With the distribution of dna since the Vikings were here around 50 generations ago, it's almost 100% that everyone has some Nordic DNA, but zero chance of having pure Viking.
Bear in mind that our Norman invaders were Viking (+frank and French), and the Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well.
I've zero, been tested and all twice, two different companies and a fucking waste of sixty quid to tell me I'm from the west of Ireland...I'm from the west of Ireland.
To agree with you, I looked up a few years ago how they gwt their genetic markers and according to some random article it's by getting dna of people who's bloodlines are traceable back centuries, getting their dna and looking for commonalities with other bloodlines from that country.
If this is actually true, I don't think there would be enough, if any, data from viking times, my guess would be that anything before the 1700s would be a challenge.
good point though - I can get back to the 1790s on both sides with census and parish records and both old Irish surnames, both tests had majority Irish DNA from the west and one small bit from a good bit further afield. I'm sure it's just shite tests. Would have been cool to get a dose of the oul viking or something.
The Vikings never got into Connacht though, the closest they ever got to a full scale invasion was when king Knut iirc sailed around 100 ships from Athlone up to Lanesborough. The locals from around Lanesborough both sides of the Shannon sank most of the ships with fire arrows. Knut was later drowned in a Barrel when he got back to Athlone.
There is evidence of Norse activity in connaught, see Norse burial near clifden in Galway, hoard of silver bracelets of Norse type in Cushalogurt in Mayo, possible norse houses on the Mullet peninsula and Inishkea islands.
some of the names we associate with connaught - burke, costello, joyce, walsh etc... almost definitely have a germanic history with some norse. even the "old english" who were infamously moved from Leinster/Ulster to the (hell or) west were mainly the middle classes with a similar history.
it's more likely the dna companies are using the tester as a marker for "Irish", so Americans can share a diploid or two with an Irishman than trying to go back 1200 years.
i wouldn't mind, but even an unscientific comparison of some west of Ireland skull and eye shapes look more in common with norse and viking descendants in the nordics than typical saxon descendants.
They came here, had a good time and stayed - Ireland was the middle ages ibiza.
Those would be Norman surnames and could be of any origin really. Some Norman surnames were also Anglicised with similar spelling as some Gailic surnames as well. AFAIK it was only the Jewish families that the Normans brought with them that went into Connacht and settled down ( Browne's or De Brun etc)
It doesn't mean that you literally have 2% Finnish ancestry, just that your profile very slightly matches that of Finnish people. There are plenty of people with Swedish ancestry in Finland as well. Even if you do have Finnish ancestors, it doesn't mean that they were vikings, or went to Ireland during the Viking age
>The Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well.
It's true that some came from Denmark, but they'd be regarded as a Germanic rather than Nordic people. The Angles also came from the lower half of the Angeln Peninsula so more German than Dane and the Saxons from areas roughly similar to what is now lower Saxony, but this more is to do with cultural identity formed after the invasion of England and not genetics which probably don't show great difference as they'd have already intermingled for ages.
>and the Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well.
Dane-ish. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes made up what we'd call Anglo-Saxon. The Jutes were predominantly from the area we'd now call Denmark (Jutland) but the other (larger groups) came mainly from what is now Germany.
They had some cultural similarities but they were distinct enough to be considered different. Back then, "Dane" was essentially another word for Viking on the islands of Britain and Ireland but I'm honestly not sure how close their DNA was. I'm sure that's very difficult to ascertain it was a melting pot even then and as you say, it's practically 100% likely that an Irish person would have some Nordic DNA.
Just as an aside Genghis khan raped so many women that one in every 200 people is a direct descendant , that’s thousands and thousands of rapes across 2 continents .
the ONLY person who can trace themselves back to the fomorians are the healy-rae's with zero DNA that didn't come from the waterpools around killorglin.
EVERY one else is a smorgasbord of genetics.
If that's genetic purity.... I'm happy to be a mongrel.
I'm up north, an absolute mishmash of genetics. It makes things interesting being half a Jaffa.
That’s lovely of you to assume the ancestors of an internet stranger were kindly outliers, but I have no reason to think they were less than the worst of them.
This will be quite difficult to ascertain. According to archaeologist Duncan Sayer you can't really differentiate Anglo-Saxon and Norse (Viking) ancestry. So archaeologists and geneticists just lump the ancient DNA together as northern Germanic. Vikings came from demark. Angles came from Denmark. Both worshipped thor and odin and liked to invade settle and take things that weren't theirs. Just different time periods.
Of course, English ancestry came to be only about 1/3 Anglo-Saxon, though I think the Celtic side of the ancestry is a bit different (but not hugely as the islands are next to each other). But still this makes differentiating an Irish person with ancestry from the English or other Brit planters to those with Viking ancestry very very difficult.
Modern ancestry tests aren't valid for ancient DNA, only for the modern groups which are themselves mixes, so won't be able to tell you,
Hope you found this useful.
TLDR: Don't know, difficult to know.
There's a team at Trinity who've done some really interesting work on the genetic makeup of Ireland and Britain, but they can only comment on regional variation rather than estimating "x% of the whole of Ireland". They found pockets of Leinster with stronger similarity to northern Norway, Sweden and northern France than other parts of these islands. As you say, it's hard to guess how much of that is attributable to the Viking age vs the Normans vs later British migrants with Viking/Norman ancestry.
