedly very different. I don't have the figures at hand, but I'm pretty sure the frequency of R1a in Anglesey is minute, far outweighed by L21, and L21 in Norfolk is probably vastly outnumbered by the combination of U106 and I-M253.

alan
02-20-2016, 06:35 PM
Part of Lallands originated with the Northumbrain intrusion into north Britain where the people spoke Brythonic. Scotland was originally called Alba and this kingdom only existed on the north side of rivers Forth and Clyde. By the 11th century Alba extended its boundaries into Brythonic and Anglic speaking areas, thus creating the existing border with England.

The Lallands language represnts the diversity of the Scots people. Along with the Northumbrian Anglic there are contributions from the Flemmish, Danish, French and Gaelic languages. None of the peoples who contributed to Lallands were violent intruders. They were either people coming in to seek safe refugue or were people invited in for the contributions that they made to Scotland's development during the Middle Ages.

true except for the Northumbrian Angles - they conquered the lands of the Brittonic Goddodin (Votodini) tribe of SE Scotland, capturing Edinburgh in 638AD.

alan
02-20-2016, 06:52 PM
The bottom line is pre-modern Scottish history only shows a few geographically limited Germanic intrusions.
1. The Angles who never permanently settled north of the Forth-Clyde line and only had a limited presence if the western half of southern Scotland which largely remained Brittonic.

2. A localised Norse settlement in the extreme north and more lightly down the Hebrides etc

3. A very small scale settlement of nobles and burgh traders of various origins - Norman, Breton, English, Flemish etc c. 1100-1200.

That just doesnt add up to much of a huge impact in the heartland of Scotland outside its SE and extreme north/NW fringes. It is possible though that there was a slow burn impact caused by the high status and preferential access to wealth etc of the last group meaning their descendants tended to survive better.

However, the bottom line is Scotland does not have a history of major Germanic intrusion except in the SE and north/NW fringe and therefore it would be truly surprising if most of the genes didnt come from Celtic speakers.

The yDNA probably exaggerates overall impact of the non-Celtic later settlers as far more men than women were probably involved yet the Celtic yDNA lines seem a clear majority.

All

Jean M
02-20-2016, 07:13 PM
3. A very small scale settlement of nobles and burgh traders of various origins - Norman, Breton, English, Flemish

Discussion over here on the widespread influx of Flemings: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6497-Flemish-People-in-Scotland-Conference

Some startling facts there.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-20-2016, 07:59 PM
One of the S4C Cymru DNA programmes included a feature on Flemish descent in Llangwm Pemrokeshire (which links to Scotland) and I believe there was at least one individual where it was claimed that there was genetic evidence of flemish descent. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip3rjEjYfLAhUJVBQKHeTdDAMQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fflemish.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk%2F2015%2F05%2F02%2Fthe-flemings-of-pembrokeshire%2F&usg=AFQjCNF2tUh1x84SmjAu6mwtvrkfet4Gqw

On a side note there is a Rood Screen at Patricio Church in Monmouthshire which may possibly have been carved by Flemish craftsmen.

A.D.
02-21-2016, 01:52 AM
Could this 'J' presence be the remnants of the Orkney Temple builders. Mike Parker-Pearson thinks Stonehenge was built by people from a wide surrounding area. Maybe the same thing happened up North earlier. Maybe these people really got involved in the Beaker trade net work and thrived.

kevinduffy
02-21-2016, 02:35 AM
We tend to think of continental migration as being from the South, but it seems fairly evident there has been significant migration from the North/North East over a long period. You don't arrive in the South of Britain and tramp all the way up through better farming land to the Scottish Islands surely? I posted this "J" haplogroup map (First Farmers) on another thread. Could the "hotspot" in North East Scotland be associated with early migration patterns or maybe there is another reason?

7893

Is this Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroup J?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-21-2016, 08:24 AM
Is this Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroup J?
It was provided by Cymru DNA in the MTDNA section of my results but the map title is "J Haplogroup distribution in Britain and Ireland" so I'm not entirely sure what they mean. Again they say it shows the position "a hundred years ago or more".

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-21-2016, 09:10 AM
Could this 'J' presence be the remnants of the Orkney Temple builders. Mike Parker-Pearson thinks Stonehenge was built by people from a wide surrounding area. Maybe the same thing happened up North earlier. Maybe these people really got involved in the Beaker trade net work and thrived.

Some time ago I saw an article, with map, relating to an early "First Farmers" migration route down through the Scottish Isles, but for the life of me I can't find it.
I'm no expert on this stuff and it's easy to jump to conclusions, particularly if you have limited knowledge like me, :) but what the "J" map suggested to me was possibly initial settlement in the North/East of Scotland gradually "thinning-out" as you go further South and West ( but of course other factors could influence that, like later waves of migration and population movement), but wouldn't that also apply to Eastern Scotland? Others would know more than me.
In relation to Stonehenge it seems there are established links with the North of Scotland ( I believe I heard isotope study of animal remains at stonehenge also seems to support this ) :- https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj8oaBvIjLAhVItRQKHTgwDeMQFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fnews%2F1 2528187.Ancient_Scots_link_to_Stonehenge_Evidence_ of_sophisticated_relationship_with_builders_of__mo nument%2F&usg=AFQjCNGAf8U3q6ek3mzN2D50Rka7xD7xHQ
I've been baffled by this link - why would people travel and how were these different people associated with each other in the first place? Playing "archeologist" ( :) )could there have been ancestral links between these different peoples - in other words were they looking back to earlier "homelands" ? It has been suggested that possibly the Bluestones from Wales could indicate something similar.
Here is the "J" map alongside another map of a later period with some similarities particularly in the North and East of Scotland.

7921 7922

A.D.
02-21-2016, 03:01 PM
I found these http://tinyurl.com/j44bvc4 http://tinyurl.com/zkysb34 http://tinyurl.com/z5rqadz http://tinyurl.com/zrvfjta there has to be a strong Beaker connection. I've seen claims of J1 in LBK. here is a good piece on 'J' http://www.dnaancestry.ae/Y-DNA-Haplogroup-J_arabic.php. This makes me wonder if the Phoenicians (I'm thinking Himlico) were only following there ancestors and J was spread further far earlier by the same root. York was a famous 'Jewish center' in early medieval times and I think there was a mass expulsion. I see Yorkshire has noticeable drop in 'j' compared to it's immediate surrounding areas. Looking at other distribution maps of 'J' it seems high on the map you show.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
02-21-2016, 06:52 PM
I found these http://tinyurl.com/j44bvc4 http://tinyurl.com/zkysb34 http://tinyurl.com/z5rqadz http://tinyurl.com/zrvfjta there has to be a strong Beaker connection. I've seen claims of J1 in LBK. here is a good piece on 'J' http://www.dnaancestry.ae/Y-DNA-Haplogroup-J_arabic.php. This makes me wonder if the Phoenicians (I'm thinking Himlico) were only following there ancestors and J was spread further far earlier by the same root. York was a famous 'Jewish center' in early medieval times and I think there was a mass expulsion. I see Yorkshire has noticeable drop in 'j' compared to it's immediate surrounding areas. Looking at other distribution maps of 'J' it seems high on the map you show.

I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but I have learned to be a bit wary of some of the more sensationalist theories - it's a complex picture. :)
I think I pick up though that certain haplogroups have greater frequency near point of origin or entry. The Scottish area of the "J" map might suggest point of entry? Is the higher concentration around the Pictish territory a coincidence? I don't know, just speculating. :)
I can't really comment on whether the map is an accurate relection because I don't know on what basis it was prepared, but they do say (Cymru DNA) they are the first DNA company to produce such maps. Again I don't know if this is accurate, but I would think they would be wary of producing maps that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

Tomenable
03-02-2016, 04:45 PM
At the time of Webster's census of 1755 (roughly where most Scots trace their ancestry back to) there were more people in the highlands than the lowlands.
So a majority, if they bothered to do some genealogy, would find Gaelic speaking ancestors. I can understand some antipathy in the ex-Norse controlled areas though.

Data on Scotland's population in 1755 can be found here:

http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/research/census-records/websters-census-of-1755-scottish-population-statistics.pdf

moesan
03-02-2016, 09:49 PM
I read somewhere that one third of Scots lived in the Highlands prior to the Clearences. Here's a copy of Webster's census, but \i can't find that bit MacUalraig: http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/research/census-records/websters-census-of-1755-scottish-population-statistics.pdf




The question is though how much of the Highland population were actual Celts? i.e. with the Celtic DNA as opposed to being merely Celtic speakers. I've already pointed out in a previous thread that I have a Celtic Highland surname with an Anglo-Saxon DNA haplo-type and after doing a second reading of Oppenheimer's Origin of the British, I found out that I am not the only one - according to Oppenheimer 3.8% of Scots have Anglo Saxon haplotypes and this compares with 5.5% of the English. I expect that my Anglo Saxon ancesters may have been on the run from the Norman conquerors. It seems as if the Highlands may have more of a diverse DNA/ethnic population as previously thought. Let's face it though apart from beautifil landscapes and excellent hunting and fishings grounds - it is not a good place for growing crops. IMO it musthave had its attration for people on the run or who decided to 'drop out' of mainstrean society.

Sincerley I don't know how Oppenheimer, who did very surprising statements otherwise on the matter of British ancestry, can arrive to a so low amount of Anglo-Saxon ancestry in male lines, as well in Scotland than in England!
based upon Y-haplo's distribution and also pigmentation phenotype, I can tell the most of Scot people, even if mixed of Germanics, are in a between position and we can infer they were farther from ancient English people before the recent moves, in the West lands, so showing some accord between anguage and genetics. Lallands received a lot of diverse more or less germanc or germanized people as did East region as Aberdeenshire and others, as said above and before, but they also received a strong flood from the celtic Highlands and from SW Scotland, which maintained this between situation Scotland. The Western Isles, celtic speaking during a long time but influenced by Vikings DNA, are apart. Even today, West Lallands (Glasgow centered, and accentuated by Irish immigration) and extreme East Lallands-Lothians (Edinburgh orbit) still show some differences physically, and I think it's in DNA too, even if there is not an extreme opposition. It's possible this could be magnified by recent English immigration around Edinburgh: I don't know but a Scot friend said recently to me E'inboro now is become Englishtown !?!

moesan
03-02-2016, 09:58 PM
Part of Lallands originated with the Northumbrain intrusion into north Britain where the people spoke Brythonic. Scotland was originally called Alba and this kingdom only existed on the north side of rivers Forth and Clyde. By the 11th century Alba extended its boundaries into Brythonic and Anglic speaking areas, thus creating the existing border with England.

The Lallands language represnts the diversity of the Scots people. Along with the Northumbrian Anglic there are contributions from the Flemmish, Danish, French and Gaelic languages. None of the peoples who contributed to Lallands were violent intruders. They were either people coming in to seek safe refugue or were people invited in for the contributions that they made to Scotland's development during the Middle Ages.

You are rigt concerning spirit, but concerning DNA, a large part of this DNA was a "nexcomers" one compared to ancient populations of Scotland.
And the basis of the Scot language is still the heritage of the Anglians who take foot in Northumberland and went North, plus some apport of Normans. This concerning the core of it. Surely standard English intruded later in Scot concerning modern concepts as it occurs always in dialects which are not supported by a strong local power.

alan
03-03-2016, 01:30 AM
Sincerley I don't know how Oppenheimer, who did very surprising statements otherwise on the matter of British ancestry, can arrive to a so low amount of Anglo-Saxon ancestry in male lines, as well in Scotland than in England!
based upon Y-haplo's distribution and also pigmentation phenotype, I can tell the most of Scot people, even if mixed of Germanics, are in a between position and we can infer they were farther from ancient English people before the recent moves, in the West lands, so showing some accord between anguage and genetics. Lallands received a lot of diverse more or less germanc or germanized people as did East region as Aberdeenshire and others, as said above and before, but they also received a strong flood from the celtic Highlands and from SW Scotland, which maintained this between situation Scotland. The Western Isles, celtic speaking during a long time but influenced by Vikings DNA, are apart. Even today, West Lallands (Glasgow centered, and accentuated by Irish immigration) and extreme East Lallands-Lothians (Edinburgh orbit) still show some differences physically, and I think it's in DNA too, even if there is not an extreme opposition. It's possible this could be magnified by recent English immigration around Edinburgh: I don't know but a Scot friend said recently to me E'inboro now is become Englishtown !?!

Your friend is right. Edinburgh is full of English born people - especially the wealthier areas. The tough working class estates are still full of Scots with strong Scottish accents though.

BillMC
03-06-2016, 12:47 PM
true except for the Northumbrian Angles - they conquered the lands of the Brittonic Goddodin (Votodini) tribe of SE Scotland, capturing Edinburgh in 638AD.

Yes and the united Picto-Scotti kingdom of Alba invaded them in turn during the 11th centuary AD.

Tomenable
02-10-2018, 09:21 PM
I guess that I2a2 in Scotland is Caledonian, and it came to Ireland with Lowland Scots later:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13414-Picts-Caledonians-Britons-and-Gaels-what-s-the-difference&p=346686&viewfull=1#post346686

This explains why Irish carriers of I2a2 tend to have Germanic Lowland Scottish surnames.

==========

Northern English and Scottish I2a2 from the Copper-Bronze Ages:

Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, (sample I1767), 2200–1970 BC, I2a2a1a1a
Pabay Mor, Isle of Lewis, Western Isles (sample I2655), 1442–1273 BC, I2a2a1a1a1

It seems Bronze Age Scotland also had more of Neolithic British auDNA than Bronze Age England:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13414-Picts-Caledonians-Britons-and-Gaels-what-s-the-difference&p=346596&viewfull=1#post346596

CillKenny
09-22-2018, 06:36 PM
At the Irish Society of Human Genetics I noticed that Ed Gilbert is soon to publish a paper on Scotland and its islands along the lines of the Irish DNA Atlas and the BOPI. Results did not look surprising. Scotland and Ireland high in French like ancestry, low in German like with some Norwegian (which is not seen in the German like area). The German like area included the borders region. Not sure when it is to be published.

sktibo
09-24-2018, 03:55 AM
At the Irish Society of Human Genetics I noticed that Ed Gilbert is soon to publish a paper on Scotland and its islands along the lines of the Irish DNA Atlas and the BOPI. Results did not look surprising. Scotland and Ireland high in French like ancestry, low in German like with some Norwegian (which is not seen in the German like area). The German like area included the borders region. Not sure when it is to be published.

So christmas is coming soon? People are going to go crazy for that.. Myself included. Any images or further info on it?

Jessie
09-24-2018, 05:53 AM
So christmas is coming soon? People are going to go crazy for that.. Myself included. Any images or further info on it?

I noticed this from the Irish DNA Atlas.


The PoBI dataset’s restricted Scottish coverage, which is largely northern Aberdeenshire and the south of Scotland, means we can only describe Scotland with regards to those regions. It would be interesting, therefore, to expand the Scottish sample further to investigate genetic links between Ireland and the rest of Scotland, particularly the Hebrides.


I'm loving all these studies on Ireland and Britain. I hope this one is published soon.

sktibo
09-24-2018, 06:39 AM
I noticed this from the Irish DNA Atlas.


I'm loving all these studies on Ireland and Britain. I hope this one is published soon.

I couldn't be more excited.. A lot of my ancestry is from the central lowlands.. It was a huge region for the POBI to completely miss.

Robert1
09-24-2018, 06:48 AM
What a wonderful Christmas present this would be! Just like the Irish DNA Atlas last Christmas. :beerchug:

CillKenny
09-24-2018, 04:32 PM
So christmas is coming soon? People are going to go crazy for that.. Myself included. Any images or further info on it?

I have some poor quality photos taken on my phone but not sure of the etiquette of uploading them as paper not yet published.

fridurich
09-25-2018, 01:46 AM
CillKenny, this is great news and thanks for sharing! On the areas of Scotland that weren’t included in the POBI study, but are included in this study, do they have charts showing the different Scottish clusters? Are they compared to any of the 10 or 12 different clusters the Irish Dna Atlas found on the island of Ireland?

Kind Regards

Nqp15hhu
09-25-2018, 06:48 AM
Is there any way to participate in these studies?

Jessie
09-25-2018, 01:34 PM
Is there any way to participate in these studies?

Yes you can participate if you have all 4 great grandparents born within a 50km radius.

