Anglo-Saxon vs Danish Viking Haplogroups

[tigertank529]

Hi everyone,

I was pondering the impact that the Anglo-Saxons had on the British Isles and the area where Haplogroup I1 is most prevalent in Britain is in eastern England. However, is there a reliable way to distinguish which Y-DNA Haplogroup I1 is Anglo-Saxon or Danish Viking? Where the most I1 is seen is where both the Anglo-Saxons and Danes settled. Most of the studies I have read concluded that Anglo-Saxon and Viking DNA are too similar to be differentiated. There is some debate as to whether or not the Anglo-Saxons had a huge impact on the genetics of Britain, but the significant Danish presence cannot be denied. I understand that both groups have many Haplogroups prevalent among them, like R1b, but they are mainly I1 and come from the same geographical region, particularly the Angles and Danes. Is there a reliable way to distinguish the I1 from both of these groups?

Any input is appreciated

[deadly77]

I would say not currently and probably not in the future, especially not reliably. While the recent Population Genetics of the Viking World paper provided a lot of ancient Viking era samples (including 92 I1 individuals), we're rather lacking in sequenced ancient Anglo-Saxon samples - to my knowledge we only have one male and he's I1 but haven't been able to reliably assign him anything downstream of I-DF29. When you plot the ancient vikings onto the phylogenetic trees established by modern testers, in a lot of cases they branch of from modern individuals significantly before the viking period, which suggests that in a lot of places the current phylogenetic tree isn't developed enough to mark the relevant SNP mutations. Many subclade branches will predate both the viking age and the Anglo-Saxon migration - your own I-S1954 has a TMRCA of 3900-2500 years ago, which predates both and is likely represented in both. I think the problem (as with autosomal DNA) is that both the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings come from similar geographic regions and aren't very far apart in time frame (especially considering the timeframe of Y-SNP mutation rate), so it's likely that they had the same source population further back. And also consider that these weren't isolated populations - they would have mixed with each other to a certain extent which muddies things further.

I don't think there's any debate that the Anglo-Saxons had a huge impact on the genetics of Britain - the big red cluster in the POBI paper shows that. The debate was whether vikings had a significant contribution - initially the POBI paper's conclusion was no but later academics have argued that the DNA is too similar and the viking component is being grouped in with Anglo-Saxon. I also wouldn't say that the vikings were mainly I1 - while I1 was the most common haplogroup in the recent viking paper at 32.06%, that's not an overwhelming majority and the percentages for R1b (29.27%) and R1a (21.25%) are not significantly less and generally in the same ballpark. Put another way, 68% of samples from the viking paper were not I1, which is more than double the percentage of I1 samples. Modern percentages in Scandinavian nations are not too different from these percentages.

It may be possible with a lot more data (both ancient and modern) to call specific, individual cases either way and perhaps there are some trends - the Viking paper had more I-P109 samples than other subgroups. But we also have ancient I-P109 samples that were not vikings and again the TMRCA of I-P109 predates both, and there are non-P109 samples in the dataset. I think most subclades (especially the more commonly referred to groupings) will be represented in both. So I don't think there will be a "reliable" way to distinguish between them. Happy to be proved wrong though.

[tigertank529]

Thanks for the reply!

That clears a lot of things up for me. I guess more testing has to be done in order to effectively establish a difference and perhaps companies that get a lot of results like 23andme could test further downstream or refine their process for haplogroup placements. I would like it if 23andme tested haplogroups much further downstream instead of giving rather generic placements, but for what they are I've learned so much. Just for clarification, I know that the Anglo-Saxons did have a huge impact on Britain as a whole but I guess the more one-sided outlets have been whittling away at me. My last name wouldn't be what it is if it weren't for them Cheers!

[Nqp15hhu]

I notice a lot of Ulster Scots have I1 as a haplogroup. (Obviously aswell as R1b-L193)

[spruithean]

Thanks for the reply!