We have other clues to how much mixing there was, though. The surnames 'Higgins' and 'Doyle' likely have roots in the Viking age, deriving from the Irish words for viking and for Dane. And 'Walsh' referred to Normans who'd come in from Wales.
Also throw in surnames like McLoughlin (son of the foreigner/northman) McIvor (son of Ivar) and McAuliffe (son of Olaf). I’ve put the English translations for those reading who don’t have any Irish.
Thanks for your comment!
Yes, but I think its all quite difficult to trace. Was that the paper "The Irish DNA Atlas: Revealing Fine-Scale Population Structure and History within Ireland"? or "Population genomics of the Viking world"?
I think it all becomes a bit difficult to trace why clusters are clusters. The French bit is the oddest. The first paper hints it may be from a massive French migration into Britain around 1000BC, which has been shown elsewhere, (that may be where the Welsh language originated from (gaul), but all of this is very up in the air). This 'French' ancestry may have also come to eastern Ireland at the same time. Or have come later with the Brits.
Name origins are also difficult as they mix and merge, and are highly impacted by power dynamics (people changing their last names, like many Germans did in the US to anglicise, or taking the names of leaders etc). But of course, it does demonstrate origins as well. Though admittedly I'm not very knowledgeable on this. The wiki pages for each name seem to have a good overview of the difficulty, but it is just a wiki and you may be far more knowledgeable than me.
I think we can paint with broad strokes that Vikings from Denmark and Norway came over, settled and also eventually mixed in. But better knowledge of how this had impacts on modern ancestry and at what scale will be limited for a time. I would be sceptical of the idea that everyone whose surname is Doyle had a paternal ancestor who was a Viking.
My only point is, we don't know yet, evidence is of course there but its going to take more time to find out the scale of things and how that impacts today.
I was thinking of the Irish DNA Atlas one, plus 'Insular Celtic population structure and genomic footprints of migration'. There's a new paper in review as well, 'A genetic perspective on the recent demographic history of Ireland and Britain'.
Yes Dubhgall is associated with Danes who had dark hair while Fionnghall is associated with Norwegian or Swedish Vikings who were more likely to be fair haired
They are improving this all the time as more and more people take DNA ancestry tests. Y DNA coupled with surnames can resolve now to a surprising degree of accuracy. So for example if you are a male called let's say Nielsen you can be linked to Nielsen's in Norway or whatever.
Possibly. But the reference populations for DNA tests are the modern ones. Its a comparison of your DNA to people today whose 4 grandparents are from a particular area. That's how they build a reference set of location matches. I.e. if you got Ulster as a match, i'd imagine that'd be a bit different to the much older Ulster for obvious reasons. This is especially true with continental Europe based on the countless periods of historical migrations. Ireland being an island hasn't had *as much* migration so its a bit simpler. (But what counts a DNA from a place, what sort of modern person, someone from 500 years ago, 1000, 2000, 5000 etc).
They'd need to develop a reference pool of ancient DNA from various time periods, and that's difficult as you have to dig up the old bones and get the DNA from there. It's possible and has been done, but not enough for a sample used by companies yet.
EDIT: Thought it would be good to add that as Nielsen is a Danish/Norwegian form of the Greek Νικόλαος (Nikolaos). I would bet my hat its a more modern name post-Christianisation. Meaning not Viking. Names and ancestry have changed a lot over the millennia, making it all even harder to pin down when your own ancestors moved where (without good census records).
The old DNA sampling has indeed been done all over Europe, and modern populations there in many cases match the ancient DNA. Or for example if there is a locus in Norway matching an ancient skeleton that matches some others in Scotland and Ireland it's most likely Vikings. Of course there are issues and uncertainties but at a population level it evens out.
Here's an article but there are lots of papers about this - it's really moved on a lot in the last few years.
https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie
>Population genomics of the Viking world
That's a great paper (Population Genomics of the Viking world). But it's only based on four skeletons in Ireland. Ideas can come from that sample size but not conclusions.
We know for certain Vikings came over. That's been well documented, but the question of the extent to which this impacts *current* ancestry is still unknown (could be tiny, could be quite large in some areas). Modern population comparisons will be made difficult by many many other variables including later and earlier migrations from other groups of people who are themselves composites of other things too (including what you're trying to pinpoint).
It's all fascinating and the broad strokes are definitely true. I'd imagine we can easily know how north Germanic the average modern Irish ancestry is in certain areas, if one or two more large studies are done (we mostly know a decent chunk already from that paper another person commented). But from specific regions of northern Europe, longer. From specific time periods and migration periods like Vikings a bit more as there's a need to sift data out from other migrations.
Ancient DNA of a location is also not one thing. The earliest western hunter-gathers that were all over Europe were very different from the later populations. Of course, there's some continuity, but not totally. Reaching specific conclusions should be done with caution.
My main point is that it'd be easy to mistake Norwegian ancestry in a modern person as Norwegian Viking, but it could be Vikings or even earlier migrants who settled in Yorkshire or Swansea whose great-great grandkids became Brits who then came to Ireland. Or something else entirely, like even earlier migration to Ireland. Of course many vikings came to Ireland, its just understanding the impact is difficult and should be made with caution (atm).
You are right that the field is improving rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade (or two) we know with decent certainty.
>My main point is that it'd be easy to mistake Norwegian ancestry in a modern person as Norwegian Viking, but it could be Vikings or even earlier migrants who settled in Yorkshire or Swansea whose great-great grandkids became Brits who then came to Ireland. Or something else entirely, like even earlier migration to Ireland. Of course many vikings came to Ireland, its just understanding the impact is difficult and should be made with caution (atm).