The Irish DNA Atlas is an ongoing study. If you have ancestry from a specific part of Ireland and you are interested in participating, please contact Séamus O’Reilly from the Genealogical Association of Ireland via [email protected]

Ed Gilbert who was involved in the Irish DNA Atlas and this Scottish study is contactable below.

Edmund Gilbert
Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

Nqp15hhu
09-25-2018, 06:17 PM
Done!

CillKenny
09-26-2018, 09:44 AM
I asked Ed and he would prefer I did not upload as the paper has not yet even been submitted. I will respect that. What I can say is that they have over 500 samples from mainland Scotland and about 250 from the isles (including Man). Pat

Dubhthach
09-26-2018, 11:30 AM
I asked Ed and he would prefer I did not upload as the paper has not yet even been submitted. I will respect that. What I can say is that they have over 500 samples from mainland Scotland and about 250 from the isles (including Man). Pat

750 samples now that's a major boost! Any idea when they are planning on publishing?

sktibo
09-26-2018, 12:49 PM
I asked Ed and he would prefer I did not upload as the paper has not yet even been submitted. I will respect that. What I can say is that they have over 500 samples from mainland Scotland and about 250 from the isles (including Man). Pat

Finally. That's awesome.

CillKenny
09-26-2018, 01:17 PM
750 samples now that's a major boost! Any idea when they are planning on publishing?
Ed says it is being revised and then sent so a while away I would suspect. He will probably give talks as publication nears as he did with the Irish DNA Atlas.

sktibo
09-26-2018, 01:35 PM
I really hope they can give us a preview of the results, a PCA or telling us what clusters they have identified even...

Webb
09-26-2018, 01:42 PM
I am interested in seeing if the areas of Caithness and Bara, where there is a large cluster of L165, plot with Scandinavia or not. I had argued numerous times with Jean M., that I didn't think L165 was Norwegian in origin.

sktibo
09-26-2018, 01:47 PM
I am interested in seeing if the areas of Caithness and Bara, where there is a large cluster of L165, plot with Scandinavia or not. I had argued numerous times with Jean M., that I didn't think L165 was Norwegian in origin.

Even Orkney doesn't plot with Scandinavia, so I don't think it's likely at all that Caithness will. Barra, as a Gaelic stronghold, certainly will not - Three samples from Lewis in the POBI clustered with Argyll and Islay. I am curious if it will plot near to Ireland however.

Webb
09-26-2018, 01:54 PM
Even Orkney doesn't plot with Scandinavia, so I don't think it's likely at all that Caithness will. Barra, as a Gaelic stronghold, certainly will not - Three samples from Lewis in the POBI clustered with Argyll and Islay. I am curious if it will plot near to Ireland however.

I guess it depends on the admixture of current populations in these areas. I suppose if these areas plot with Ireland, then L165 will still remain a mystery, as it isn't common in Ireland at all. I have noticed that there is an increase in L165 French kits, but still not numerous.

Dubhthach
09-26-2018, 02:20 PM
I'm assuming given the size of sample set that they didn't apply the same criteria as the Irish atlas (eg. 8 great-grandparents from same region), is it a case of more doing what the British project did with requiring 4 grandparents from a region?

sktibo
09-26-2018, 03:16 PM
I guess it depends on the admixture of current populations in these areas. I suppose if these areas plot with Ireland, then L165 will still remain a mystery, as it isn't common in Ireland at all. I have noticed that there is an increase in L165 French kits, but still not numerous.

I don't know anything about L165.. Is it a branch of L1? If it's a Scandinavian or Germanic haplogroup I don't think there is any mystery. A lot of those Gaelic surnames in Scotland claim Norse origin.. MacLeod being one of the more famous examples. Gaelic re-emerged as the dominant language in the Hebrides and the autosomal character of the people there probably shifted into the Insular or Celtic side of things autosomally. Western Scotland clusters with Ireland today (Insular Celtic Population Structure paper, which IMO is the best of the major papers on the Genetics of Britain and Ireland) - at least the POBI collected samples which are primarily from Islay and Argyll but include Lewis. So the Y DNA was probably influenced quite a lot more by the Norse in Northern Scotland and the Hebrides than it seems to have been in Ireland, and if those people carrying those lines didn't all leave - and it looks like they didn't - then we arrive at a population which has a large percentage of Norse Y DNA lines which autosomally clusters with the Irish.

Webb
09-26-2018, 03:26 PM
I don't know anything about L165.. Is it a branch of L1? If it's a Scandinavian or Germanic haplogroup I don't think there is any mystery. A lot of those Gaelic surnames in Scotland claim Norse origin.. MacLeod being one of the more famous examples. Gaelic re-emerged as the dominant language in the Hebrides and the autosomal character of the people there probably shifted into the Insular or Celtic side of things autosomally. Western Scotland clusters with Ireland today (Insular Celtic Population Structure paper, which IMO is the best of the major papers on the Genetics of Britain and Ireland) - at least the POBI collected samples which are primarily from Islay and Argyll but include Lewis. So the Y DNA was probably influenced quite a lot more by the Norse in Northern Scotland and the Hebrides than it seems to have been in Ireland, and if those people carrying those lines didn't all leave - and it looks like they didn't - then we arrive at a population which has a large percentage of Norse Y DNA lines which autosomally clusters with the Irish.

I am sorry for not being clear. It is one block below your branch, R-Z198. It is the one very specific to Western Scotland. It includes the MacNeil's of Barra, the MacDonald's of Caithness, MacLeod, Bui, and many other Scottish kits.

sktibo
09-26-2018, 04:16 PM
I am sorry for not being clear. It is one block below your branch, R-Z198. It is the one very specific to Western Scotland. It includes the MacNeil's of Barra, the MacDonald's of Caithness, MacLeod, Bui, and many other Scottish kits.

Oh... that's damn cool. There's a DF27 connection to Highland/Island Scotland?! Just when I thought I couldn't be more excited. Would you mind telling me more about this please... maybe I could get into Y-DNA after all...

spruithean
09-26-2018, 04:27 PM
I seem to recall that the Barra MacNeils, and specifically the Chiefly line and related lineages are R-Y5108 along with various MacDonald lineages.

Interestingly there are MacNeil families from Skye who are also L165, but they don't seem to be on the Y5108 branch.

The Argyll branch of the MacNeills are mostly I-Y13039, which is interesting, that lineage seems to be attached to Torquil MacNeill, keeper of Castle Sween.

Webb
09-26-2018, 05:02 PM
I seem to recall that the Barra MacNeils, and specifically the Chiefly line and related lineages are R-Y5108 along with various MacDonald lineages.

Interestingly there are MacNeil families from Skye who are also L165, but they don't seem to be on the Y5108 branch.

The Argyll branch of the MacNeills are mostly I-Y13039, which is interesting, that lineage seems to be attached to Torquil MacNeill, keeper of Castle Sween.

Carmichael, Buie, McMullin/McMillan, and MacNeil are Y5108 and below. MacDonald is Y5109. Essentially, R-L165 is split into two blocks just downstream. Y5108 and Y5109 are under the first block, BY129, which was formed around 800 B.C. The second block, FGC29987, was formed around 2200 B.C. Several blocks down from FGC29987 is the MacLeod cluster. So using the BigTree, you can see that these two blocks have not had a common ancestor since L165 was formed, at around 2300 B.C. Both blocks have a few Scandinavian kits, a few French kits, and a few English kits. This, to me, doesn't seem like a closed case for L165 being of Scandinavian origin in Scotland.

sktibo
09-26-2018, 05:39 PM
Carmichael, Buie, McMullin/McMillan, and MacNeil are Y5108 and below. MacDonald is Y5109. Essentially, R-L165 is split into two blocks just downstream. Y5108 and Y5109 are under the first block, BY129, which was formed around 800 B.C. The second block, FGC29987, was formed around 2200 B.C. Several blocks down from FGC29987 is the MacLeod cluster. So using the BigTree, you can see that these two blocks have not had a common ancestor since L165 was formed, at around 2300 B.C. Both blocks have a few Scandinavian kits, a few French kits, and a few English kits. This, to me, doesn't seem like a closed case for L165 being of Scandinavian origin in Scotland.

No it doesn't. But i dont think autosomal dna will help much if at all. I hope you can get more info on this one... I certainly would not have thought DF27 would have made it to these places and be associated with those surnames

CillKenny
09-26-2018, 05:53 PM
I'm assuming given the size of sample set that they didn't apply the same criteria as the Irish atlas (eg. 8 great-grandparents from same region), is it a case of more doing what the British project did with requiring 4 grandparents from a region?

I don't know but doubt it is the same as here in Ireland, which substantially reduced numbers.

MacUalraig
09-26-2018, 05:54 PM
Ed says it is being revised and then sent so a while away I would suspect. He will probably give talks as publication nears as he did with the Irish DNA Atlas.

In Scotland this time... :-)

spruithean
09-26-2018, 07:04 PM
No it doesn't. But i dont think autosomal dna will help much if at all. I hope you can get more info on this one... I certainly would not have thought DF27 would have made it to these places and be associated with those surnames

Why not? The MacNeils are from Barra, the MacMullins in this case are from South Uist (literally just north of Barra), both of these areas were firmly under Norse control under the Kingdom of the Isles. Barra even has a gravesite that has a stone with a Celtic cross on one side and a runic inscription on the other, this stone is actually frkm the period of the Kingdom of the Isles.

Also the Buies are from Jura area, which was also within the Norse realm, and these MacDonalds also were probably from the western coast of Scotland, if not the Inner/Outer Hebrides.

Nqp15hhu
09-26-2018, 10:20 PM
I asked Ed and he would prefer I did not upload as the paper has not yet even been submitted. I will respect that. What I can say is that they have over 500 samples from mainland Scotland and about 250 from the isles (including Man). Pat
Isle of Man isn’t part of Scotland.

sktibo
09-27-2018, 03:36 AM
Why not? The MacNeils are from Barra, the MacMullins in this case are from South Uist (literally just north of Barra), both of these areas were firmly under Norse control under the Kingdom of the Isles. Barra even has a gravesite that has a stone with a Celtic cross on one side and a runic inscription on the other, this stone is actually frkm the period of the Kingdom of the Isles.

Also the Buies are from Jura area, which was also within the Norse realm, and these MacDonalds also were probably from the western coast of Scotland, if not the Inner/Outer Hebrides.

DF27 is associated with Iberia, it seems most who carry it are far from Insular Celtic or Germanic. Has a norse connection been suggested?

Dubhthach
09-27-2018, 08:51 AM
Isle of Man isn’t part of Scotland.

Sure but along with Ireland and Scotland it forms medieval 'Gaeldom'. I imagine part of reason for this study is to do with work on Icelandic origins which I think Ed is involved in. Obviously Man was part of the Norse-Gael Kingdom of Dublin and later Kingdom of the Isles. So it's interesting datapoint especially when comparing hebridean populations with a combined Ireland ⁊ Scotland sample set. The Hebrides have clear signs of Norse admixture if anything there's some debate that they either under 're-Gaelicisation' or that before arrival of Norse that at least part of the Hebrides was Pictish speaking and that the arrival of 'Old Irish'/'Middle Irish' was a result of the Norse-Gael overkingdom (eg. language usage of: Pictish -> Norse -> Old/Middle Irish). I always find it interesting listening to the Scottish Gáidhlig news, to my ear there's a certain scandinavian ring to it particulary from speakers from Harris and north of Hebrides (eg. vowel values etc.)

It would seem that having two datasets in this case (Mainland vs. Isles⁊Man) is to see if there is a distinct difference in Scandinavian admixture. After all remember in the Irish DNA atlas they talked about noticeable Norse admixture in irish sampleset, one possible vector of which would be Gallowglasses from the Hebrides who became important fighting part for native Irish lords from 14th century onwards.

Even to this day the name for Hebrides in Irish is 'Inse Ghall' literally meaning 'islands of foreigners', but in context of 10th century 'Gall' was exclusively used to refer to the Norse. Thence Galloway derives from the term 'Gall-Ghaeil' (GallGhaedheail) eg. 'Foreign-Gaels' aka 'Norse-Gaels'. Man is interesting in that historically the Manx Gaelg language was divided into two dialects. The Northern one was closer to dialects of Scotland whereas the southern dialect was closer to Irish. Recall as well that for part of middle ages Man was part of the Kingdom of Scotland.

Jessie
09-27-2018, 09:13 AM
Sure but along with Ireland and Scotland it forms medieval 'Gaeldom'. I imagine part of reason for this study is to do with work on Icelandic origins which I think Ed is involved in. Obviously Man was part of the Norse-Gael Kingdom of Dublin and later Kingdom of the Isles. So it's interesting datapoint especially when comparing hebridean populations with a combined Ireland ⁊ Scotland sample set. The Hebrides have clear signs of Norse admixture if anything there's some debate that they either under 're-Gaelicisation' or that before arrival of Norse that at least part of the Hebrides was Pictish speaking and that the arrival of 'Old Irish'/'Middle Irish' was a result of the Norse-Gael overkingdom (eg. language usage of: Pictish -> Norse -> Old/Middle Irish). I always find it interesting listening to the Scottish Gáidhlig news, to my ear there's a certain scandinavian ring to it particulary from speakers from Harris and north of Hebrides (eg. vowel values etc.)

It would seem that having two datasets in this case (Mainland vs. Isles⁊Man) is to see if there is a distinct difference in Scandinavian admixture. After all remember in the Irish DNA atlas they talked about noticeable Norse admixture in irish sampleset, one possible vector of which would be Gallowglasses from the Hebrides who became important fighting part for native Irish lords from 14th century onwards.

Even to this day the name for Hebrides in Irish is 'Inse Ghall' literally meaning 'islands of foreigners', but in context of 10th century 'Gall' was exclusively used to refer to the Norse. Thence Galloway derives from the term 'Gall-Ghaeil' (GallGhaedheail) eg. 'Foreign-Gaels' aka 'Norse-Gaels'. Man is interesting in that historically the Manx Gaelg language was divided into two dialects. The Northern one was closer to dialects of Scotland whereas the southern dialect was closer to Irish. Recall as well that for part of middle ages Man was part of the Kingdom of Scotland.

Thank you for all your interesting historical input into these discussions. Where do you get all your information? You are a walking encyclopaedia on Irish history.

Webb
09-27-2018, 01:29 PM
DF27 is associated with Iberia, it seems most who carry it are far from Insular Celtic or Germanic. Has a norse connection been suggested?

Jean Manco suggested it. Prematurely if you ask me. So many years ago over at Molgen, I coined the term Norwiberian. I told her this way she could easily assign DF27 to either or both, or anywhere in between. Keep in mind the oldest aDna for DF27 was found in Quellenberg, Germany. But, given that autosomal and Ydna are completely different, I don't think this study will tell us much about L165, unless this area of Scotland ends up with a unique cluster.

sktibo
09-27-2018, 02:01 PM
Jean Manco suggested it. Prematurely if you ask me. So many years ago over at Molgen, I coined the term Norwiberian. I told her this way she could easily assign DF27 to either or both, or anywhere in between. Keep in mind the oldest aDna for DF27 was found in Quellenberg, Germany. But, given that autosomal and Ydna are completely different, I don't think this study will tell us much about L165, unless this area of Scotland ends up with a unique cluster.

Ah, I see! I'm a complete novice when it comes to Y DNA. DF27 from Norway seems like a very strange suggestion given that it is so concentrated in Iberia and perhaps Southern France from what I can tell. Wouldn't U152 and L21 also have the oldest samples of their lines coming from the continent as well, given that these P312 lineages all came in with the beakers?

FWIW My Living DNA map for R-Z195 has listed the presence of this line as 35% in Spain, 32% in France, 10% in Norway, 10% in Scotland, 7% Netherlands, 7% Germany, 7% England, 6% Ireland. I don't know where they get these numbers, and I'm not sure it's totally reliable aside from the numbers for France and Spain. This is shooting pretty far out there, but my surname (traced to west-central France in the 1500's) is Visigothic in origin IIRC. Maybe there's some kind of Germanic connection but I'm feeling like it's quite a stretch even suggesting it...

CillKenny
09-27-2018, 02:07 PM
Ah, I see! I'm a complete novice when it comes to Y DNA. DF27 from Norway seems like a very strange suggestion given that it is so concentrated in Iberia and perhaps Southern France from what I can tell. Wouldn't U152 and L21 also have the oldest samples of their lines coming from the continent as well, given that these P312 lineages all came in with the beakers?