That clears a lot of things up for me. I guess more testing has to be done in order to effectively establish a difference and perhaps companies that get a lot of results like 23andme could test further downstream or refine their process for haplogroup placements. I would like it if 23andme tested haplogroups much further downstream instead of giving rather generic placements, but for what they are I've learned so much. Just for clarification, I know that the Anglo-Saxons did have a huge impact on Britain as a whole but I guess the more one-sided outlets have been whittling away at me. My last name wouldn't be what it is if it weren't for them Cheers!

I don't think it will ever really be possible to discern Anglo-Saxon I1 from Danish I1. The two groups are really separated by some relatively small amount of generations and they share a lot of the same ancestry to begin with (well at least prior to the Anglo-Saxons arrival in Britain). So there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.

[tigertank529]

That makes sense given most Ulster Scots have origins in the lowlands of Scotland. I'm proof of that, my 3x great grandfather is from County Donegal. I wish it was easier to track where a lot of the Ulster Scots came from in Scotland but a lot of the records pre-famine seem to be destroyed or lost, at least for Donegal. If we could find some of those records it would be a lot easier to pinpoint where a lot of the sources or hotspots for I1 and other Ulster Scots haplogroups came from in Scotland.

[sheepslayer]

I figure if enough data percolates in the database, clades formed after the Viking Age and after the Anglo-Saxon invasion will start appearing in the leaves of the tree. Those clades are technically Viking and Anglo-Saxon, it's just a matter of getting lucky with ancient DNA. Best case scenario we'll have like 3 clades where they dug up a Viking and he happens to test positive for the SNP formed after AD 900

[Nqp15hhu]

That makes sense given most Ulster Scots have origins in the lowlands of Scotland. I'm proof of that, my 3x great grandfather is from County Donegal. I wish it was easier to track where a lot of the Ulster Scots came from in Scotland but a lot of the records pre-famine seem to be destroyed or lost, at least for Donegal. If we could find some of those records it would be a lot easier to pinpoint where a lot of the sources or hotspots for I1 and other Ulster Scots haplogroups came from in Scotland.

I think they came from all over Scotland to be honest, though obviously concentrated mostly down in the South and SW. You could try a BIG Y test, but it probably will provide you with a lot of distant matches.

[spruithean]

That makes sense given most Ulster Scots have origins in the lowlands of Scotland. I'm proof of that, my 3x great grandfather is from County Donegal. I wish it was easier to track where a lot of the Ulster Scots came from in Scotland but a lot of the records pre-famine seem to be destroyed or lost, at least for Donegal. If we could find some of those records it would be a lot easier to pinpoint where a lot of the sources or hotspots for I1 and other Ulster Scots haplogroups came from in Scotland.

I also have some ancestors from Donegal, some of which were likely Ulster-Scots, though they did not contribute to my direct Y-line, which is I1 and from Scotland (don't know which part), though my closest match who shares a variant of my surname and isn't a known relative has roots in Co. Down.

I figure if enough data percolates in the database, clades formed after the Viking Age and after the Anglo-Saxon invasion will start appearing in the leaves of the tree. Those clades are technically Viking and Anglo-Saxon, it's just a matter of getting lucky with ancient DNA. Best case scenario we'll have like 3 clades where they dug up a Viking and he happens to test positive for the SNP formed after AD 900

Fair enough, though so far the amount of ancient I1 found has been quite low, though the Viking paper has helped boost the numbers. There is still a lot of work ahead if we are going to figure out which clades are Anglo-Saxon and which are Viking Age.

I think they came from all over Scotland to be honest, though obviously concentrated mostly down in the South and SW. You could try a BIG Y test, but it probably will provide you with a lot of distant matches.

Yeah, I would imagine that the initial call for settlers by the undertakers would have attracted more than just Scots from the S & SW of Scotland. I1 isn't as common as R1b so I'm not sure how many matches one might get with Big Y, mileage will vary widely. For me the test was only good for ruling out STR matches and making it clear that I'm on my own upstream branch with my closest matches downstream of my position.

[The_Lyonnist]

We must not forget the Z17954 subclade which quickly broke away to populate France and Great Britain during the Bronze Age, probably.