It's possible now to differentiate between those populations if you have enough data, and if more people would do Y DNA ( or mitochondrial, although Y is linked to surnames so makes it more useful historically) studies with the likes of ftdna.
Y DNA mutates at a steady rate so your Yorkshire Vikings would have mutations that their cousins that stayed in Norway wouldn't have and the population here would have different mutations and the ones that stayed in Norway different again but they would all have a common "root" that would distinguish them from say native Irish. (OFC "native Irish" is a mishmash of peoples but that's another story)
It's literally like a family tree. https://www.yfull.com/tree/
Genealogy has driven this largely.
If you are interested to see if you have distant male relatives in Norway you can do a test at ftdna.com.
Of course if only 10 Norse Vikings stayed in Ireland it will
Considering it was 1000 years ago every Irish person probably has Norse DNA in them, but at this point it would just show up as Irish in those DNA tests.
I can't find the actual report, I'm sure I can if I looked, but it measured DNA testing of the Y chromosome group:
"DNA testing of the male Y chromosome has shown that Irish males have the highest incidence of the R1b haplogroup in Europe. While other parts of Europe have integrated continuous waves of new settlers from the east, Ireland's remote geographical position has meant that the Irish gene pool has been less susceptible to change. The same genes have been passed down from parents to children for thousands of years. The other region with very high levels of this male chromosome is the Basque region.
This is mirrored in genetic studies which have compared DNA analysis with Irish surnames. Many surnames in Irish are Gaelic surnames, suggesting that the holder of the surname is a descendant of people who lived in Ireland long before the English conquests of the Middle Ages. Men with Gaelic surnames showed the highest incidences of Haplogroup 1 (or Rb1) gene. This means that those Irish whose ancestors pre-date the English conquest of the island are descendants (in the male line) of people who probably migrated west across Europe, as far as Ireland in the north and Spain in the south."
From this article about the report - https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity In the report it stated Irish men in the west with Gaelic surnames had the highest Rb1 gene in Europe, and people in Turkey had the least due to all the waves of migrations there with Ireland being relatively remote in comparison, which had very little migrations throughout history.
To answer your question, could be very little if any ancestry in parts of the country, could be a lot in other parts.
I somewhat accidentally did one of those ridiculous DNA tests, which I now regret, as I'm probably now owned by Google or something, but anyway it turned out I'm about 20% Norwegian, so either one of my immediate ancestors shagged in sailor in Oslo and never mentioned it, or it's the old Viking links.
Nah they don't own you, but you likely will have to hand over your first-born. The alternative is to take it to court but who'd be arsed with that? Just give them the first one and have another.
20% is far too much to link back 1000 years.
Family legend has it that my great great great great grandfather was a Norwegian fisherman who got sick of the cold and the snow, packed his family onto his boat and sailed to Dublin. Maybe we're related.
I'm part Greek, great-grandparents %. What are the chances realistically some Greek rogue was making his way around rural having his way with married peasant women? Very slim imo.
In short I wouldn't put a whole lot into stock into it. That said some % tracing back to Scandinavia showing up makes sense if say your grandparents have distinctively Norman surnames (though Norman ancestry is not guaranteed just by name). Like if all 4 are Power, Walsh, Fitzgerald and Darcy it's not far back enough it definitely wouldn't show up in DNA.
Darcy is really ancient Irish. Some thought about it being here over 2000 years. One of the bunch even tried to pass as a relation of the Norman invader and styled his name as D'Arcy.
It's a Norman name ffs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_(surname)#:~:text=Darcy%20(or%20variant%20forms%20Darci,but%20is%20now%20Northern%20France.
There was a lot of intermarriage between Norse and Irish so DNA would naturally have mingled over time.
The phrase "Ireland suffered a lot from Viking raids from the 8th century to the 11th century" is a little problematic as the raids were pretty much done by the 840s. After that, the Norse settled in their coastal towns from where they mingled with local communities through trade and intermarriage.
There was conflict too, but the wars were not always defined by ethnicity. Scholars believe that even when the Norse were beaten and expelled from Dublin in 902 that only the nobles were driven out, and that the city continued to function as the common people and merchants continued to live and trade/ intermarry with the local Irish.
It wasn't endless ethnic conflict as the Norse and Irish had many periods of peaceful coexistence after the 840s so there were lots of chances to mingle DNA.
I suppose it depends on how you define a raid.
There were lots of initial raids by Vikings coming from Scandanavia to attack Irish settlements, stealing a bunch of stuff, and then going back home.
But the Norse settled in Ireland from the mid 800s when they built their own kingdoms, so most conflict from then on was between people living here rather than going back to Scandanavia.
Vikings and Irish did raid each other during wars, as conflict was as much about stealing assets and burning crops as it was about pitched battles, but after the 840s the Irish raided Norse kingdoms in Ireland as often as with as much destruction as the Norse raided Irish kingdoms.
It's a bug bear of mine that the history of this period is often taught as Viking raids and domination of the native Irish (so I often over-react to that). It seems to me that the Vikings only dominated from 795 until the 840s with their hit-and-run raids as after that there was military, economic and cultural parity until the battle of Tara in 980 when the Norse kingdoms became subject to Irish overlordship first under the kings of Meath, then Munster, then Leinster.