FWIW My Living DNA map for R-Z195 has listed the presence of this line as 35% in Spain, 32% in France, 10% in Norway, 10% in Scotland, 7% Netherlands, 7% Germany, 7% England, 6% Ireland. I don't know where they get these numbers, and I'm not sure it's totally reliable aside from the numbers for France and Spain. This is shooting pretty far out there, but my surname (traced to west-central France in the 1500's) is Visigothic in origin IIRC. Maybe there's some kind of Germanic connection but I'm feeling like it's quite a stretch even suggesting it...
The Living DNA map often relates to a SNP up higher in the tree. It is confusing

Dubhthach
09-27-2018, 02:51 PM
Thank you for all your interesting historical input into these discussions. Where do you get all your information? You are a walking encyclopaedia on Irish history.

I spend way too much money on books, here's just a partial selection of some of books I own on the topic. In general I don't read Irish history post-1800 and even then most of my reading is pre 1607.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/IMG_6245.jpg

spruithean
09-27-2018, 03:58 PM
DF27 is associated with Iberia, it seems most who carry it are far from Insular Celtic or Germanic. Has a norse connection been suggested?

Yes, the Clan MacNeil DNA Project has titled their DF27>L165>Y5108 group as "Viking-arrival, originally Franco-Norse, probably from Normandy". I would have to ask the admins of the project why they have titled it as such. I'm assuming because the chief and related lines have several Scandinavian matches. Also the Skye L165 McNeill group is also "Franco-Norse" in the group.

Webb
09-27-2018, 04:20 PM
Yes, the Clan MacNeil DNA Project has titled their DF27>L165>Y5108 group as "Viking-arrival, originally Franco-Norse, probably from Normandy". I would have to ask the admins of the project why they have titled it as such. I'm assuming because the chief and related lines have several Scandinavian matches. Also the Skye L165 McNeill group is also "Franco-Norse" in the group.

I suspect that you have people submitting DNA to find more recent relatedness, but are also looking for more ancient population movements. This lends to the process of quickly "labeling" groups or clusters. So originally L165 was thought to be of Norse movements into Scotland, but more recently there have been French kits who have been tested as L165, thereby changing the labels to Franco-Norse.

sktibo
09-27-2018, 04:33 PM
I suspect that you have people submitting DNA to find more recent relatedness, but are also looking for more ancient population movements. This lends to the process of quickly "labeling" groups or clusters. So originally L165 was thought to be of Norse movements into Scotland, but more recently there have been French kits who have been tested as L165, thereby changing the labels to Franco-Norse.

Doesn't look like much adds up with L165. It certainly seems to be a mystery! Is L165 present in Denmark and Sweden or is it only Norway?

Saetro
10-05-2018, 12:27 AM
Doesn't look like much adds up with L165. It certainly seems to be a mystery! Is L165 present in Denmark and Sweden or is it only Norway?

Scandi oldest ancestors in the FTDNA L165 project are only from Norway.
The question needs to be asked whether L165:
1) came to both places from a common source? Unlikely if no Swedish or Danish.
2) came from Norway to Scotland? OR
3) went from Scotland to Norway - perhaps as slaves or traders

Maybe Swedes and Danes have a project somewhere else.

sktibo
10-05-2018, 04:18 AM
Scandi oldest ancestors in the FTDNA L165 project are only from Norway.
The question needs to be asked whether L165:
1) came to both places from a common source? Unlikely if no Swedish or Danish.
2) came from Norway to Scotland? OR
3) went from Scotland to Norway - perhaps as slaves or traders

Maybe Swedes and Danes have a project somewhere else.

Thank you. If it's only Norway then that indicates it went to Norway and isn't from Norway IMO. Especially if it's also found in Ireland and England

CillKenny
09-03-2019, 10:41 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/we-re-cousins-genetic-map-of-britain-and-ireland-shows-common-ancestry-1.4005491?mode=amp

sktibo
09-04-2019, 01:32 AM
I'm thrilled that the study with Scottish samples has been published at last. First off, it looks like the Picts are alive and well...

32903
Map of Pictish stone locations
32904
Blue coloured Scottish markers under category "NE"

spruithean
09-04-2019, 01:33 AM
I'm thrilled that the study with Scottish samples has been published at last. First off, it looks like the Picts are alive and well...

32903
Map of Pictish stone locations
32904
Blue coloured Scottish markers under category "NE"

I always figured that the Picts were alive and well, their disappearance was likely a result of the elite dominance model and all that came with it.

sktibo
09-04-2019, 01:39 AM
I should note that I had a discussion with someone, I think it may have been Caledonian, about where the genetic differences were going to be in regards to highland verses lowland Perthshire - I thought they would be much more different than they turned out to be and his bet was that they would belong to the same genetic group - He called that one correctly, so hats off to Caledonian, and if it was someone else my apologies for not remembering who exactly you were!

I really can't believe that Tayside and Fife actually belong to the same genetic group! Incredibly interesting stuff.

alan
09-11-2019, 11:48 PM
I dont really take regional studies of modern DNA too seriously. Its almost inevitable that ever finer clusters will be found by parish, barony, county, region etc because of marriage networks etc. I think maps will always tend to reflect long standing regions with defined geography, counties etc and that almost all of them will still reflect multiple layers, albeit with a localised mix. Almost all the autosomal genetic maps end up looking like geographical maps at almost any scale in Europe. So, I never take the idea that modern clusters reflect any particular period or ethnic strata, Iron Age tribes, early historic tribal confederations, early kingdoms etc too seriously. If we want to know what Picts, Britons, Scots etc were genetically like then we simply need to test a bunch of them. I personally think the Picts, Gaels and Britons will come out looking almost identical c. 0BC and that a lot of the local modern clusters that give the impression of harking back to dark age kingdoms are the result of continuous input and breeding networks over the entire period from then until modern times.

sktibo
09-12-2019, 03:10 AM
I dont really take regional studies of modern DNA too seriously. Its almost inevitable that ever finer clusters will be found by parish, barony, county, region etc because of marriage networks etc. I think maps will always tend to reflect long standing regions with defined geography, counties etc and that almost all of them will still reflect multiple layers, albeit with a localised mix. Almost all the autosomal genetic maps end up looking like geographical maps at almost any scale in Europe. So, I never take the idea that modern clusters reflect any particular period or ethnic strata, Iron Age tribes, early historic tribal confederations, early kingdoms etc too seriously. If we want to know what Picts, Britons, Scots etc were genetically like then we simply need to test a bunch of them. I personally think the Picts, Gaels and Britons will come out looking almost identical c. 0BC and that a lot of the local modern clusters that give the impression of harking back to dark age kingdoms are the result of continuous input and breeding networks over the entire period from then until modern times.

While some of the clusters do reflect geographic boundaries, others don't look like they do to me. Connacht is split in half between two clusters, and it doesn't look like this divide falls on county lines. Some of Leinster is split between these same two clusters as well. Over in Scotland it looks like there's a relatively clean Islay and Argyll cluster, and the Hebrides are clustered together, so those more or less fall on those geographic boundaries. Then we have the Tayside-Fife cluster which is also grouped with Inverness on the dendrogram.. Fife, highland Perthshire, Angus, and if we include the Inverness group; Inverness area, Easter Ross, and it looks like part of Wester-Ross, though there are way fewer samples from that one. These all fall under the same branch but don't align with geographic or geological boundaries either - the same genetic grouping yet it crosses many of these boundaries. Do almost all the autosomal genetic maps end up looking like geographic maps? I'm not sure that's true. I seem to remember the genetic study on Iberia turning out to be quite different than where its county (provincial?) lines are.

That isn't to say that you don't raise good criticism, I think that you do.. and when you say " If we want to know what Picts, Britons, Scots etc were genetically like then we simply need to test a bunch of them" I couldn't agree more.

alan
09-13-2019, 12:40 AM
While some of the clusters do reflect geographic boundaries, others don't look like they do to me. Connacht is split in half between two clusters, and it doesn't look like this divide falls on county lines. Some of Leinster is split between these same two clusters as well. Over in Scotland it looks like there's a relatively clean Islay and Argyll cluster, and the Hebrides are clustered together, so those more or less fall on those geographic boundaries. Then we have the Tayside-Fife cluster which is also grouped with Inverness on the dendrogram.. Fife, highland Perthshire, Angus, and if we include the Inverness group; Inverness area, Easter Ross, and it looks like part of Wester-Ross, though there are way fewer samples from that one. These all fall under the same branch but don't align with geographic or geological boundaries either - the same genetic grouping yet it crosses many of these boundaries. Do almost all the autosomal genetic maps end up looking like geographic maps? I'm not sure that's true. I seem to remember the genetic study on Iberia turning out to be quite different than where its county (provincial?) lines are.

That isn't to say that you don't raise good criticism, I think that you do.. and when you say " If we want to know what Picts, Britons, Scots etc were genetically like then we simply need to test a bunch of them" I couldn't agree more.

My own family history is a good example of how you could apparently get connections that actually date to the last 200 years. My family has a number of people who moved from around the Moray Firth to Dundee and Angus in the 19th century. It is well known that there was a considerable movement between the Moray Firth/Speyside area to Dundee and Angus (think it was something to do with textiles) and examples appear in several unconnected lineages in my family tree on both my maternal and paternal sides. I know of several friends who are similar. Fife is very connected with Angus and Dundee too with much of northern Fife being used as dormitary villages of Dundee. Angus, Perthshire and Fife of course are right next to each other and are the most interconnected today with Dundee being the main city of the collective Tayside/Tay valley area. Aberdeenshire is rather more remote.

My ancestry is about 7 eighths Scottish. In terms of the last 200 years that Scottish ancestry basically entirely Angus, Fife and Morayshire in terms of earliest known origin. Deeper in time a small part of that is from northern Irish protestants of ultimately SW Scottish origin who returned to Scotland - that is where I would have a little south-western Scottish ancestry as the Scottish Ulster planters mostly were from south-west Scotland. An eighth of my ancestry is Irish Catholic from NW Ireland. I'd guess if I was plotted on an autosomal map i'd probably end up bang in the middle of Scotland somewhere like Stirling due to the predominant east-central and north-eastern Scottish ancestry being pulled a little south-west by a smaller dose of SW Scottish originated Ulster Scots ancestry and Irish Catholic ancestry (NW Ireland). Ive not found any English ancestry at all in my genealogy. Its all from Scotland or Ireland, as are the surnames. I suppose I probably do have a lot of Pictish ancestry but its very hard to be sure because there is no such thing as a cast-iron Pictish surname. The surnames in the former Pictish lands are mostly Anglo-Scots/Norman in the lowlands or Gaelic in the highland zone. I personally suspect that there is a Pictish 'bedrock' in eastern Scotland but overall the genetics will be as complex as the (rather complex) history of new settlers and linguistic shifts in the area 800-1400AD. Linguistic shifts do not happen without at least a moderate input of people. I suspect too the genetics of the people of the Scottish burghs and fishing villages where English got its first footholds in Scotland will be markedly different from the surrounding populations at that time. Also of course is the issue that a lot of the eastern highland fringe clans, and even some deeper into the highlands, are of Norman, Breton and Fleming origins. Its pretty complex IMO. I suspect today almost all Scots who have lived in the melting pot of the central belt for the last century or two (at least half the population) have a mixture of Pictish, Scots Gaelic, Brythonic, Norman/Breton/Flemish, Anglo-Saxon and Irish ancestry.

BillMC
09-20-2019, 02:58 AM
The Y DNA marker for the Picts/Caledonians is claimed to be R1b-S530.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9953179/The-Picts-are-alive-and-well-and-living-in-Scotland.html

Caledonian
09-20-2019, 10:45 AM
The Y DNA marker for the Picts/Caledonians is claimed to be R1b-S530.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9953179/The-Picts-are-alive-and-well-and-living-in-Scotland.html

I think I read in another thread, can't quite remember which one, I think it may have been the Viking genomics thread, that some Pictish remains had been tested and neither were positive for R1b-S530, does anyone have any more information on this?

Personally I am not convinced of the Pictish origin for S530, and due to its links to both Scotland and Wales I actually wouldn't be surprised at a Strathclyde Briton origin, maybe Gaelicised Britons around the Loch Lomond area would explain its prominence in so many Highland clans in the surrounding area such as Buchanan, Campbell, McGregor, McLaren ect, whoever the first L1065 guy was he must have been a pretty influential guy.

spruithean
09-20-2019, 03:56 PM
I think I read in another thread, can't quite remember which one, I think it may have been the Viking genomics thread, that some Pictish remains had been tested and neither were positive for R1b-S530, does anyone have any more information on this?

Personally I am not convinced of the Pictish origin for S530, and due to its links to both Scotland and Wales I actually wouldn't be surprised at a Strathclyde Briton origin, maybe Gaelicised Britons around the Loch Lomond area would explain its prominence in so many Highland clans in the surrounding area such as Buchanan, Campbell, McGregor, McLaren ect, whoever the first L1065 guy was he must have been a pretty influential guy.

I remain unconvinced about S530, considering that BritainsDNA slapped labels on to haplogroups seemingly haphazardly.

rms2
09-21-2019, 01:46 PM
Apparently the Picts were simply a Brythonic group, so S530's connection to Britons in Wales doesn't preclude its connection to Picts farther north. Remember too the movement of the "Men of the North" from what is now Scotland to Wales in the post-Roman period. Of course, those weren't Picts. As I recall, they were primarily from Gododdin.

mihaitzateo
09-21-2019, 05:38 PM
According to some studies about R1B-U106, a part is Germanic, from North Germany and South Scandinavia and another clades are likely of Celtic tribes from Germany and Hallstatt/Austria, origins.
So, if you have R1B-U106 in Britain and Ireland, you cannot be sure that is really of Saxon/Angles/Jutes or Viking origins, until you did not got a deep clade analysis.
If you R1B-U106 clusters to that from Central Europe (Switzerland, South Germany, Austria, Czech Republic) you still have a Celtic paternal line, not Insular Celtic, Alpine Celtic.
Another thing, Normans were very likely most French as ancestry, which is still mostly Celtic/Gaulish origins.
If you have I2-disles, that is also of Celtic origins.
I1 is surely Northern Europe and R1A.
R1B-U152 is either Celtic tribes or Romans, so not Germanic, since there is also R1B-U152 in Britain.
You might ask yourself how Celtic is Germany :) and how Celtic (including Bell Beakers DNA) were the migrating Saxons.


See that Maciamo made a tree for R1B-U106:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml# - see here the picture for R1B-U106.

I doubt that the branches of R1B_U106 that are found only in Scotland are of Germanic origins and not of Celtic origins.

Caledonian
09-21-2019, 05:39 PM
Apparently the Picts were simply a Brythonic group, so S530's connection to Britons in Wales doesn't preclude its connection to Picts farther north. Remember too the movement of the "Men of the North" from what is now Scotland to Wales in the post-Roman period. Of course, those weren't Picts. As I recall, they were primarily from Gododdin.

You may be right. Am I correct in thinking that all S530 in Scotland is L1065+ as opposed to L1065- in Wales? I have never heard of L1065- in Scotland, but then I haven't really been paying much attention lately.

I have read that L1065 is at least 1750 years old so it seems to have begun around the time that the Picts and Britons started to be viewed as distinct populations, so I suppose it could be Pictish or Briton, it certainly does look like it is older in Wales though, it would be interesting to see if there is any S530 L1065- in Ireland as it is also possible that it was brought to Scotland and Wales by the Irish, it certainly seems that a lot of clans that have a S530 clan chief, including my own (McLaren) claim a Dalriadan descent and I think I read that a lot of the S530 in Wales is from the Llyn peninsula which had a lot of Irish settlement.

spruithean
09-21-2019, 06:43 PM
According to some studies about R1B-U106, a part is Germanic, from North Germany and South Scandinavia and another clades are likely of Celtic tribes from Germany and Hallstatt/Austria, origins.
So, if you have R1B-U106 in Britain and Ireland, you cannot be sure that is really of Saxon/Angles/Jutes or Viking origins, until you did not got a deep clade analysis.
If you R1B-U106 clusters to that from Central Europe (Switzerland, South Germany, Austria, Czech Republic) you still have a Celtic paternal line, not Insular Celtic, Alpine Celtic.
Another thing, Normans were very likely most French as ancestry, which is still mostly Celtic/Gaulish origins.
If you have I2-disles, that is also of Celtic origins.
I1 is surely Northern Europe and R1A.
R1B-U152 is either Celtic tribes or Romans, so not Germanic, since there is also R1B-U152 in Britain.
You might ask yourself how Celtic is Germany :) and how Celtic (including Bell Beakers DNA) were the migrating Saxons.


