How much of my English ancestry is Celtic Briton?

[bradly88]

Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome.

[rms2]

Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome.

Well, your y-dna haplogroup is believed to be a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, so if that line is English, it is more likely to be connected to the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings than to the Celtic Britons.

Otherwise, it's really impossible to tell from your Family Finder ethnic origins stats as given.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome.

I don't think these ancestry results are particularly reliable sometimes. My ancestry is entirely British and I get all sorts on different tests. FTDNA gives me 94% British Isles, 5% Asia Minor and 1% South America. The last two I believe are "British" similarities to certain modern regional populations. I get them (SW Asia/Native American) on other tests. Some tests give me Basque/Iberian.
If your ancestry is substantially English (or British), from the "People of the British Isles" and other studies it seems a fair proportion of your ancestry is likely to be from the pre- Anglo Saxon period. How much may depend on where your ancestry was distributed in the UK, with the South and East of England, as you would expect, having a greater Anglo Saxon influence. However, I think even in the South and East of England that is estimated at around one third Anglo Saxon( including possibly Norse) at most and in the West of the country it is significantly lower (10% rings a bell).
Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had.

[rms2]

bradly88 -

Have you tried downloading your Family Finder raw data, creating a Gedmatch account (it's free), and running your Family Finder data through the various admixture tools there?

That might help.

Although the modern English certainly must include some Celtic Britons among their ancestors, POBI showed a distinct difference between England and Wales and Scotland: https://peopleofthebritishisles.web....pcolor1100.pdf

[rms2]

. . .
Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had.

I wouldn't downplay the importance of a male's y-dna line. After all, evidently the guy paid to have it tested; he probably cares.

Yes, it's just one line, yadda-yadda-yadda, but for most of us it's the line that conveys to us the surname we bear, and for many of us it is of paramount importance.

[rms2]

BTW, one of the coolest things about downloading your Family Finder raw data is then you can check it for various interesting traits, like the red hair variants, lactase persistence, etc.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I wouldn't downplay the importance of a male's y-dna line. After all, evidently the guy paid to have it tested; he probably cares.

Yes, it's just one line, yadda-yadda-yadda, but for most of us it's the line that conveys to us the surname we bear, and for many of us it is of paramount importance.

Yes, it's very important to some people and what they focus on but in the context of our total ancestry and thousands of ancestors, not very significant in defining "who we are" - 2% of our DNA? He didn't ask about his Y line his asked about his ancestry breakdown.

[rms2]

Yes, it's very important to some people and what they focus on but in the context of our total ancestry and thousands of ancestors, not very significant in defining "who we are" - 2% of our DNA? He didn't ask about his Y line his asked about his ancestry breakdown.

He also didn't downplay his own y-dna line, which he obviously spent money on to test. I think that means he cares about it.

His ethnic origins breakdown didn't provide enough information to answer his question. The only element of his public genetic profile that does to any extent at all is his y-dna haplogroup.

A man's y-dna is significant because it was passed to him by his father, who got it from his father, who got it from his father, and so on. It's a firm, readily traceable connection to one's male line.

Its importance extends well beyond the percentage of one's total dna that it represents. Whatever small percentage the dna of the y chromosome is, it is a sure inheritance, unlike autosomal dna, which goes through a recombinant crapshoot with each succeeding generation, is far more difficult to trace, and through which most of one's ancestors flit and are gone, their contribution washed out within the passage of a few generations.

Sorry if you didn't like the way I answered him, but the right answer certainly isn't "Y-dna doesn't matter much".

[msmarjoribanks]

To somewhat echo what others have said, getting British Isles simply means you match what FTDNA has in their British Isles sample database that they use to identify testers. FTDNA combines English and Irish, Scottish and Welsh altogether as British Isles, as I understand it, and it doesn't seek to separate out ancient Briton vs. Viking vs. Anglo Saxon ancestry, and you'd assume there's a mix in their sample (along with the other Celtic groups which are also mixed).

Out of curiosity, how well does FTDNA match your paper trail, if you have enough of one to judge? It's not great for my sister or I, although I am glad I tested there for other reasons.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

He also didn't downplay his own y-dna line, which he obviously spent money on to test. I think that means he cares about it.

His ethnic origins breakdown didn't provide enough information to answer his question. The only element of his public genetic profile that does to any extent at all is his y-dna haplogroup.

A man's y-dna is significant because it was passed to him by his father, who got it from his father, who got it from his father, and so on. It's a firm, readily traceable connection to one's male line.

Its importance extends well beyond the percentage of one's total dna that it represents. Whatever small percentage the dna of the y chromosome is, it is a sure inheritance, unlike autosomal dna, which goes through a recombinant crapshoot with each succeeding generation, is far more difficult to trace, and through which most of one's ancestors flit and are gone, their contribution washed out within the passage of a few generations.

Sorry if you didn't like the way I answered him, but the right answer certainly isn't "Y-dna doesn't matter much".

Although it's difficult to be specific for an individual, it's broadly possible to say that people of early English origins have more pre- Anglo Saxon ancestry than post - Anglo Saxon Ancestry, some more than others. To define the English as "Anglo Saxon" just isn't accurate. How much significance an individual gives to their Y line to define themselves is a personal choice and matter of individual opinion usually influenced by emotions. Possibly women don't exist at all because they don't have Y DNA.