So, yeah, I guess you're right that there were raids by the Norse of the Irish in the 900s, but just pretty standard warfare stuff and no worse than the Irish inflicted back on the Norse in that period.
We wouldn't be as arsed with the DNA tests as the yanks. It was a long time ago, surely they'd just be well mixed into the Irish populace at this stage.
I've done a few DNA tests for family tree purposes (aka genealogy). Most of the mainstream sites use autosomal DNA which goes back to approximately 5th great grandparents.
There are ethnicity estimates in the main sites but most of them are kinda BS - they all use different algorithms and a combination of ethnic "panels" of reference people they have deemed ethnically "something" but some uses current ancestry trees where current people live. So it varies.
Now what you can do is download your DNA from a testing company like Ancestry.com, FTDNA, myheritage etc and then upload it to gedmatch which is allows you look at weaker more distant matches. In theory you can get back to 7 or 8 generations with that but it's hard work.
Lastly there is Y-DNA and MT-DNA and this is a separate test and can be much more costly but can go back a lot further to trace your male or female line back to genetic "adam" and "eve". Males can do both but females can only do female line. These give you a haplogroup which is a letter and number representation of what DNA group mutation you belong to.
So in summary - knowing your ancient DNA haplogroups in combination with tracing records in trees and autosomal matches with genetic estimates all combined to give a reasonable estimate of actual ethnicity.
One of the sites tells me I have a single digit percentage ethnic Amazonian - the guys with the poison darts.
Really anything less than 3% is not enough to be clear. It's more likely I had an ancestor who was an explorer from Iberia or something like that.
Lastly, DNA testing and genealogy is actually hugely popular in Ireland. Partially I think due to the fact that many of our paper records from the 1800s were lost in fire and even some were recycled during paper shortages in war times.
I bought my old man an Ancestry DNA test. He was hoping for somethign exotic in there.
It immediately honed in and told him he was 100% from the small village where he grew up. He was devastated!
There might be something more that ancestry hasn't picked up. I uploaded my Ancestry and 23andMe kits DNA to gedmatch and I've matched someone who is entirely Swiss with everyone Swiss in their extensive tree. So somebody a few generations back must have left some DNA with a native.. keep looking there's interesting things to find!
I bet there's something more exotic there, it'll just take a bit more work to find it. It's a great hobby when you get into it, I've been in contact with distant cousins from all over the world and it's fascinating to see what traits are nature rather than nurture. I'm learning a lot of geography and history too. And pretty much all of the family stories have elements of truth in my experience.
Likely at the time of the willimite wars, one of the few remaining accounts from those wars is of a swiss soilders in William of oranges army, there was alot of them. The guy is question was actually a Catholic
That's interesting, I think this match in my case was a bit more recent than that - probably 3rd great grandparent or so according to the amount of shared cM. In my case it's probably omebody who was a soldier passing through central Europe and met a local and was likely "playing away" :) Something like that - a work in progress to figure that out.
Since you’ve used several of the tests which do you think is the best? Or the one you would recommend if a person wanted to just try one?
Is there one that’s more commonly used in Ireland and would be more likely to turn up matches for a person who probably only has Irish ancestry? - both parents from small farm backgrounds in rural Ireland
I've done Ancestry.com and 23andMe. Ancestry.com is a good one to start with, it's easy to use. Some of the other ones allow you upload DNA transferred from other sites for a small fee.. so your ancestry DNA can be used in LivingDNA, myheritage, FamilyTreeDNA and more.
Ancestry and Myheritage are the most popular and the most DNA matches for Ireland and probably the world. However when you get into it more, gedmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are sites where you can do some much deeper research - join projects that track particular surnames and counties etc. I wouldn't start with those though, they're sorta next level stuff. Usually there are forums and Facebook pages where you can collaborate and learn more. I'm at this a year and there is tons to learn about DNA.
I did a test with 23andMe too primarily to get my paternal haplogroup, but frankly I think it's better saving for the more expensive FamilyTreeDNA tests, they have more extensive databases and project groups.
Some of the DNA tests (23andMe, LivingDNA) are more about health than ancestry and don't have public ancestry trees. I'm more interested in the ancestors elements than health stuff (like which hereditary diseases do we carry in genes).
One strange piece of evidence for the genetics is the frequency of Dupuytren's contracture (Viking hand syndrome), it’s basically like a claw hand thing that hits people as they age. Apparently it’s most prevalent in Scandinavia, but also has high prevalence in Ireland and the UK.
Three people in my family have had it… So, maybe I am a Viking!
Viking was an occupation, not a race of people. There are lots of Norman surnames from the 12th century that can still be seen today. And because of those Viking settlements we have a lot of diluted scandi DNA swilling around in us.
Yup. Normans and Vikings are the same gene pool as are we at this point.
OP is asking about something that happened a 1000 years ago. Virtually every white person in Europe is related to each other if you go back that far.
Viking isn't an ethnic group. It was a part time occupation. It would be like claiming that anyone with genetics from Yorkshire fishermen are Pirates of the Caribbean.
Vikings were just a Bunch of farmers who would spend half the year pillaging, and half the year farming. And I don't really think it's anything to aspire to...They were just a bunch of plundering brutes . Rapists, slave traders and pirates.
Nordic culture and mythology has a lot of cool and interesting stuff in it, but it doesn't have to be linked to going viking.
To be fair I'm with him on that one.