See that Maciamo made a tree for R1B-U106:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml# - see here the picture for R1B-U106.

I doubt that the branches of R1B_U106 that are found only in Scotland are of Germanic origins and not of Celtic origins.

Why is this still a thing? Why is it difficult to accept that U106 correlates with Germanic movement? Is it because the Germanic tribes have not captured the same level of romanticism that the Celts have captured?

sktibo
09-21-2019, 06:57 PM
Why is this still a thing? Why is it difficult to accept that U106 correlates with Germanic movement? Is it because the Germanic tribes have not captured the same level of romanticism that the Celts have captured?

Yep, I think you're right.. people desperately try to cling on to or invent some kind of connection to all things Celtic in many ways. I think on top of the romanticism, the history and the landscape of the areas on or near the Celtic fringes are also more interesting or beautiful. I'm afraid we might never see the end of this "U106 were Celts" or other similar type of posting. One of my favorites was a reference to an AncestryDNA map shading the England Wales and NW Europe region, where the tester didn't get any of the "Ireland/Scotland" region, and referring to the result as being "Old Celtic" or "True Celtic" rather than assessing what the test might be showing on a more realistic technical level (or even considering it to be nonsense, which it may have been!) It definitely seems to be more "fashionable" or romanticized than Native American ancestry, even. I didn't think that would be the case but it definitely seems to be.

dsm
09-22-2019, 12:20 AM
Why is this still a thing? Why is it difficult to accept that U106 correlates with Germanic movement? Is it because the Germanic tribes have not captured the same level of romanticism that the Celts have captured?

Yes - I agree. There is no evidence I have seen that links U106 (esp U106-L48) in *any* way to Hallstatt & LaTene. P312 can be linked to these locations in Austria & Switzerland. U106 can be traced to the places the Lombards migrated to & through. Likely the same for the Burgundians & even Swabians.

rms2
09-22-2019, 12:50 AM
Why is this still a thing? Why is it difficult to accept that U106 correlates with Germanic movement? Is it because the Germanic tribes have not captured the same level of romanticism that the Celts have captured?

I thought the Germanics were more attractive to wannabeism because the Anglo-Saxons were the big winners in Britain, with the Celts being driven north and west. Also the Vikings have always drawn a lot of wannabeism. I was guilty of that myself when I ordered my first Y-37 test back in 2006. Back then I thought "I1a" (I-M253) was the Viking haplogroup, so that's what I was hoping for.

Of course, I wasn't disappointed when I got my initial "R1b1" result from FTDNA, but back then everybody told me I was some kind of Basque. I believed that for a day or two, until I actually thought about it.

Now I think the Celts are cool, but they seem too modern to me. I'm more interested in things back before the Celts came to be.

spruithean
09-22-2019, 01:44 AM
I think for some people there is something mysterious and romantic about the Celts and part of it could be due to Hollywood's depiction of Anglo-Saxons, English and Vikings as villains yet depicting the traditionally Celtic people as being noble or heroic.

Sort of funny how our original Y-DNA hopes were flipped. I was initially expecting some form of R1b that would fit with my surname. Nothing wrong with my Y-DNA results, just requires a little more patience when it comes to figuring out how and when my haplogroup made it to Britain, and it is certainly easier to accept the facts here, instead of commiting to mental gymnastics to try and prove some Celtic connection.

sktibo
09-22-2019, 02:10 AM
The Celts are also some of the greatest underdogs in history, and everyone loves the underdog. I bet you're right about movies and media having an impact on our ideas about these peoples as well. Being a complete Celtophile, before I was tested I remember thinking "Oh no, please don't be U106!" I feel I got lucky with DF27, but even then, I don't think I can quite put a Celtic spin on it.

passenger
09-22-2019, 02:54 AM
The Celts are also some of the greatest underdogs in history, and everyone loves the underdog. I bet you're right about movies and media having an impact on our ideas about these peoples as well. Being a complete Celtophile, before I was tested I remember thinking "Oh no, please don't be U106!" I feel I got lucky with DF27, but even then, I don't think I can quite put a Celtic spin on it.

Yep, definitely partly to do with the underdog appeal. The less hegemonic the better. But also, part of that has to do with the romantic draw of cultures that are seen to maintain the mystique of some bygone era, unlike those thoroughly industrialized, or even post-industrial, Anglo-Saxons :P Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for a good Celtic vibe, but I also see how it's packaged.

mihaitzateo
09-22-2019, 11:50 AM
Well, I have not interacted with too many Scotts, in my life, only with 3-4 in real life.
Did not gathered too much information about Scotland either.
What I can say about the English and the Irish, with me interacting with lots of Irish and English, is that they are very talkative.
Being very talkative is surely not a Germanic trait, but a Celtic trait, that is also seen at most Romance people,but not at all Romance people.
English is indeed a Germanic language, but most words are of Romance origins.
Most of the basic words and the grammar is Germanic, at the English language.
So English is not entirely a Germanic language, but a Germanic-Romance-Celtic language. Because Old French, that was spoken by Normans, which was a GalloRomance language, influenced modern English a lot.

I am not talking about paternal lines, which I think, leaving the R1B-U106 dispute aside, are mostly of Celtic origins, in Scotland.
Hope I2-Disles is not considered also Germanic, cause is quite clear that is Celtic . In regards to I1 clades, I am not so sure that all are of Germanic origins.

The maternal lines in Scotland, well, those are not investigated soo much, but most should be of Celtic origins.

Coming back to the culture of Scotland, people there should know better if it is mostly Celtic-Romance or mostly Germanic (including Norse).

spruithean
09-22-2019, 12:03 PM
You're basing whether a group of people are Celtic or Germanic based on whether they are "talkative"?

It's been well established that Scotland did see Germanic settlement both from the Anglo-Saxons from Northumbria for a time Northumbria extended relatively far into Scotland, to the Firth of Forth and west into Galloway and the Norse who settled Orkney, Shetland, Caithness, Outer & Inner Hebrides, Galloway.

While I'm not disagreeing that perhaps some I1 subclades are not Germanic, can you cite which ones? The overwhelming majority of I1 subclades are DF29+ which so far appears to have originated in the south of Scandinavia. It's also been my understanding that some of the non-DF29 subclades also follow a similar pattern in terms of their origin.

English is indeed a Germanic language, however it has certainly borrowed words of Latin, French, and Greek origins, and again many words are of Old Norse origin.

rms2
09-22-2019, 10:02 PM
I think for some people there is something mysterious and romantic about the Celts and part of it could be due to Hollywood's depiction of Anglo-Saxons, English and Vikings as villains yet depicting the traditionally Celtic people as being noble or heroic . . .

I don't know. I grew up watching films like The Vikings, The Longships, and Prince Valiant, which made the Vikings ultra-cool to a little blond, blue-eyed kid like I was. I also read a world history book when I was quite young that had some illustrations of Germanic tribesmen that I thought looked cool. I read Beowulf at a pretty early age, too, but maybe my experience was different from most.

The Celts I thought were cool, too, but after some initial success, they got smacked down pretty hard by the Romans and then let their own internecine conflicts prevent them from presenting a united front against the Anglo-Saxons, with consequences we all know about. It was fellow Britons who assassinated Urien of Rheged, for example, the one guy after Arthur who was able to consistently defeat the Anglo-Saxons.

Oh, another film which I first saw as a teen which I thought presented a pretty positive portrayal of Germanics, both Normans and Frisians, was The Warlord. I still like that one, which reminds me, I need to get the DVD.

rms2
09-22-2019, 10:32 PM
The Celts are also some of the greatest underdogs in history, and everyone loves the underdog. I bet you're right about movies and media having an impact on our ideas about these peoples as well. Being a complete Celtophile, before I was tested I remember thinking "Oh no, please don't be U106!" I feel I got lucky with DF27, but even then, I don't think I can quite put a Celtic spin on it.

I was somewhat the opposite in that after I found out I wasn't I1a (I-M253), I was hoping for what was then known only as "S21" (U106). I really got my hopes up on that score, as well, since my first 37 markers bear a strong resemblance to what Ken Nordtvedt christened the "Frisian haplotype". When the old Ethnoancestry gave me an S21- test result, it even surprised Dr. Jim Wilson because my haplotype was so S21+ looking. He ran my test twice for that reason. No cigar. They were right the first time: S21-.

Then when I upgraded to 67 markers and my DYS492 equaled 12, that was just further confirmation, since most U106+ guys have 13 at that marker.

I'll spare you more of my exciting story. Let's just say that as the evidence mounted I said goodbye to my dreams of Viking and/or Germanic glory and learned to embrace the evidence. Now I wouldn't trade my results for anything. They're actually pretty cool.

sktibo
09-23-2019, 01:46 AM
I was somewhat the opposite in that after I found out I wasn't I1a (I-M253), I was hoping for what was then known only as "S21" (U106). I really got my hopes up on that score, as well, since my first 37 markers bear a strong resemblance to what Ken Nordtvedt christened the "Frisian haplotype". When the old Ethnoancestry gave me an S21- test result, it even surprised Dr. Jim Wilson because my haplotype was so S21+ looking. He ran my test twice for that reason. No cigar. They were right the first time: S21-.

Then when I upgraded to 67 markers and my DYS492 equaled 12, that was just further confirmation, since most U106+ guys have 13 at that marker.

I'll spare you more of my exciting story. Let's just say that as the evidence mounted I said goodbye to my dreams of Viking and/or Germanic glory and learned to embrace the evidence. Now I wouldn't trade my results for anything. They're actually pretty cool.

That is interesting, that you came from being interested in the Germanic side of things. Garimund is the only other person I can think of who had a similar perspective going in, I believe he was quite into all the Anglo-Saxon history and lore but his DNA results (so far) don't paint a heavily Germanic picture for him either. All of my family and friends who have tested have been in it for the Celtic factor, and in a few cases, the Native American factor, with the exception of my mother who identifies most strongly with her Slavic/Eastern ancestors and only really tested because I wanted her to.
But I feel I can relate to your story a bit, because going into this, I really didn't like the fact that I have French ancestry (and a French surname) but the overwhelming swarms of French DNA relatives and connections everywhere I turn have made me face it, and now I actually feel like it's pretty cool when I get "French" on my DNA test results or see evidence of this part of my heritage. Regardless, my original passion for all things Celtic remains.

dsm
09-23-2019, 10:17 AM
I was somewhat the opposite in that after I found out I wasn't I1a (I-M253), I was hoping for what was then known only as "S21" (U106). I really got my hopes up on that score, as well, since my first 37 markers bear a strong resemblance to what Ken Nordtvedt christened the "Frisian haplotype". When the old Ethnoancestry gave me an S21- test result, it even surprised Dr. Jim Wilson because my haplotype was so S21+ looking. He ran my test twice for that reason. No cigar. They were right the first time: S21-.

Then when I upgraded to 67 markers and my DYS492 equaled 12, that was just further confirmation since most U106+ guys have 13 at that marker.

I'll spare you more of my exciting story. Let's just say that as the evidence mounted I said goodbye to my dreams of Viking and/or Germanic glory and learned to embrace the evidence. Now I wouldn't trade my results for anything. They're actually pretty cool.

My experience was kind of the other way round but I know just where you are coming from. My original fantasy was being Anglo-Saxon and my ancestors were warriors (that seems to be well established in our family name line in Devon UK - Church and Army and Police for 100s of years) and that they were proud to stand behind Alfred the Great who trashed the Danes once he got over burning scones.

But, as the years passed and the Y-DNA tests delved deeper, it became L11*then S1194 and appeared to be Danish. Damn it, my ancestors were those ravaging savages from the north!. My emotional reaction was Who the F are the bloody Danes?. But then further family DNA testing also dredged up a great-grandfather who was Danish and from Nh Schleswig (now South Jutland Denmark). He was U106 so suddenly that became a focus of study. When I was a kid at school in England we were all taught that the Danes were rampaging bastards with no nice qualities and that we Brits kicked them out of England. So much so that it was never fully explained that King Canute the Great (Knud) was the leader of them who later returned in 1013-1016AD and took over by 1018AD. S1194 DNA became the new 3rd brother to P312 and U106 so my S1194 were Canute's southern warriors. I call us Baltic-Germanic.

So suddenly it became a matter of reconnecting to the hated Danes (who by and large are still resented in England). In 2014 I got an invite from the local historical society to visit Sonderjylland (Danish sth Jutland aka as former nth Schleswig). The event was the 150th anniversary of when Denmark lost 1/3 rd of its landmass and population to Prussia (now Germany) in what was called the 2nd Slesvig war. When Bismark with Austrian help seized Schleswig and Holstein. We spent 3 days in g-grandad's village meeting family that still lived there, then 3 days in Sonderborg where they put me in a Danish army uniform, gave me a working authentic musket and sent me with others to defend Denmark from the Prussians, Austrians & Czechs. By the way, we lost (as if history could be reversed) :) - my g-grandad was a nth Slesvig Dane and did not want to be a nth Schleswig German (note Danish vs German spelling). If he stayed in nth Schleswig he would be conscripted into the new German army (Germany being founded in 1871) so around 1874 he went to Hamburg and got on a ship to NZ. Thus my life is directly attributable to the ambitions of Otto Von Bismark 'Danke Otto mein alter Freund'.
http://cphpost.dk/history/every-country-has-had-an-annus-horribilis-denmarks-was-1864.html

So who the F are the Danes? - Part of my heritage lol. Interestingly, one of the Jutland family (they are named Boisen), went to the USA where he tried to invent new types of berries in California. The venture failed due to too much work and lack of funds, however, the berries that this relative invented got picked up by a farmer name Knott who turned them into a global success. Farmer Knott used to sell 'Boisenberry' pies that became very popular then the ranch was turned into Knotts Berry Farm just near Disneyland at Anaheim CA. I took my family there many years ago before I knew we were Boisen descendants. https://www.knotts.com/

Such fun. We can start off in one direction only to find we are 180 degrees going in the wrong way.

rms2
09-23-2019, 12:02 PM
All that Viking/Germanic wannabeism is long gone from my mind, except as a kind of amusing memory and as a lesson that the facts don't always align with what we imagine and that the truth is more fun anyway because it's true.

MitchellSince1893
09-23-2019, 12:48 PM
I’ve shared this before, but due to my initial M269 classification, I was expecting a U106 result based on Family lore. I figured if I wasn’t U106 then I would end up being L21. U152 wasn't even a consideration as they were such a small minority in the British Isles. Back then I thought of them as being Roman era descendants.

When my results can back U152, I started looking into it.

I’m a mixed bag. Probably Celtic paternal line but decidedly Anglo-Saxon autosomally.

Dewsloth
09-23-2019, 04:15 PM
Back when all we had was K13 in Gedmatch, Dad looked like he might have had some:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 53.5% Norwegian + 46.5% North_Italian @ 1.58
2 59.8% Norwegian + 40.2% Tuscan @ 1.71
3 90.5% South_Dutch + 9.5% Italian_Jewish @ 1.71
4 64% North_Dutch + 36% Tuscan @ 1.76
5 57.8% Danish + 42.2% North_Italian @ 1.77

Celt or Germanic I would have expected, but we got Belgae, whom I hadn't considered (or even heard of, much, before I came here).
While we turn out to have a fairly Germanic Y-DNA, it seems to have migrated south to Hesse before the Viking era.
I wouldn't have been surprised if Dad had looked to be in a substantial part Danish, given his maternal ancestors being from all over Britain, but besides British, it certainly seems like those ancestors look more Swiss, French, Flemish and German (not that there can't be any Danish-like in some of those populations), and autosomally Dad looks heavily Belgian despite having only one pair of Belgian 2nd Great Grandparents.
I can't even use Belgian as a G25 component because it over-assigns nearly all of his heritage there.

Nobody expects the Belgian imposition.

mihaitzateo
09-23-2019, 07:20 PM
Well, most people in Scotland are medium brown and dark Brown haired, so how is their DNA mostly Germanic?
Scandos were and are mostly light haired , either blonde either light brown and Saxons should have been also mostly blonde or light brown haired.