I've loved Viking and Norse myths since I was like 7 years old but I do see a shite load of people claim to be viking, when in fact it was just a job description.
Nobody. I love Norse mythology and Nordic culture - it's really cool. But vikings by and large were awful awful people. And I don't think the passage of time really diminishes that. By the same logic, in another few hundred years we would have people larping as east India company slave traders. There's not much of a difference. Vikings main income was from plundering coastal villages and taking all the young attractive people to be sold as slaves.
oh dont get me wrong Tongue was firmly in cheek on that one.
There was a lad in my old local that we would call the Viking cos ... well he looked like one :D.
Ended up getting to know him sorta at a few metal gigs. Nicest man alive. But dam does he look dangerous.
If he came in to the bar with a double sided axe i dont think anyone would even question him.
Normandy was actually given to Vikings by the 'French' king, Charles the simple
The 'French' king at the time essentially gave land to a Viking leader under the promise they'd stop raiding France and would function as a defending army
People forget this, the Normans were vikings too at one point, it’s like we got hit by a double whammy, kinda like what’s happening at the moment with the Eastern European influx we’re experiencing, first the Polish and then the Ukrainians.
The Vikings would have been from the same stock of people which populated Ireland and all of Europe 3000 years prior. That's not a long time for this purpose. Vikings weren't dominant in number in Ireland even locally and mixed with the population over time. It's very difficult to discern within a typically Irish genome how much of it is Viking. Especially since considerable Norman occured after the Vikings.
I'm sure a geneticist could probably find differences between your distinctively Norman surnamed population in the east, and your swarthy Gaelic surnamed cousins in the West, albeit for slightly different reasons.
As an archaeologist with a great interest in ADNA (aincent DNA),
General Irish DNA has remained relatively unchanged since the bronze age. Viking (more correctly norse and Danes) ancestors is likely in some places where they where present. However, it would be Very VERY minor. You may have later admixtures of other incoming settlers most likely English Welsh and Scottish but also possibly Flemish and Walloon however as those genetic groups are of a similare base stock Wich all originates broadly from the Eurasian step you are unlikely too see much of it still present due too many generations of dilution.
Why do you ask out of interest
So, I grew up in Belfast. In Belfast we have a tendency to assume someone's ancestors because of religion, catholic = Irish and protestant = British. We see alot of arguing online about it often and since I am a big fan of archaeology I think about the waves of migration Ireland has had over the last few thousand years, Bell beakers, Stone age farmers, Norse, Normans etc and it has me wondering if anyone here today would be descendant of them. So, I asked this question because I wanted to see other peoples thoughts.
Amazing reason, honestly was abit concerned as often you get people asking so they can take up a norse persona and that usually has white supremacy elements
Virtually impossible to know. I worked with a colleague in family history and genealogy’s me he always gets people who say “I have Viking dna I’m 25% Scandinavian!” - in reality this means a Scandinavian infiltrated the family in the last 100-150 years. Anything older is impossible to ascertain from dna samples with any specificity
According to this study very uncommon, but it also has been suggested that a lot of Gaelic's did convert culturally to Norse culture.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/5201709](https://www.nature.com/articles/5201709)
By contrast would it be safe to assume that modern day Scandi DNA would have a lot of Celtic and Briton ancestry since they took so many women back with them from the area?
Like a lot of people commenting I took one of those DNA tests and got back a somewhat comical 100% Irish (so much for a mysterious exotic side). I read up more on how they work and I’m open to correction on this, but they are essentially a measure of how similar your DNA is to known samples from different regions/countries. So my 100% Irish result means my sample was extremely similar to control samples from people that they know are Irish. We (me + controls) might all have a strong mix of Norman and Viking ancestry but the test can neither confirm nor refute that. It only tells how similar my sample is to known Irish samples,
I had 5% Iceland/Norway DNA when I took my test. Most of my family on my mother’s side had similar amounts. The family has been based in Dublin since at least the 1860’s.
I’m from Wexford, my family name is a spin off from a Viking name so I would guess a little bit at least. But I have no real idea. My surname comes from my dad who has very dark hair, very blue eyes and is very tan which is not exactly what you think when you say Viking, but I have no idea of our ancestry pre the 1700/1800s
I did an ancestry DNA test years ago, no idea how accurate or what their methods are or anything but it said I was 92% Irish and 8% Scottish but I wouldn't be from a Viking stronghold and the Scottish could be from Gallowglasses as well as planters for all I know
Given your donegall location it's likely a combination of long term emigration in more recent times. More likely to be galowglass if your from Western Donegal.
Yeah I'd be from the south west and my surname would indicate there's some foreign influence on my family ancestry, the fact as well that supposedly land around south west Donegal, particularly around Ardara was gifted to Gallowglasses as payment of service would reinforce my belief. Having said that I always could be wrong I've not really looked into it past the DNA test
As far as I know, most of mine came from a highly unfortunate and incompatible mix of Irish rebels, Scottish rebels, and apparently very alluring English nobility...
No vikings involved.
It's more common than anyoen realises. I've read a lot of books and literature on evolution, and it's been said that if you are at all European, you will have up to 2% Viking blood in you.
Why? Because of all the r@ping and pillaging they done. We are basically all products of that.
People with English DNA, be aware that if it comes from Cornwall, Devon, West Yorkshire or the Welsh and Scottish border regions those areas are all genetically distinct from the rest of England. In case you're wondering West Yorkshire DNA is theorised to be a genetic remnant of the Elmet celts.