If we take Orkney islands, OK, those are having a significant Norse influence.

spruithean
09-23-2019, 07:22 PM
Well, most people in Scotland are medium brown and dark Brown haired, so how is their DNA mostly Germanic?
Scandos were and are mostly light haired , either blonde either light brown and Saxons should have been also mostly blonde or light brown haired.

If we take Orkney islands, OK, those are having a significant Norse influence.

Who said Scotland was mostly Germanic?

You're discussing phenotypes which are found all over Europe, hardly evidence for anything let alone distinguishing features between populations who are from the same geographic regions. Also, do you have any statistics for these phenotypes because I highly doubt their accuracy.

The Germanic settlements in Scotland trace back to Northumbria, Scandinavians in Caithness, Orkney, Shetland, Inner & Outer Hebrides, western seaboard of Scotland and Anglo-Saxons fleeing England in the aftermath of Hastings, as well as English/Anglo-Norman/Flemish people coming to Scotland in the time of King David (who grew up in an Anglo-Norman milieu).

dsm
09-23-2019, 09:31 PM
Who said Scotland was mostly Germanic?

You're discussing phenotypes which are found all over Europe, hardly evidence for anything let alone distinguishing features between populations who are from the same geographic regions. Also, do you have any statistics for these phenotypes because I highly doubt their accuracy.

The Germanic settlements in Scotland trace back to Northumbria, Scandinavians in Caithness, Orkney, Shetland, Inner & Outer Hebrides, western seaboard of Scotland and Anglo-Saxons fleeing England in the aftermath of Hastings, as well as English/Anglo-Norman/Flemish people coming to Scotland in the time of King David (who grew up in an Anglo-Norman milieu).

Yup, add to the Scottish mix the influx of Frisians (some argue Dumfries really means the hill of the Frisians in the region of the Frisians (also referred to as Fries), but others may disagree). Then there is the commonality of R1b-M222 that we know originated in Ireland but is also very strong in Western Scotland from the lowlands to the highlands.

It was long considered that the lowlanders were different people to the highlanders. The highlanders were still dominant Gaelic speakers in the 1800s whereas the lowlanders while originally having strong Gaelic, by 1600s were shifting to English. Interestingly many of the Scottish lowland families did not have the Mac prefix to their family names whereas in the highlands it was almost uniform even among the Norse. In fact it was a very Norse custom 'Son of = Mac'. The Norse & Danish form was adding 'sen' after the father's name. The Swedes add 'son' after the father's name. In fact the Normans used to use 'Fitz' (son of) as a prefix just like Mac. Fitz appears to be derived from Fr., Fils (son).

My Scottish lowlanders line were called 'Crichton' (never MacCrichton). Variants being Chrichton & Creighton. An interesting bunch. The ones who emigrated to the new world seem to have done very well. Crichton's also didn't have a 'tartan' as such. That was a very highland thing. The tartans likely originated in Ireland and were carried on in the highlands by the Irish that moved there. In time having a tartan became a status symbol so we started to see lowland families adopting some form of tartan as the family identity. Now it is the identity.

In the middle ages, there was a significant migration of Irish into Scotland but mostly the Highlands rather than the more densely populated lowlands.

Caledonian
09-23-2019, 11:19 PM
Yup, add to the Scottish mix the influx of Frisians (some argue Dumfries really means the hill of the Frisians in the region of the Frisians (also referred to as Fries), but others may disagree). Then there is the commonality of R1b-M222 that we know originated in Ireland but is also very strong in Western Scotland from the lowlands to the highlands.

It was long considered that the lowlanders were different people to the highlanders. The highlanders were still dominant Gaelic speakers in the 1800s whereas the lowlanders while originally having strong Gaelic, by 1600s were shifting to English. Interestingly many of the Scottish lowland families did not have the Mac prefix to their family names whereas in the highlands it was almost uniform even among the Norse. In fact it was a very Norse custom 'Son of = Mac'. The Norse & Danish form was adding 'sen' after the father's name. The Swedes add 'son' after the father's name. In fact the Normans used to use 'Fitz' (son of) as a prefix just like Mac. Fitz appears to be derived from Fr., Fils (son).

My Scottish lowlanders line were called 'Crichton' (never MacCrichton). Variants being Chrichton & Creighton. An interesting bunch. The ones who emigrated to the new world seem to have done very well. Crichton's also didn't have a 'tartan' as such. That was a very highland thing. The tartans likely originated in Ireland and were carried on in the highlands by the Irish that moved there. In time having a tartan became a status symbol so we started to see lowland families adopting some form of tartan as the family identity. Now it is the identity.

In the middle ages, there was a significant migration of Irish into Scotland but mostly the Highlands rather than the more densely populated lowlands.

Crichton is a locational name though so it is not going to have Mac before it, and the crich part of the name could come from the Gaelic Crioch meaning border or boundary. There are other Lowland Clans such as McLelland, Macdowall, MacFergus/Ferguson, MacMillan that do have the Mac prefix, and others for example, Kennedy, Gracie, Hannay, that are Gaelic but don't carry the Mac prefix. Even in the Highlands there are plenty of Clans that don't start with Mac.

Forgive me for being a pedant but the oldest Tartan discovered in the isles dates from the 3rd century AD. It was uncovered at Falkirk in Stirlingshire, Ironically in Central Lowland Scotland, so it obviously predates the Irish presence in Scotland.

dsm
09-24-2019, 05:26 AM
Crichton is a locational name though so it is not going to have Mac before it, and the crich part of the name could come from the Gaelic Crioch meaning border or boundary. There are other Lowland Clans such as McLelland, Macdowall, MacFergus/Ferguson, MacMillan that do have the Mac prefix, and others for example, Kennedy, Gracie, Hannay, that are Gaelic but don't carry the Mac prefix. Even in the Highlands there are plenty of Clans that don't start with Mac.

Forgive me for being a pedant but the oldest Tartan discovered in the isles dates from the 3rd century AD. It was uncovered at Falkirk in Stirlingshire, Ironically in Central Lowland Scotland, so it obviously predates the Irish presence in Scotland.

Thanks for the info. I accept that my data is open to alternate explanations. The info about the oldest tartan is interesting.

Doug

sktibo
09-24-2019, 05:27 AM
Forgive me for being a pedant but the oldest Tartan discovered in the isles dates from the 3rd century AD. It was uncovered at Falkirk in Stirlingshire, Ironically in Central Lowland Scotland, so it obviously predates the Irish presence in Scotland.

Very interesting, I didn't know that so thank you for sharing it, but I'm not sure we can be completely certain the Irish were not present in Scotland at that time. I believe some people challenge the idea of Dal Riata bringing all things Irish to Scotland ~5th Century AD and later. I'm not sure I believe them (generally the people I've met are very pro-Gaelic and often argue in favor of a native Gaelic language origin in Scotland) but can we really be certain that the 3rd century AD obviously predates the Irish presence in Scotland? Seems a bit too close to rule it out entirely to me, although I would not bet any money that this find was a result of Irish contact.

fridurich
09-24-2019, 05:56 PM
Yup, add to the Scottish mix the influx of Frisians (some argue Dumfries really means the hill of the Frisians in the region of the Frisians (also referred to as Fries), but others may disagree). Then there is the commonality of R1b-M222 that we know originated in Ireland but is also very strong in Western Scotland from the lowlands to the highlands.

It was long considered that the lowlanders were different people to the highlanders. The highlanders were still dominant Gaelic speakers in the 1800s whereas the lowlanders while originally having strong Gaelic, by 1600s were shifting to English. Interestingly many of the Scottish lowland families did not have the Mac prefix to their family names whereas in the highlands it was almost uniform even among the Norse. In fact it was a very Norse custom 'Son of = Mac'. The Norse & Danish form was adding 'sen' after the father's name. The Swedes add 'son' after the father's name. In fact the Normans used to use 'Fitz' (son of) as a prefix just like Mac. Fitz appears to be derived from Fr., Fils (son).

My Scottish lowlanders line were called 'Crichton' (never MacCrichton). Variants being Chrichton & Creighton. An interesting bunch. The ones who emigrated to the new world seem to have done very well. Crichton's also didn't have a 'tartan' as such. That was a very highland thing. The tartans likely originated in Ireland and were carried on in the highlands by the Irish that moved there. In time having a tartan became a status symbol so we started to see lowland families adopting some form of tartan as the family identity. Now it is the identity.

In the middle ages, there was a significant migration of Irish into Scotland but mostly the Highlands rather than the more densely populated lowlands.

Thanks for your interesting post! You are right about there being a lot of M222 in Southwestern Scotland. In Ireland there are high levels of M222 in the Northwestern part and in the rest of the north of the island of Ireland. My last name is O'Hair and two of my O'Hair fourth cousins and myself are M222...>S588>S603...BY18204. If we look on the Big Tree for S588 there are many Scottish and many Irish families that have it. Also, going down one snp, on the Big Tree for S603, there are a lot of Irish families and quite a number of Scottish families that have that, including the chiefly line of the Robertsons of Struan in Perthshire. So, at one point in time all of these families that I mentioned descended in a direct paternal line from a common ancestor. Also, only men who have taken a NGS YDNA test are going to be on the Big Tree. So, there are bound to be a lot more M222, and its's downstream subclades S588, and S603 men that are shown on the Big Tree

At Yfull, they give about 500 A. D. as the time to most recent common ancestor for all S588 men. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S588/

To me, it seems like in the Lowlands of Scotland that most of the surnames beginning with Mac occurred in Galloway and Ayrshire, areas that at one time were predominately Gaelic speaking and Galloway also was where the Gall-Ghaedhil, a mixed group of Vikings and Gaels settled maybe around the 10th. 11th, or 12th Centuries. Many of the Gall-Ghaedhil were of mixed Norse and Gaelic blood.

Kind Regards
Fred

mihaitzateo
09-24-2019, 08:27 PM
There is "Races of Europe" by Carletoon Coon, which tells about the hair color, at the Scottish people.

If you say that most paternal lines in Scotland were brought by the Saxons and by the Norse people,well, where is the data to show that?

dsm
09-24-2019, 10:06 PM
Crichton is a locational name though so it is not going to have Mac before it, and the crich part of the name could come from the Gaelic Crioch meaning border or boundary.



As always, we each have info we learned from somewhere. Re Crichton name, the family historians I followed argue for it likely evolving from people brought up to the lowlands from Englands West coast by the Romans, to help them in their attempts to tame the area. The Crich part is just one way to spell it to fit modern phonetic pron. Earlier spellings used a K and something like Kreighton.

The Crichtons were among people who were leaders in the early days. If you know the story of the 6th Earl of Douglas and what happened to him and his brother then you will know who of the Crichtons were. What happened at that dinner became an expensive mistake for them (Both the Douglas brothers and the Crichtons).

Cheers D

spruithean
09-25-2019, 01:13 AM
There is "Races of Europe" by Carletoon Coon, which tells about the hair color, at the Scottish people.

If you say that most paternal lines in Scotland were brought by the Saxons and by the Norse people,well, where is the data to show that?

I would take that book with many grains of salt.

Again, no one is saying that the majority of paternal lines in Scotland are Germanic. No one has made that claim. You're seemingly deriving such a claim out of comments made about the fact that some paternal lines in Scotland are indeed the result of Germanic people migrating to Scotland. You don't need to look very far to find information on Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman/Flemish influences on Scotland, again this does not mean that the majority of paternal lineages are Germanic, no one is making that claim.

Tomenable
11-26-2019, 04:32 PM
This G25 comparison of Early Medieval Gaels to modern and ancient populations shows, that Gaels were quite similar to modern Scots and to Late Bronze Age inhabitants of Scotland, but not to Scotland Bell Beakers, and not even to Middle Bronze Age Scots. To me it proves that there occured a genetic change in Scotland at some point between the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Very likely it was caused by immigration of Celts, probably represented by Urnfield:

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

^^^
Scotland Late Bronze Age is the 3rd closest population to Gaels (after modern Irish and modern Scots), while Scotland Beaker is 35th.

Perhaps more shockingly, many continental Beaker groups from places like France or Czechia are closer to Gaels, than local Beakers.

So much for the "British Beaker continuity all the way until historical times" myth. It seems there were other immigrations in-between.

Ruderico
11-26-2019, 05:00 PM
https://i.imgur.com/JxhIyhx.png

^^^
Scotland Late Bronze Age is the 3rd closest population to Gaels (after modern Irish and modern Scots), while Scotland Beaker is 35th.

Perhaps more shockingly, many continental Beaker groups from places like France or Czechia are closer to Gaels, than local Beakers.

Nice find. I suppose you're using the average Gaelic reference

Dewsloth
11-26-2019, 05:44 PM
^^^ Interesting that Welsh is "more distant" than English in this one.

fridurich
11-30-2019, 05:49 PM
This G25 comparison of Early Medieval Gaels to modern and ancient populations shows, that Gaels were quite similar to modern Scots and to Late Bronze Age inhabitants of Scotland, but not to Scotland Bell Beakers, and not even to Middle Bronze Age Scots. To me it proves that there occured a genetic change in Scotland at some point between the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Very likely it was caused by immigration of Celts, probably represented by Urnfield:

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

^^^
Scotland Late Bronze Age is the 3rd closest population to Gaels (after modern Irish and modern Scots), while Scotland Beaker is 35th.

Perhaps more shockingly, many continental Beaker groups from places like France or Czechia are closer to Gaels, than local Beakers.

So much for the "British Beaker continuity all the way until historical times" myth. It seems there were other immigrations in-between.

Hi Tomenable.

Thanks for the very interesting chart!! This may sound like an ignorant question, but can we be sure G25 is accurate in the above assessment of ancient Gaels being that close autosomal genetically to the Modern Irish, modern Scottish, and Late Scottish Bronze Age people?

Are all of the Gaelic samples used in this from remains of Gaels found in Ireland during the Viking period? (Not sure what ISL stands for, maybe Insular, or, less likely, standing for Icelandic)

So, are the modern Scottish samples representative of all of Scotland as a whole, both Highlands and Lowlands and are the modern Irish samples representative of both Ireland and Northern Ireland?

That is great if this really shows that the old Gaelic samples you mention are closely related to the modern populations you mention and samples of Late Bronze Age Scotland.

Thanks again for the interesting chart and for any clarification on this from you, or anyone else!!!

Kind Regards
Fred

JMcB
11-30-2019, 06:10 PM
Hi Tomenable.

Thanks for the very interesting chart!! This may sound like an ignorant question, but can we be sure G25 is accurate in the above assessment of ancient Gaels being that close autosomal genetically to the Modern Irish, modern Scottish, and Late Scottish Bronze Age people?

Are all of the Gaelic samples used in this from remains of Gaels found in Ireland during the Viking period? (Not sure what ISL stands for, maybe Insular, or, less likely, standing for Icelandic)

So, are the modern Scottish samples representative of all of Scotland as a whole, both Highlands and Lowlands and are the modern Irish samples representative of both Ireland and Northern Ireland?

That is great if this really shows that the old Gaelic samples you mention are closely related to the modern populations you mention and samples of Late Bronze Age Scotland.

Thanks again for the interesting chart and for any clarification on this from you, or anyone else!!!

Kind Regards
Fred


Hello Fred,

The information was primarily taken from this paper:

Ancient genomes from Iceland reveal the making of a human population

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


Eurogenes has a post on it here:

Viking Age Iceland

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/viking-age-iceland.html


And this paper took a secondary look at the samples, here:

The genetic landscape of Scotland and the Isles

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/19064


Eurogenes also posted a Celtic vs Germanic PCA of the Icelandic Vikings (& Gaels) here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k9rhlExwH4SRqu1uMGPZogLRuEccH9_o/view

Nqp15hhu
12-01-2019, 09:20 AM
Well, I have not interacted with too many Scotts, in my life, only with 3-4 in real life.
Did not gathered too much information about Scotland either.
What I can say about the English and the Irish, with me interacting with lots of Irish and English, is that they are very talkative.
Being very talkative is surely not a Germanic trait, but a Celtic trait, that is also seen at most Romance people,but not at all Romance people.
English is indeed a Germanic language, but most words are of Romance origins.
Most of the basic words and the grammar is Germanic, at the English language.
So English is not entirely a Germanic language, but a Germanic-Romance-Celtic language. Because Old French, that was spoken by Normans, which was a GalloRomance language, influenced modern English a lot.

I am not talking about paternal lines, which I think, leaving the R1B-U106 dispute aside, are mostly of Celtic origins, in Scotland.
Hope I2-Disles is not considered also Germanic, cause is quite clear that is Celtic . In regards to I1 clades, I am not so sure that all are of Germanic origins.

The maternal lines in Scotland, well, those are not investigated soo much, but most should be of Celtic origins.

Coming back to the culture of Scotland, people there should know better if it is mostly Celtic-Romance or mostly Germanic (including Norse).

English people are not talkative. They are very much a reserved culture.

Nqp15hhu
12-01-2019, 09:23 AM
Well, most people in Scotland are medium brown and dark Brown haired, so how is their DNA mostly Germanic?
Scandos were and are mostly light haired , either blonde either light brown and Saxons should have been also mostly blonde or light brown haired.

If we take Orkney islands, OK, those are having a significant Norse influence.

They seem to. What is the high England and NW Europe percentage about if they don't have Germanic ancestry?

Nqp15hhu
12-01-2019, 09:26 AM
Thanks for your interesting post! You are right about there being a lot of M222 in Southwestern Scotland. In Ireland there are high levels of M222 in the Northwestern part and in the rest of the north of the island of Ireland. My last name is O'Hair and two of my O'Hair fourth cousins and myself are M222...>S588>S603...BY18204. If we look on the Big Tree for S588 there are many Scottish and many Irish families that have it. Also, going down one snp, on the Big Tree for S603, there are a lot of Irish families and quite a number of Scottish families that have that, including the chiefly line of the Robertsons of Struan in Perthshire. So, at one point in time all of these families that I mentioned descended in a direct paternal line from a common ancestor. Also, only men who have taken a NGS YDNA test are going to be on the Big Tree. So, there are bound to be a lot more M222, and its's downstream subclades S588, and S603 men that are shown on the Big Tree

At Yfull, they give about 500 A. D. as the time to most recent common ancestor for all S588 men. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S588/

To me, it seems like in the Lowlands of Scotland that most of the surnames beginning with Mac occurred in Galloway and Ayrshire, areas that at one time were predominately Gaelic speaking and Galloway also was where the Gall-Ghaedhil, a mixed group of Vikings and Gaels settled maybe around the 10th. 11th, or 12th Centuries. Many of the Gall-Ghaedhil were of mixed Norse and Gaelic blood.

Kind Regards
Fred

Anyone know the amount of L193 in Northern Ireland?

Nqp15hhu
12-01-2019, 09:29 AM
^^^ Interesting that Welsh is "more distant" than English in this one.

I'm not sure about the Cornwall sample. I've come up as English-Cornwall several times on those calculators, I have no connection to Cornwall whatsoever.

Generalissimo
12-01-2019, 11:36 AM
I'm not sure about the Cornwall sample. I've come up as English-Cornwall several times on those calculators, I have no connection to Cornwall whatsoever.

These modern Cornish samples are similar to ancient Gaels.

mihaitzateo
12-01-2019, 04:15 PM
A thing to mention about Scotland that shows them as Gaels, is that Rugby is very important for Scottish people and they are very good at rugby.
Is quite clear that in Europe, except for the Insular Celtic nations (Welsh,English,Irish and Scottish) and Gauls (French) the other nations are not so good at Rugby.
How Rugby corelates with Celtic people, I have no idea, but for the moment it corelates.

Leaving aside the Kilt, weared by Scottish people, which is of Gaelic origins they (Scottish people) also have some traditions related to feats of strength, which are originating at Insular Celts.
As a curios thing, Iceland, which are Norse-Gaels also took this custom and is having some feats of strength. (as for example, "Strongest Viking").


Rugby looks as a Gaelic team game, inspired from feats of strength of Insular Gaels.

Another thing is that Scotland national drink is Whisky, which is an Insular Celts drink, the other famous country for producing Whisky being Ireland.
Nordic nations are producing Vodka.
Now, why Whisky is produced mostly by Insular Celts and Vodka by Norse people (Slavs also produce Vodka), I do not have any idea.
Both Vodka and Whiskey appeared after 1500 AD, but why Scotland and Ireland adopted Whiskey, while Scandos adopted Vodka, I have no idea.

Another Scottish Gaelic tradition is the folk tradition that some castles are haunted, by ghosts.


Another thing that you can check, is that Norse People and Russians (no idea about Finns) eat a lot of fish.
And it seems that Insular Celts were eating lots of products of milk of cow or sheep.
Why? No idea, again.
You should know how much milk products average Scottish person is eating and how much fish.
I have not searched for this info.
I am Romanian ethnic, that read some things about Insular Celts and Norse people.
So to my outsider eyes, Scottish are looking as a quite Insular Celtic nation, even if they speak English.
English are also an Insular Celtic nation/ethnicity, even with all AngloSaxon and Viking influence.

Jessie
12-02-2019, 01:09 AM
For anyone interested if you have G25 coordinates you can compare yourself to these Gaelic samples.

This is mine

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

There is obviously some variation in the present day Irish population because this is my distance to these samples.

FionnSneachta
12-02-2019, 11:11 AM
For anyone interested if you have G25 coordinates you can compare yourself to these Gaelic samples.

This is mine

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

There is obviously some variation in the present day Irish population because this is my distance to these samples.

How do you go about comparing the G25 coordinates to Gaelic samples? I have the G25 coordinates already. Thanks.

spruithean
12-02-2019, 11:37 AM
A thing to mention about Scotland that shows them as Gaels, is that Rugby is very important for Scottish people and they are very good at rugby.
Is quite clear that in Europe, except for the Insular Celtic nations (Welsh,English,Irish and Scottish) and Gauls (French) the other nations are not so good at Rugby.
How Rugby corelates with Celtic people, I have no idea, but for the moment it corelates.

Could it not just be simpler to go with the notion that maybe, just maybe the sport is more popular in Scotland than say elsewhere? Saying that someone is Celtic because they are good at rugby is like saying "I'm Irish because I can do X".



Leaving aside the Kilt, weared by Scottish people, which is of Gaelic origins they (Scottish people) also have some traditions related to feats of strength, which are originating at Insular Celts.
As a curios thing, Iceland, which are Norse-Gaels also took this custom and is having some feats of strength. (as for example, "Strongest Viking").

Strength sports are not strictly Celtic. Basques are very much involved in stone lifting events, the Japanese also have stone lifting events, chikaraishi, are they Celtic too?



Rugby looks as a Gaelic team game, inspired from feats of strength of Insular Gaels.

Another thing is that Scotland national drink is Whisky, which is an Insular Celts drink, the other famous country for producing Whisky being Ireland.
Nordic nations are producing Vodka.
Now, why Whisky is produced mostly by Insular Celts and Vodka by Norse people (Slavs also produce Vodka), I do not have any idea.
Both Vodka and Whiskey appeared after 1500 AD, but why Scotland and Ireland adopted Whiskey, while Scandos adopted Vodka, I have no idea.

Another Scottish Gaelic tradition is the folk tradition that some castles are haunted, by ghosts.

I'm sorry but this all just seems like stereotyping and flimsy.



Another thing that you can check, is that Norse People and Russians (no idea about Finns) eat a lot of fish.
And it seems that Insular Celts were eating lots of products of milk of cow or sheep.
Why? No idea, again.
You should know how much milk products average Scottish person is eating and how much fish.
I have not searched for this info.
I am Romanian ethnic, that read some things about Insular Celts and Norse people.
So to my outsider eyes, Scottish are looking as a quite Insular Celtic nation, even if they speak English.
English are also an Insular Celtic nation/ethnicity, even with all AngloSaxon and Viking influence.

Again, this seems more subjective than anything else...

FionnSneachta
12-02-2019, 11:58 AM
Okay I found the site that you are using but I don't know where to get the source coordinates. I've used the coordinates provided when I first got the G25 coordinates.
https://imgur.com/a/054k6U1
https://imgur.com/a/054k6U1

My top 3 are Orcadian, Scotland_LBA, and Irish. I agree that there does seem to be variation within the Irish population. This can be seen with GEDmatch calculators as well with different populations appearing. For example with K13, I get Irish, my dad gets West Scottish, my mum Norwegian and my great aunt Southwest English as their top populations. I don't think that there should appear to be that much variation within one family who all have the same background in the one area.

I had my family's DNA matched up to different populations including within Ireland. I was told that my dad appeared more Northern Irish or Scots-Irish than Republic of Ireland with Connacht at 14. These were his populations:
1. Scotland General (Mixed Regions)
2. England Cornwall
3. Ireland Ulster (part which is in the UK)
4. England Cumberland
5. North-West England
6. Orkney Islands
7. Scotland Lothian
8. England Northumberland
9. Northern Wales
10. England Tyne and Wear
11. Ireland General (Mixed Regions)
12. North-East England
13. Southern Wales
14. Ireland Connacht
15. Highland Scottish
16. Ireland Galway

This was his mixed mode:
England Cornwall - 42.8%
Scotland Lothian - 19%
Germany Westphalia - 17.4%
England Cumberland - 7.2%
Germany Niedersachsen - 5.6%
Ireland Donegal - 3.8%
Ireland Connacht - 3.4%
Native North American - 0.8% [is it real, is he from the U.S. / Canada?]

My great aunt had a southern shift towards France/Iberia.
1. France Bretagne
2. Ireland Leinster
3. Ireland General (Mixed Regions)
4. Southern Wales
5. Northern Wales
6. Ireland Munster
7. Orkney Islands
8. Highland Scottish
9. Ireland Galway
10. England Cornwall
11. Ireland Ulster
12. England Cumberland
13. Ireland Connacht

Mixed Mode:
Ireland Munster - 44%
France Bretagne - 30.6%
France Basque - 9.2%
England West Midlands - 5.4%
Spain Soria - 4.6%
England Lancashire - 3.2%
Ireland Leinster - 2%
Belarus Vitebsk - 1%

These were mine:
1. Highland Scottish
2. Ireland Munster
3. Ireland General (Mixed Regions)
4. Orkney Islands
5. Southern Wales
6. Northern Wales
7. Ireland Connacht
8. Ireland Galway
9. Ireland Ulster
10. Ireland Leinster

Mixed Mode:
Ireland Munster - 42%
Highland Scottish - 26.4%
Scotland Central - 15.8%
Sweden Scania - 5.4%
England Lancashire - 5%
Germany Mecklenburg - 2.8%
Ireland Leinster - 2.6%

These were my mum's:
1. Orkney Islands
2. Ireland Munster
3. Ireland General (Mixed Regions)
4. Ireland Galway
5. Ireland Connacht
6. Southern Wales
7. Northern Wales
8. Highland Scottish
9. Scotland Hebrides
10. England Cumberland

Mixed Mode:
Ireland Munster - 39.2%
Ireland Connacht - 21.8%
France Bretagne - 16.2%
Poland Suwalki - 9.2% [could also indicate Lithuania or East Prussia]
Spain Basque - 5.8%
Scotland Hebrides - 5.2%
Ukraine Volhynia - 2.6%

I think that the limitations of these calculators can sometimes only be revealed when someone who has ancestry from the one area tests. My mum and dad have all their known ancestors living around the one area so I don't see how there could be large amounts of other populations appearing and how they could be so different from each other. From the mixed mode, my dad only gets a total of 7.2% for Ireland and 3.4% for Connacht. My great aunt (my dad's aunt) gets 46% from Ireland with none from Connacht. I get 44.6% from Ireland and none from Connacht. My mum gets 61% from Ireland and 21.8% from Connacht. Some of these populations might just be too close to differentiate from each other with confidence. Of course, the number of samples used would affect it as well.

Nqp15hhu
12-02-2019, 12:51 PM
Please do tell us the site..

Jessie
12-02-2019, 01:40 PM
How do you go about comparing the G25 coordinates to Gaelic samples? I have the G25 coordinates already. Thanks.

You get the Gaelic coordinates off the G25 ancient spreadsheet but here they are if you don't want to search.

ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic,0.127482,0.1360805,0.063545, 0.0476425,0.0344675,0.0230085,0.00282,0.0101535,0. 007772,0.0069245,-0.006414,0.0031475,-0.0181365,-0.024772,0.029994,-0.003447,-0.0195575,0.0005705,0.007919,0.005315,0.0010605,0. 003215,0.0038205,0.013134,0.00670

You use this great tool.

https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/

Put the Gaelic coordinates in the Target section.

Get the modern averaged spreadsheet from Eurogenes. https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
David updates these all the time.

This is the spreadsheet with the modern averaged populations.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F2rKEVtu8nWSm7qFhxPU6UESQNsmA-sl/view

Copy all the examples but not the top line i.e. the one with the PC1, PC2 etc.

Put them in Vahaduo under source and add your coordinates but also without the PC1, PC2.

Then go to Distance on Vahaduo. Click on ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic at the bottom and it will give you a list of the closest to the most distant.

Where it says Max Output Number you can make this any number you wish. It is usually set at 25.

If you have any problems let me know or if you want me to do it but it is a great tool and easy to learn. Cheers.

FionnSneachta
12-02-2019, 02:34 PM
You get the Gaelic coordinates off the G25 ancient spreadsheet but here they are if you don't want to search.

ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic,0.127482,0.1360805,0.063545, 0.0476425,0.0344675,0.0230085,0.00282,0.0101535,0. 007772,0.0069245,-0.006414,0.0031475,-0.0181365,-0.024772,0.029994,-0.003447,-0.0195575,0.0005705,0.007919,0.005315,0.0010605,0. 003215,0.0038205,0.013134,0.00670

You use this great tool.

https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/

Put the Gaelic coordinates in the Target section.

Get the modern averaged spreadsheet from Eurogenes. https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
David updates these all the time.

This is the spreadsheet with the modern averaged populations.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F2rKEVtu8nWSm7qFhxPU6UESQNsmA-sl/view

Copy all the examples but not the top line i.e. the one with the PC1, PC2 etc.

Put them in Vahaduo under source and add your coordinates but also without the PC1, PC2.

Then go to Distance on Vahaduo. Click on ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic at the bottom and it will give you a list of the closest to the most distant.

Where it says Max Output Number you can make this any number you wish. It is usually set at 25.

If you have any problems let me know or if you want me to do it but it is a great tool and easy to learn. Cheers.

Thank you. This is how it looks when my coordinates are used as one of the sources. I appear 7th on the list after Welsh.

https://imgur.com/a/BCaX36n
https://imgur.com/a/BCaX36n

This is the distance of my coordinates to the ancient populations. My closest match is Scotland_LBA at 0.02858855 followed by ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic at 0.02925896.

https://imgur.com/a/rwbWpGU
https://imgur.com/a/rwbWpGU

Jessie
12-02-2019, 04:59 PM
Thanks for that. It is interesting to compare as we are both Irish. There are lots of similarities just differences in the order.

https://i.imgur.com/2ulCIMK.png

FionnSneachta
12-02-2019, 05:23 PM
Thanks for that. It is interesting to compare as we are both Irish. There are lots of similarities just differences in the order.

Interesting. Although further down your list, you are actually closer to Scotland_LBA than me but I am still closer in terms of distance to ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic.

Dewsloth
12-02-2019, 06:26 PM
Thanks for that. It is interesting to compare as we are both Irish. There are lots of similarities just differences in the order.

https://i.imgur.com/2ulCIMK.png

What does it look like when you just compare against the Norse and Gaelic Iceland samples (take out the mixed)?

e.g. for Dad and RMPR31 -- the fit is mediocre for Dad, but not that bad (and decidedly Norse) for R31:

Target: DewslothDad_Unscaled
Distance: 2.2105% / 0.02210515
45.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
39.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5
9.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1
6.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9

Target: ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity:RMPR31unscaled
Distance: 1.6305% / 0.01630509
68.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5
14.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
7.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
7.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1
3.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1

Nqp15hhu
12-02-2019, 06:33 PM
Could someone please do this for me? I don't know what i'm doing.

Dewsloth
12-02-2019, 06:37 PM
Could someone please do this for me? I don't know what i'm doing.

Do you already have G25 coordinates?

Nqp15hhu
12-02-2019, 06:43 PM
Do you already have G25 coordinates?

How do you get those?

Dewsloth
12-02-2019, 06:59 PM
How do you get those?