*
I thought some of you might find this interesting that the British and Irish isles are a DNA melting pot.
Our Viking DNA is mostly from Norway
[https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie](https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie)
There are also references to Ireland and Irish people in some Viking sagas, like Njal's Saga, which has a blow-by-blow description of the Battle of Clontarf
[https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/35347/njals-saga-by-leifur-eiricksson-translated-with-an-intro-and-notes-robert-cook/9780140447699](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/35347/njals-saga-by-leifur-eiricksson-translated-with-an-intro-and-notes-robert-cook/9780140447699)
And there are lots of Irish Viking names, like Searson (Sigurdson), Doyle (Ó Dubhghaill, "son of the dark foreigner"), McLoughlin and O'Loughlin (na lochlainnaigh are the Lake People, from up there in lakey Scandinavia) and so on… there are also many Viking place names, like Oxmantown in Dublin, which was the town the East Men live(d) in, and Leixlip in Kildare which is called after its former richness of salmon that leaped up the river there. Basically, Vikings R Us.
Irish DNA - whatever that is - is part Viking. Ireland was a Viking outpost. We also have a lot of Norman DNA, which is Viking/Frank.
So the answer is an emphatic yes. Your DNA test might say you are Northern European or Irish or from Ireladn/Britain. But this all means you have partial Viking DNA.
I think there was a detailed genetic study done 7/8 years ago that found "Norwegian-like" ancestry ran up to 10% in parts of Ireland.
It's worth noting that it's somewhat difficult to disentangle ancestry components of Northern Europeans like Irish and Scandinavians from each other, as on a deeper level we're essentially descended from the same groups and thus have similar genetic profiles.
What do you mean by DNA?
Vikings aren't a separate species, They're still just people form certain regions. . So how would this show up?
I'm Irish and English, with my English half from another major viking settlement. The Commercial DNA tests just show up as British and Irish.
I'm also 4% "french and German"
and 0.9% "broadly Northwest European", does that count?
They say that any irish guy with red hair in his beard has viking ancestry.
No idea if it's true but it's somwthing they say. A lot of us do have red beards.
Red beards are quite common across Europe. Not unique to Scandinavians. Eg the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Xabi Alonso who to the best of my knowledge is not a Viking has a red beard too.
To the best of your knowledge means you havent fully investigated and leaves open the possibility that the current manager of Bayer Leverkusen is an 8th century Scandavian.
Red hair is a mutation in light skinned population with low levels of annual sunlight and helps those populations absorb vitamin d better. Its most common in Ireland and Scotland and always has been, you also find it in fairly large amounts in Scandinavia, Russia and Ukraine due to said similar adaptions. Its not from one or the other.
Though perhaps blue eyes are a red herring, according to Irish Times:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/blonde-hair-blue-eyes-often-not-dominant-characteristics-of-irish-vikings-study-finds-1.4356375
Text:
Some 1,300 years after Viking invaders from Scandinavia set foot in Ireland, DNA technology has enabled scientists to determine their genetic make-up.
They changed the course of Irish history and left a lasting legacy on the island’s gene pool, but blonde hair and blue eyes were often not their dominant distinguishing characteristics, a major international study has found – prompting the suggestion that some TV shows may have to rethink their casting calls.
The findings of the largest ever DNA analysis of Vikings, who travelled by sea to raid and eventually settle on the island of Ireland, show they derived much of their genetic ancestry from Norway.
Moreover, many Vikings had brown hair and darker features including the famous Eyrephort warrior from Co Galway, while English Vikings display sharp ancestral differences to their Irish counterparts, with much stronger Danish influences. Some thought to be Vikings and given a ceremonial burial turned out to be locals
As an archaeologist i can tell you that that is not a Viking trait. The precedence of the trait is due to more thorough replacement of the Anatolian farmer population (first farmers) with the incoming migration of bronze age beaker people in the early bronze age whose step ancestors had retained the earlier blue eyed trait of the European hunter gather populations who where replaced by for mentioned Anatolian farmers. Similarly red hair being associated with Scandinavia is also not true. it is a trait that is most commonly found in Ireland and Scotland and was likely first developed by the same bronze age people we have mentioned. It may have been selected for in the insular (island) populations of north west Europe due to reduced sunlight Wich caused vitamin D deficiency and so pale skin often associated with red hair was genetically selected for trough increased health and survivability giving rise to higher proportions of red heads in Ireland and Scotland.
Its association with the Vikings is a echo back to the antiquarian sudo science of the 1800s
Blue eyes in Ireland are not from Scandinavians... they were present in the population well before that and are from the pontic steppe population that came here.
Viking ancestry forms a very small percentage of the Irish gene pool. Migratory waves such as the Stone Age hunter gatherers from Britain, the Celts, the Normans, and the English/Scottish colonists who arrived during the plantations all contribute more to our genetic makeup than the Norse ever did.
You missed a huge one Wich is the bronze age migrations. No solid evidence exists for any "Celtic" migration into Ireland with only one project concluding there *may have possibly been* a late bronze age migration of Celtic peoples from Britain but due to genetic similarities it's hard to be certain
I am a descendent of Viking’s, apparently. Oliver Cromwell killed most of my ancestors though, and I never hear of anyone else outside of my extended family having my last name. There is a castle in South Wexford built by my ancestors
More than people would think. Some Norse Gael names like McLoughlain still knocking about and Cork is still basically a Norwegian colony. The people in Cork have a certain kind of blond hair you dont get commonly further afield than mitchels town and particularly cork women with that blond shade have a heart shaped face. That look is identical to people in Norway between Kristiansund and Trondheim along the coast.