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/genetic-ancestry-online-store-to-be.html

^^He will give you both scaled and unscaled Global25 coordinate information. Different ways of looking at the same thing, but know which you are using for a given experiment.

Jessie
12-03-2019, 01:01 AM
Using just the Norse and Gaelic samples.

https://i.imgur.com/PL5C26Y.png

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

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

Just realised you used unscaled.

https://i.imgur.com/GFrDup0.png

https://i.imgur.com/HwB8Aud.png

Dewsloth
12-03-2019, 02:44 AM
Nice low distance^^

fridurich
12-03-2019, 03:48 AM
Hello Fred,

The information was primarily taken from this paper:

Ancient genomes from Iceland reveal the making of a human population

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


Eurogenes has a post on it here:

Viking Age Iceland

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/viking-age-iceland.html


And this paper took a secondary look at the samples, here:

The genetic landscape of Scotland and the Isles

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/19064


Eurogenes also posted a Celtic vs Germanic PCA of the Icelandic Vikings (& Gaels) here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k9rhlExwH4SRqu1uMGPZogLRuEccH9_o/view

Hi JMcB.

Thanks for your reply and the very interesting articles!

I have already seen and studied this one before and thought is was very interesting! https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/19064

Kind Regards
Fred

JMcB
12-03-2019, 03:54 AM
Hi JMcB.

Thanks for your reply and the very interesting articles!

I have already seen and studied this one before and thought is was very interesting! https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/19064

Kind Regards
Fred

Yes, that’s a good paper. Especially for the Scots who have been sorely neglected when it comes to the Isles. At least, in my opinion.

sktibo
12-03-2019, 04:40 AM
Yes, that’s a good paper. Especially for the Scots who have been sorely neglected when it comes to the Isles. At least, in my opinion.

Although I can and do go on about the Irish constantly, it's really the Scots who I'd love to see more of as I have a significant number of ancestors from Scotland. How great would that be if we could get a good look at a Pictish sample such as Rosemarkie man? The four Orcadian Picts from the Viking paper would be great as well but with them I would worry that being Orkney islanders they may have drifted from the "mainland" of Scotland.
Any of these would make a great Christmas present of course

JMcB
12-03-2019, 05:09 AM
Although I can and do go on about the Irish constantly, it's really the Scots who I'd love to see more of as I have a significant number of ancestors from Scotland. How great would that be if we could get a good look at a Pictish sample such as Rosemarkie man? The four Orcadian Picts from the Viking paper would be great as well but with them I would worry that being Orkney islanders may have cause a bit of drift from the "mainland" of Scotland.
Any of these would make a great Christmas present of course

Yes, I agree! Although, I would gladly take more samples from anywhere in Britain and Ireland. What I would really love to see, is a decent amount of new pre Viking samples from both Ireland and Scotland. Dating from the early Middle Ages, circa 400 - 800 AD. I also wish Reich would finally come out with the paper he spoke about where 1000 ancient skeletons were being tested:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/11/did-romans-leave-genetic-legacy-britain/

While we’re at it, I’d also love some Celtic and Roman era samples from France.

On the other hand, we’ve been getting some interesting results lately. So hopefully in time these will come, too.

Jessie
12-03-2019, 05:10 AM
I'd love to see a more in depth study on the Welsh. I think they are the most neglected with studies. From what I've seen the Welsh do appear to have differences to the Irish and Scots and there does appear to me some affinity with the Bretons. These are just observations and I'd just love to see some ancient Welsh samples. There is a few good Irish studies coming up so I think we will know a lot more about Irish genetics but I haven't heard of anything on the horizon for the Welsh. I'd also like to see the possible study that was hinted at looking at the Southeast English.

sktibo
12-03-2019, 05:16 AM
Yes, I agree! Although, I would gladly take more samples from anywhere in Britain and Ireland. What I would really love to see is decent amount of new pre Viking samples from both Ireland and Scotland. Dating from the early Middle Ages, circa 400 - 800 AD. I also wish Reich would finally come out with the paper he spoke about where 1000 ancient skeletons were be tested:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/11/did-romans-leave-genetic-legacy-britain/


On the hand, we’ve been getting some interesting results lately. So hopefully in time those holes will be filled.

it was Norfolk's results in particular that really sparked an interest in the potential genetic legacy of the Romans in England in my case. I really hope we get a look at that.
I think if I could get anything I'd go for Scottish samples from around the time of the formation of the kingdom of Scotland.. Maybe from Central Scotland. Would love to see just what sort of mixture those guys would be in terms of Gaels vs Picts. But even if we got those samples it might still be impossible. I seem to recall evidence that the Picts often adopted Anglo Saxon swords similarly to how the Irish adopted the Norse swords. Maybe some solid Angle blood in those early kingdom Scots too. Fun to think about anyhow.

JMcB
12-03-2019, 03:06 PM
I'd love to see a more in depth study on the Welsh. I think they are the most neglected with studies. From what I've seen the Welsh do appear to have differences to the Irish and Scots and there does appear to me some affinity with the Bretons. These are just observations and I'd just love to see some ancient Welsh samples. There is a few good Irish studies coming up so I think we will know a lot more about Irish genetics but I haven't heard of anything on the horizon for the Welsh. I'd also like to see the possible study that was hinted at looking at the Southeast English.

Now that you mention it, I think you’re right!

castle3
12-03-2019, 04:04 PM
I asked for an update re the Rosemarkie Man paper today and was again told that his downstream haplogroup data would be released 'alongside other Scottish ancient humans' in a paper which is currently being prepared. I was told that this would take some time. This is a paper I'm really looking forward to. Just wish I was more patient!

MacUalraig
12-03-2019, 04:50 PM
I asked for an update re the Rosemarkie Man paper today and was again told that his downstream haplogroup data would be released 'alongside other Scottish ancient humans' in a paper which is currently being prepared. I was told that this would take some time. This is a paper I'm really looking forward to. Just wish I was more patient!

Do we have any idea how many samples we can expect? a handful/dozens/hundreds/zillions? :-)

sktibo
12-03-2019, 04:58 PM
I asked for an update re the Rosemarkie Man paper today and was again told that his downstream haplogroup data would be released 'alongside other Scottish ancient humans' in a paper which is currently being prepared. I was told that this would take some time. This is a paper I'm really looking forward to. Just wish I was more patient!

That's exciting but I would wish that if they have his information that they would release it as some preliminary data so that we can get a sneak preview... It's a lot to have to wait for the whole thing without an appetizer.

FionnSneachta
12-03-2019, 08:14 PM
What does it look like when you just compare against the Norse and Gaelic Iceland samples (take out the mixed)?


Using just the Norse and Gaelic samples.

FWIW, here are mine in comparison. I've pasted the results and provided a link to the image. Here is the link: https://imgur.com/a/owv0y3D
I don't know how to embed images from imgur on the post itself. Interesting that Jessie matches the Norse samples closer than I do. Her closest match is the Norse VDP sample at 0.025 unscaled with it's my most distant 0.040.

Distance to: MK_scaled
0.03932608 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
0.03965025 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
0.05638884 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5
0.05708120 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
0.05988509 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1

Target: MK_scaled
Distance: 2.5881% / 0.02588071
45.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
33.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
21.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9

Target: MK_scaled
Distance: 2.5881% / 0.02588071
78.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic
21.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse

Distance to: MK
0.02404454 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
0.02702092 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
0.03547703 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1
0.03676547 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
0.04023096 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5


Target: MK
Distance: 1.7336% / 0.01733640
80.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic
19.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse

Target: MK
Distance: 1.7336% / 0.01733640
49.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
31.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
19.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9

castle3
12-03-2019, 08:17 PM
Agreed. However I'm just relieved to see someone focusing on areas in Scotland. I'm not sure how many samples they have access to at this stage. Leaks aren't unknown re these matters! (On another tack: I posted something re the Kennedy clan on the General forum earlier, for those of that name).

Nqp15hhu
12-04-2019, 12:17 PM
It’s a pity it wasn’t easier to do this.

msmarjoribanks
12-04-2019, 02:11 PM
I only just got my coordinates and can't figure out how to do it. I keep getting warnings about spaces vs. results. Anyone willing to tutor me or just run the coordinates?

Msmarjoribanks_scaled,0.129758,0.13405,0.053174,0. 048127,0.03416,0.013945,0.00094,0.000692,0.000818,-0.002369,-0.003573,0.006444,-0.008771,-0.005092,0.019001,0.002254,-0.005737,-0.000887,0.007793,0.004752,0.002371,0.003586,0.000 246,0.011206,-0.004431

Msmarjoribanks_dad_scaled,0.132035,0.142174,0.0622 25,0.041021,0.040315,0.012271,-0.00141,0,0.001636,0.001822,-0.003897,0.011989,-0.017839,-0.008257,0.021715,-0.004508,-0.016428,0.00266,0.006159,0.003377,0.001123,0.0068 01,0.002095,0.009399,-0.000599

Msmarjoribanks,0.0114,0.0132,0.0141,0.0149,0.0111, 0.005,0.0004,0.0003,0.0004,-0.0013,-0.0022,0.0043,-0.0059,-0.0037,0.014,0.0017,-0.0044,-0.0007,0.0062,0.0038,0.0019,0.0029,0.0002,0.0093,-0.0037
Msmarjoribanks_dad,0.0116,0.014,0.0165,0.0127,0.01 31,0.0044,-0.0006,0,0.0008,0.001,-0.0024,0.008,-0.012,-0.006,0.016,-0.0034,-0.0126,0.0021,0.0049,0.0027,0.0009,0.0055,0.0017,0 .0078,-0.0005

Also not sure what the difference between scaled and unscaled is.

Jessie
12-04-2019, 02:49 PM
I only just got my coordinates and can't figure out how to do it. I keep getting warnings about spaces vs. results. Anyone willing to tutor me or just run the coordinates?

Msmarjoribanks_scaled,0.129758,0.13405,0.053174,0. 048127,0.03416,0.013945,0.00094,0.000692,0.000818,-0.002369,-0.003573,0.006444,-0.008771,-0.005092,0.019001,0.002254,-0.005737,-0.000887,0.007793,0.004752,0.002371,0.003586,0.000 246,0.011206,-0.004431

Msmarjoribanks_dad_scaled,0.132035,0.142174,0.0622 25,0.041021,0.040315,0.012271,-0.00141,0,0.001636,0.001822,-0.003897,0.011989,-0.017839,-0.008257,0.021715,-0.004508,-0.016428,0.00266,0.006159,0.003377,0.001123,0.0068 01,0.002095,0.009399,-0.000599

Msmarjoribanks,0.0114,0.0132,0.0141,0.0149,0.0111, 0.005,0.0004,0.0003,0.0004,-0.0013,-0.0022,0.0043,-0.0059,-0.0037,0.014,0.0017,-0.0044,-0.0007,0.0062,0.0038,0.0019,0.0029,0.0002,0.0093,-0.0037
Msmarjoribanks_dad,0.0116,0.014,0.0165,0.0127,0.01 31,0.0044,-0.0006,0,0.0008,0.001,-0.0024,0.008,-0.012,-0.006,0.016,-0.0034,-0.0126,0.0021,0.0049,0.0027,0.0009,0.0055,0.0017,0 .0078,-0.0005

Also not sure what the difference between scaled and unscaled is.

I've just did your closest ancients and moderns scaled using the G25 averaged ancients and averaged moderns. I'm sure others will help and there are many threads where you can get all sorts of models done.

Distance to: Msmarjoribanks_scaled
0.01828529 Dutch
0.01918866 Scottish
0.01960597 Orcadian
0.02020217 Welsh
0.02076438 English
0.02104379 German
0.02218861 Shetlandic
0.02228436 Irish
0.02283205 English_Cornwall
0.02421205 French_Brittany
0.02632793 Icelandic
0.02710714 Norwegian
0.02852060 Swedish
0.02963341 Belgian
0.03214386 German_East
0.03218413 French_Nord
0.03230668 Austrian
0.03471230 French_Alsace
0.03706137 Czech
0.03728678 Swiss_German
0.03873498 French_Paris
0.03887527 Hungarian
0.04522907 Croatian
0.04544432 Slovenian
0.04961828 French_Occitanie

Distance to: Msmarjoribanks_scaled
0.01923433 England_Roman
0.02086331 Bell_Beaker_CZE
0.02138901 Bell_Beaker_POL
0.02210317 DEU_MA
0.02218413 Bell_Beaker_Mittelelbe-Saale
0.02314553 England_IA
0.02321284 Bell_Beaker_Bavaria
0.02471640 DEU_Alberstedt_LN
0.02482027 England_Saxon
0.02546293 England_MBA
0.02577407 HUN_MA_Szolad
0.02614923 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.02663168 Scotland_LBA
0.02681731 CZE_Bilina_BA
0.02772761 England_CA_EBA
0.02838369 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed
0.02851749 Bell_Beaker_HUN_EBA
0.02970112 Scotland_MBA
0.03033869 ITA_Collegno_MA
0.03063491 IRL_BA
0.03096942 DEU_Unetice_EBA
0.03160126 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA
0.03167835 SVK_Poprad_MA
0.03252666 DEU_Lech_EBA
0.03268533 Scotland_CA_EBA

Target: Msmarjoribanks_scaled
Distance: 1.0510% / 0.01050968
52.8 English_Cornwall
14.2 Welsh
8.2 Kaitag
5.8 Slovakian
5.0 Orcadian
4.0 Sorb_Niederlausitz
3.2 Scottish
3.0 Lithuanian_RA
2.8 Icelandic
0.6 Surui
0.4 Koinanbe

Target: Msmarjoribanks_scaled
Distance: 0.7204% / 0.00720398
45.6 England_Saxon
8.2 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
7.6 Anatolia_Kumtepe_N
7.6 SWE_IA
7.2 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
7.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
4.4 FIN_Levanluhta_IA_o
2.8 HRV_EBA
2.2 HUN_MA_Szolad_o1
2.0 CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany
2.0 ITA_Collegno_MA
1.4 Anatolia_Kumtepe_N_low_res
1.2 CZE_Unetice_EBA
0.6 RUS_Saltovo-Mayaki_low_res
0.2 RUS_Afanasievo

I've been out for pre-Christmas drinks so will possibly let someone else explain things. :)

msmarjoribanks
12-04-2019, 04:15 PM
Thanks!

Dewsloth
12-04-2019, 04:24 PM
Thanks!

Here are your Iceland comparisons (I used unscaled):

Mixed sampled removed:


Target: Msmarjoribanks
Distance: 1.3639% / 0.01363865
60.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse
39.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic


Target: Msmarjoribanks
Distance: 1.3639% / 0.01363865
32.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
30.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
25.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5
6.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
5.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1

Target: Msmarjoribanks_dad
Distance: 1.5007% / 0.01500721
70.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic
29.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse

Target: Msmarjoribanks_dad
Distance: 1.5007% / 0.01500721
50.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
22.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
20.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4
6.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:VDP-A5

All Iceland (included mixed):

Target: Msmarjoribanks
Distance: 1.0002% / 0.01000167
77.4 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed
17.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse
4.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic

Target: Msmarjoribanks
Distance: 1.0002% / 0.01000167
34.6 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed:SBT-A1
30.8 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed:VDP-A7
12.6 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:DAV-A9
12.0 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed:TSK-A26
5.2 ISL_Viking_Age_Norse:NNM-A1
3.8 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
1.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4



Target: Msmarjoribanks_dad
Distance: 1.0813% / 0.01081291
68.6 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed
31.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic

Target: Msmarjoribanks_dad
Distance: 1.0813% / 0.01081291
36.8 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed:SBT-A1
31.8 ISL_Viking_Age_mixed:VDP-A7
23.0 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:ORE-A1
8.4 ISL_Viking_Age_Gaelic:SSG-A4

mihaitzateo
12-04-2019, 06:04 PM
Could it not just be simpler to go with the notion that maybe, just maybe the sport is more popular in Scotland than say elsewhere? Saying that someone is Celtic because they are good at rugby is like saying "I'm Irish because I can do X".




Strength sports are not strictly Celtic. Basques are very much involved in stone lifting events, the Japanese also have stone lifting events, chikaraishi, are they Celtic too?



I'm sorry but this all just seems like stereotyping and flimsy.




Again, this seems more subjective than anything else...