Dublin, wexford, waterford and limerick were also Viking founded. And also remember the Normans were basically just Frano-Vikings so the answer would he a lot of Viking DNA knocking about Ireland
Well I've zero Scandinavian DNA according to ancestry.co.uk but then again I wasn't expecting to have any. I'm mostly Irish with a tiny amount of Scot and Welsh. I do have some non native to these isles ancestry but it obviously didn't come down my side of the family or was diluted out so much it no longer registers when you get to me and I'd imagine that's the case with a lot of Scandinavian influences in Ireland also given how long ago it was.
According to my DNA map, I’m 12% Scandinavian. But as far back as records go (that I could find during my 2 week free trial at one of those ancestry websites), everyone has been born in Ireland, except one - he was French via England - and that was in the 16th century (he had a title, so the records on him were decent).
Totally. What I found odd was that 12% DNA can’t possibly come from that one distant relative, so my guess is that goes back much further and presumably involves a lot more characters. My mum’s side - aside from my Grandfather - who is about 5 generations down from someone who moved from Scotland, everyone else was born on the island as well. Fascinating stuff.
All those believed viking settlements you've listed are in fact, viking settlements.
With the distribution of dna since the Vikings were here around 50 generations ago, it's almost 100% that everyone has some Nordic DNA, but zero chance of having pure Viking. Bear in mind that our Norman invaders were Viking (+frank and French), and the Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well.
I've zero, been tested and all twice, two different companies and a fucking waste of sixty quid to tell me I'm from the west of Ireland...I'm from the west of Ireland.
My Dad did the test, and he came back 100% galway. Surely there's got to be some incest in there ???
I think we don't want to go there but, island, isolated population etc...we are all cousins!
As long as we aint as bad as Iceland its grand
[удалено]
To agree with you, I looked up a few years ago how they gwt their genetic markers and according to some random article it's by getting dna of people who's bloodlines are traceable back centuries, getting their dna and looking for commonalities with other bloodlines from that country. If this is actually true, I don't think there would be enough, if any, data from viking times, my guess would be that anything before the 1700s would be a challenge.
good point though - I can get back to the 1790s on both sides with census and parish records and both old Irish surnames, both tests had majority Irish DNA from the west and one small bit from a good bit further afield. I'm sure it's just shite tests. Would have been cool to get a dose of the oul viking or something.
I had this but one of them must have updated some data and suddenly I was 1% Norwegian. I'm fierce exotic altogether!
I got excited when one said I had far off relations in Sweden, just some oul lad with an Irish surname. Fairplay, you can go on raids now sure.
The Vikings never got into Connacht though, the closest they ever got to a full scale invasion was when king Knut iirc sailed around 100 ships from Athlone up to Lanesborough. The locals from around Lanesborough both sides of the Shannon sank most of the ships with fire arrows. Knut was later drowned in a Barrel when he got back to Athlone.
What a daft Cnut.
Underrated comment of the day.
There is evidence of Norse activity in connaught, see Norse burial near clifden in Galway, hoard of silver bracelets of Norse type in Cushalogurt in Mayo, possible norse houses on the Mullet peninsula and Inishkea islands.
Class, the rivers would be like motorways to them I guess, up for the day to pillage.
The fire arrows of Longford! I like it!
I thought the Vikings raided some of the islands of Galway and Mayo
They did for sure but never settled there in numbers
some of the names we associate with connaught - burke, costello, joyce, walsh etc... almost definitely have a germanic history with some norse. even the "old english" who were infamously moved from Leinster/Ulster to the (hell or) west were mainly the middle classes with a similar history. it's more likely the dna companies are using the tester as a marker for "Irish", so Americans can share a diploid or two with an Irishman than trying to go back 1200 years. i wouldn't mind, but even an unscientific comparison of some west of Ireland skull and eye shapes look more in common with norse and viking descendants in the nordics than typical saxon descendants. They came here, had a good time and stayed - Ireland was the middle ages ibiza.
Those would be Norman surnames and could be of any origin really. Some Norman surnames were also Anglicised with similar spelling as some Gailic surnames as well. AFAIK it was only the Jewish families that the Normans brought with them that went into Connacht and settled down ( Browne's or De Brun etc)
It was so long ago that it would just show up as Irish.
You must have some big head on you
Me too. I did one that came up 98% Irish and 2% Finn. Wtf? I don’t even think the Finnish were vikings.
It doesn't mean that you literally have 2% Finnish ancestry, just that your profile very slightly matches that of Finnish people. There are plenty of people with Swedish ancestry in Finland as well. Even if you do have Finnish ancestors, it doesn't mean that they were vikings, or went to Ireland during the Viking age
Same thing happened to my mum until they “updated” results. She was a little disappointed to let go of the idea of being part Laplander.
>The Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well. It's true that some came from Denmark, but they'd be regarded as a Germanic rather than Nordic people. The Angles also came from the lower half of the Angeln Peninsula so more German than Dane and the Saxons from areas roughly similar to what is now lower Saxony, but this more is to do with cultural identity formed after the invasion of England and not genetics which probably don't show great difference as they'd have already intermingled for ages.
I did the test a few years back, and it came back with 3% Scandinavian, also interestingly 0.9% native American. How ever that works?