Well, if a poll would be made in the US and Europe, between average people, how they perceive Scottish people, as rather Celtic or rather Germanic (AngloSaxon and Norse being both Germanic), it would be interesting to see the results.
I perceive Scottish people as rather Insular Celts, same about Irish people.
I am not talking about DNA, but about ethnicity.

About English people, I also perceive them as rather Insular Celts (Brythons) from a cultural point of view.

From a genetic point view, is clear that Irish are Insular Celts, Scottish people, Insular Celts, English, Insular Celts with AngloSaxon influence. No idea about the Welsh people.But they should also have a mostly Insular Celtic culture.
About Norse ancestry in British and Irish people, it peaks in people from Hebrides islands and I understand is about 25% Norse genetics.

If we take the cultural influence of the Norse people in the Irish and Scottish and English and Welsh people, that would be interesting to see.

If we take the modern English language, grammar is mostly West Germanic with some Scandinavian influence, the words from basic vocabulary are mostly Germanic, but most words are of Romance origins.

English people have also a significant Romance influence, from a cultural point of view, because England was part of the Roman Empire for 400 years and the Normans, while being of Norse and French genetics, seems to have had also a strong Romance cultural influence.
However, to me it seems that the Romance influence in the Scottish people is few to none.

It is clear that in both Ireland and Scotland there is a Norse/Scandinavian influence.

These are the opinions of on outsider from SouthEast Europe that interacted a little with some British and Irish people.

JonikW
12-04-2019, 10:20 PM
Well, if a poll would be made in the US and Europe, between average people, how they perceive Scottish people, as rather Celtic or rather Germanic (AngloSaxon and Norse being both Germanic), it would be interesting to see the results.
I perceive Scottish people as rather Insular Celts, same about Irish people.
I am not talking about DNA, but about ethnicity.

About English people, I also perceive them as rather Insular Celts (Brythons) from a cultural point of view.

From a genetic point view, is clear that Irish are Insular Celts, Scottish people, Insular Celts, English, Insular Celts with AngloSaxon influence. No idea about the Welsh people.But they should also have a mostly Insular Celtic culture.
About Norse ancestry in British and Irish people, it peaks in people from Hebrides islands and I understand is about 25% Norse genetics.

If we take the cultural influence of the Norse people in the Irish and Scottish and English and Welsh people, that would be interesting to see.

If we take the modern English language, grammar is mostly West Germanic with some Scandinavian influence, the words from basic vocabulary are mostly Germanic, but most words are of Romance origins.

English people have also a significant Romance influence, from a cultural point of view, because England was part of the Roman Empire for 400 years and the Normans, while being of Norse and French genetics, seems to have had also a strong Romance cultural influence.
However, to me it seems that the Romance influence in the Scottish people is few to none.

It is clear that in both Ireland and Scotland there is a Norse/Scandinavian influence.

These are the opinions of on outsider from SouthEast Europe that interacted a little with some British and Irish people.

That's a broadly impressive overview of the situation from an outsider's standpoint. You're also not alone in having no idea about the Welsh. I was met by blank stares when explaining my heritage to people over the seven years I lived in Russia. Sadly that also applies to DNA studies, as Jesse highlighted. The Scots seem relatively well known internationally in my experience, primarily for their Celtic heritage and beautiful scenery.

msmarjoribanks
12-04-2019, 10:26 PM
In the US, at least, Celtic seems to be applied to peoples with a Celtic language, which would include Scots, Irish, and Welsh, but not English. If you know a decent amount about ancient history, however, the likelihood is that there's a lot of continuity between pre-Anglo Saxon Briton and the current English population (although varying depending on location), and pre-AS Britons are generally within the Celtic umbrella as defined above.

Of course, there are also continental Celts and connections to them, beginning but not limited to language.

Nothing to do with rugby.

Problem with the term "Celtic" is that it has many varying meanings.

mihaitzateo
12-05-2019, 05:21 AM
A thing that can be taken into account is the name places from Scotland.I suppose most are Celtic.
A well known thing about Scotland is the legend of the monster from Loch Ness.
Loch is a Gaelic name but this legend seems to be of Norse origins.
Is curious that I do not think any Scandos retained such a folk belief, of monsters that are dwelling in the deep waters,but this belief is very well known in Scotland.
At a quick search,it tells that the monster of Loch Ness was first spotted by Vikings sailing on Loch Ness.
Vikings had the belief that a huge water monster exists in the oceans/seas - the kraken.
So the folk belief of the Kraken that was present in the past between the Vikings/Norse people remained in our days quite present at the Scottish people, with the belief there is a monster in Loch Ness,but this belief of the Kraken is no longer present at the current Norse people/Scandos.
This is really funny.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken

mihaitzateo
12-05-2019, 08:13 AM
A curiosity about Elves,Dwarves,Fairies in the folk belief of Scotland (and Ireland and England and Wales):
Is the average Scott from country side believing in the existence of these creatures?
The belief that these creatures exist is from the Norse people,from what I understand.
What about Trolls?
Another question, are the folk beliefs of Lowlands Scotts significantly different from the beliefs of Highland Scotts?
Another question: is the way of behaving/folk culture of Highland Scotts different from that of Lowland Scotts?

mihaitzateo
12-05-2019, 08:16 AM
In the US, at least, Celtic seems to be applied to peoples with a Celtic language, which would include Scots, Irish, and Welsh, but not English. If you know a decent amount about ancient history, however, the likelihood is that there's a lot of continuity between pre-Anglo Saxon Briton and the current English population (although varying depending on location), and pre-AS Britons are generally within the Celtic umbrella as defined above.

Of course, there are also continental Celts and connections to them, beginning but not limited to language.

Nothing to do with rugby.

Problem with the term "Celtic" is that it has many varying meanings.

The name of Irish and Celtic People of Scotland was Gael.
Galway - something related Gaels :) .
The name of Welsh and that I know from a Welshman:
Cymri.
The name of Celtic English:
Brythons.
I know there are also the Cornish people.

Caledonian
12-05-2019, 03:25 PM
A thing that can be taken into account is the name places from Scotland.I suppose most are Celtic.
A well known thing about Scotland is the legend of the monster from Loch Ness.
Loch is a Gaelic name but this legend seems to be of Norse origins.
Is curious that I do not think any Scandos retained such a folk belief, of monsters that are dwelling in the deep waters,but this belief is very well known in Scotland.
At a quick search,it tells that the monster of Loch Ness was first spotted by Vikings sailing on Loch Ness.
Vikings had the belief that a huge water monster exists in the oceans/seas - the kraken.
So the folk belief of the Kraken that was present in the past between the Vikings/Norse people remained in our days quite present at the Scottish people, with the belief there is a monster in Loch Ness,but this belief of the Kraken is no longer present at the current Norse people/Scandos.
This is really funny.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken

What makes you think the Loch Ness monster is a Norse legend? it predates the Vikings by centuries, the earliest reference to it is in a book called "Life of St. Columba" written in the seventh century AD by a Gaelic monk called Adomnán.

mihaitzateo
12-05-2019, 09:13 PM
What makes you think the Loch Ness monster is a Norse legend? it predates the Vikings by centuries, the earliest reference to it is in a book called "Life of St. Columba" written in the seventh century AD by a Gaelic monk called Adomnán.
Well I thought is related to the Norse folk belief of the Kraken.
I have not done some serious reading in regards of this matter.

Anyway,to me,as an outsider,seems that Scottish people do have a significant Norse culture influence,leaving aside the Loch Ness monster.

jcmax68
12-13-2019, 01:42 PM
Here is an interesting doctoral thesis on the Y haplogroups of the Faroe Islands. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1900&context=etd Note the heavy R1a presence, followed by R1b and I1. See also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8620571_The_origin_of_the_isolated_population_of_t he_Faroe_Islands_investigated_using_Y_chromosomal_ markers I think the high R1a (and linkage to Denmark) is interesting in light of Clan MacDonald claim of R1a being Somerled's haplogroup. Not entirely clear how old the R1b on Faroe is, but assuming it came in about same time as the R1a it would support that R1b was also among the Danes who ultimately moved down the western Scottish Isles and into Northern Ireland. I'm embarrassed to say that I was unfamiliar with the strong Danish connection to the Faroe Islands. Too early to tell, but if at least some of the R1b on Faroe is U152>L20, and has been there since the 9th Century AD, that would add further support that my Antrim U152>L20 line has a Norse-Gael origin.

Barraman
12-21-2019, 12:27 AM
I seem to recall that the Barra MacNeils, and specifically the Chiefly line and related lineages are R-Y5108 along with various MacDonald lineages.

Interestingly there are MacNeil families from Skye who are also L165, but they don't seem to be on the Y5108 branch.

The Argyll branch of the MacNeills are mostly I-Y13039, which is interesting, that lineage seems to be attached to Torquil MacNeill, keeper of Castle Sween.

The Skye MacNeils and Chiefly MacNeils could have become 2 distinct genetic groups before William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Skye MacNeils (BY456) and Chiefly MacNeils (BY129) branch off where L165 split into BY129 & BY456. SNPs average one mutation every 60-90 years and each clan has 7 SNPs downstream from BY456 & BY129 which makes them very distantly related. Their terminal SNPs (A11118 for the Chiefly MacNeils and FT23711 for the Skye MacNeils) are, at least, as old as 1670 (descendants of 2 different sons of Roderick Dubh MacNeil, 38th Chief of Clan MacNeil, born 1670, test positive for A11118) and L165 split into BY456 and BY129 between 420 to 630 years before 1670; i.e., they split between 1040 AD and 1250 AD.

Webb
12-21-2019, 12:46 AM
The Skye MacNeils and Chiefly MacNeils could have become 2 distinct genetic groups before William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Skye MacNeils (BY456) and Chiefly MacNeils (BY129) branch off where L165 split into BY129 & BY456. SNPs average one mutation every 60-90 years and each clan has 7 SNPs downstream from BY456 & BY129 which makes them very distantly related. Their terminal SNPs (A11118 for the Chiefly MacNeils and FT23711 for the Skye MacNeils) are, at least, as old as 1670 (descendants of 2 different sons of Roderick Dubh MacNeil, 38th Chief of Clan MacNeil, born 1670, test positive for A11118) and L165 split into BY456 and BY129 between 420 to 630 years before 1670; i.e., they split between 1040 AD and 1250 AD.

YFull has BY129 being formed 4200ybp and a TMRCA of 3200ybp. Ytree has BY129 being formed at 818 BC. That is the beauty of it. The MacNeil’s of Skye and the MacNeil’s of Barra haven’t had a common ancestor since around 800 to 500 B.C.

JerryS.
12-21-2019, 01:42 AM
In America Celtic is pronounces Seltic, and the Keltic pronunciation is relatively new. Either way, the term is generally used for the Irish but is also applied to any of the Gaelic tribes (Scottish, and Welsh). I don't know how official that is, but that is the way it is in common terms for the everyday person.

spruithean
12-21-2019, 03:17 AM
The Skye MacNeils and Chiefly MacNeils could have become 2 distinct genetic groups before William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Skye MacNeils (BY456) and Chiefly MacNeils (BY129) branch off where L165 split into BY129 & BY456. SNPs average one mutation every 60-90 years and each clan has 7 SNPs downstream from BY456 & BY129 which makes them very distantly related. Their terminal SNPs (A11118 for the Chiefly MacNeils and FT23711 for the Skye MacNeils) are, at least, as old as 1670 (descendants of 2 different sons of Roderick Dubh MacNeil, 38th Chief of Clan MacNeil, born 1670, test positive for A11118) and L165 split into BY456 and BY129 between 420 to 630 years before 1670; i.e., they split between 1040 AD and 1250 AD.

Indeed. There is a lot more in-depth data to be analyzed with the MacNeil project.


YFull has BY129 being formed 4200ybp and a TMRCA of 3200ybp. Ytree has BY129 being formed at 818 BC. That is the beauty of it. The MacNeil’s of Skye and the MacNeil’s of Barra haven’t had a common ancestor since around 800 to 500 B.C.

It really is interesting stuff. There are some interesting poorly represented subclades in that project (G, J, U106, etc) that could benefit from more participants.


In America Celtic is pronounces Seltic, and the Keltic pronunciation is relatively new. Either way, the term is generally used for the Irish but is also applied to any of the Gaelic tribes (Scottish, and Welsh). I don't know how official that is, but that is the way it is in common terms for the everyday person.

Celtic is pronounced with a K most everywhere except for the basketball team... as far as I've heard. Also worth pointing out that the Welsh/Cornish are not Gaelic, they are Brythonic.

FionnSneachta
12-21-2019, 05:10 PM
Celtic is pronounced with a K most everywhere except for the basketball team... as far as I've heard. Also worth pointing out that the Welsh/Cornish are not Gaelic, they are Brythonic.

For whatever reason, Celtic always seems to be pronounced as Seltic for sports teams. Celtic F.C. in the Scottish premiership is pronounced Seltic as is my local football club which is just the town name followed by Celtic. However, when referring to Celts and the Celtic culture, mythology and music, I've only ever heard it pronounced as Kelts or Keltic.

msmarjoribanks
12-22-2019, 06:20 PM
For whatever reason, Celtic always seems to be pronounced as Seltic for sports teams. Celtic F.C. in the Scottish premiership is pronounced Seltic as is my local football club which is just the town name followed by Celtic. However, when referring to Celts and the Celtic culture, mythology and music, I've only ever heard it pronounced as Kelts or Keltic.

Interesting, I thought S for the team was just a weird US thing (I blame Boston sports fans, since that's a fun group to denigrate).

I think some decades ago the S pronunciation was more common for other uses in the US, but these days I think it's K but for the Boston basketball team.

JonikW
12-22-2019, 06:27 PM
Interesting, I thought S for the team was just a weird US thing (I blame Boston sports fans, since that's a fun group to denigrate).

I think some decades ago the S pronunciation was more common for other uses in the US, but these days I think it's K but for the Boston basketball team.

A few decades ago the S pronunciation was common here too (I remember it being used a lot in my childhood). The only survivor is now the Glasgow football team, as FionnSneachta pointed out.

Phoebe Watts
12-23-2019, 04:34 PM
Perhaps worth mentioning too that as there is no “soft c” in Welsh, the “c” in “celt” can only be a “hard c” if you are speaking Welsh. I think the same goes for the other surviving celtic languages.

Trelvern
12-23-2019, 05:09 PM
Perhaps worth mentioning too that as there is no “soft c” in Welsh, the “c” in “celt” can only be a “hard c” if you are speaking Welsh. I think the same goes for the other surviving celtic languages.

No C at all in breton:
My own name whose first letter is C in French is written K or C'H (mutation:Initial G Hard K Mixed C'H Soft C'H) in Breton.


Breton alphabet letters
a - b - ch - cʼh - d - e - f - g - h - i - j - k - l - m
n - o - p - r - s - t - u - v - w - y - z

Compared to the French alphabet, the letters c, q and x are absent, and the 2 letters ch and cʼh are extra.

The n can be surmounted by a tilde: ñ. The u can be surmounted by a grave accent: ù.

Phoebe Watts
12-23-2019, 06:34 PM
No C at all in breton:
My own name whose first letter is C in French is written K or C'H (mutation:Initial G Hard K Mixed C'H Soft C'H) in Breton.


Breton alphabet letters
a - b - ch - cʼh - d - e - f - g - h - i - j - k - l - m
n - o - p - r - s - t - u - v - w - y - z

Compared to the French alphabet, the letters c, q and x are absent, and the 2 letters ch and cʼh are extra.

The n can be surmounted by a tilde: ñ. The u can be surmounted by a grave accent: ù.

Yes of course, k in Breton.

MacUalraig
12-23-2019, 07:35 PM
Interesting, I thought S for the team was just a weird US thing (I blame Boston sports fans, since that's a fun group to denigrate).

I think some decades ago the S pronunciation was more common for other uses in the US, but these days I think it's K but for the Boston basketball team.

No its 'Seltic' here in Glasgow too, always has been since foundation.

Jessie
12-24-2019, 10:22 AM
Perhaps worth mentioning too that as there is no “soft c” in Welsh, the “c” in “celt” can only be a “hard c” if you are speaking Welsh. I think the same goes for the other surviving celtic languages.

Yes C is hard in all the Celtic languages including Irish.

Nqp15hhu
12-26-2019, 01:47 PM
I pronounce it seltic.