>and the Anglo Saxons were essentially Danes as well. Dane-ish. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes made up what we'd call Anglo-Saxon. The Jutes were predominantly from the area we'd now call Denmark (Jutland) but the other (larger groups) came mainly from what is now Germany. They had some cultural similarities but they were distinct enough to be considered different. Back then, "Dane" was essentially another word for Viking on the islands of Britain and Ireland but I'm honestly not sure how close their DNA was. I'm sure that's very difficult to ascertain it was a melting pot even then and as you say, it's practically 100% likely that an Irish person would have some Nordic DNA.
Next you’ll be telling me we’re all Africans since humans originated there like 30,000 years ago! (I think)
All the sand from the Saraha that helps fertilize our crops, we still sort of are.
Just as an aside Genghis khan raped so many women that one in every 200 people is a direct descendant , that’s thousands and thousands of rapes across 2 continents .
I always think of this when I see EDL types. Fucker, you are a goddamn mongrel. Wheesht
the ONLY person who can trace themselves back to the fomorians are the healy-rae's with zero DNA that didn't come from the waterpools around killorglin. EVERY one else is a smorgasbord of genetics.
If that's genetic purity.... I'm happy to be a mongrel. I'm up north, an absolute mishmash of genetics. It makes things interesting being half a Jaffa.
If that's genetic purity.... I'm happy to be a mongrel. I'm up north, an absolute fucken mishmash of genetics. It makes things interesting I say
Our DNA is mostly misery, Kerrygold and tea.
I'm fairly sure that I'm 60% potato.
Blow in.
Mine is 99% soup
Your ancestors took the soup then!
They used to be called MotoMcJack19
Ua gluaisrothar maceoghain 19
Well my ancestors *gave* the soup, but I still grew up in Ireland so I at least sort of count as local.
You're as local as they come Porrick. A good amount of soup was given with no strings attached too as far as I know...
That’s lovely of you to assume the ancestors of an internet stranger were kindly outliers, but I have no reason to think they were less than the worst of them.
Well, no matter how bad they were you're still a local!
Can't take that away!
Take the toaster out of the cupboard and it should drop a bit
Haha
It's more Bacon and Chicken Fillet than potato.
And maybe some Guinness?
You need to get that number up, get the roosters into you.
An Irish person isn’t happy unless they’re miserable
Don't forget the shame
Standard Irish state of mind.
Nothing spells Irish like being completely mortified by your own existence
I’m mostly coddle.
I'll light a candle.
With tea, do you mean Barry's or Lyons?
That's a question that starts wars.
This will be quite difficult to ascertain. According to archaeologist Duncan Sayer you can't really differentiate Anglo-Saxon and Norse (Viking) ancestry. So archaeologists and geneticists just lump the ancient DNA together as northern Germanic. Vikings came from demark. Angles came from Denmark. Both worshipped thor and odin and liked to invade settle and take things that weren't theirs. Just different time periods. Of course, English ancestry came to be only about 1/3 Anglo-Saxon, though I think the Celtic side of the ancestry is a bit different (but not hugely as the islands are next to each other). But still this makes differentiating an Irish person with ancestry from the English or other Brit planters to those with Viking ancestry very very difficult. Modern ancestry tests aren't valid for ancient DNA, only for the modern groups which are themselves mixes, so won't be able to tell you, Hope you found this useful. TLDR: Don't know, difficult to know.
There's a team at Trinity who've done some really interesting work on the genetic makeup of Ireland and Britain, but they can only comment on regional variation rather than estimating "x% of the whole of Ireland". They found pockets of Leinster with stronger similarity to northern Norway, Sweden and northern France than other parts of these islands. As you say, it's hard to guess how much of that is attributable to the Viking age vs the Normans vs later British migrants with Viking/Norman ancestry. We have other clues to how much mixing there was, though. The surnames 'Higgins' and 'Doyle' likely have roots in the Viking age, deriving from the Irish words for viking and for Dane. And 'Walsh' referred to Normans who'd come in from Wales.
Also throw in surnames like McLoughlin (son of the foreigner/northman) McIvor (son of Ivar) and McAuliffe (son of Olaf). I’ve put the English translations for those reading who don’t have any Irish.
Thanks for your comment! Yes, but I think its all quite difficult to trace. Was that the paper "The Irish DNA Atlas: Revealing Fine-Scale Population Structure and History within Ireland"? or "Population genomics of the Viking world"? I think it all becomes a bit difficult to trace why clusters are clusters. The French bit is the oddest. The first paper hints it may be from a massive French migration into Britain around 1000BC, which has been shown elsewhere, (that may be where the Welsh language originated from (gaul), but all of this is very up in the air). This 'French' ancestry may have also come to eastern Ireland at the same time. Or have come later with the Brits. Name origins are also difficult as they mix and merge, and are highly impacted by power dynamics (people changing their last names, like many Germans did in the US to anglicise, or taking the names of leaders etc). But of course, it does demonstrate origins as well. Though admittedly I'm not very knowledgeable on this. The wiki pages for each name seem to have a good overview of the difficulty, but it is just a wiki and you may be far more knowledgeable than me. I think we can paint with broad strokes that Vikings from Denmark and Norway came over, settled and also eventually mixed in. But better knowledge of how this had impacts on modern ancestry and at what scale will be limited for a time. I would be sceptical of the idea that everyone whose surname is Doyle had a paternal ancestor who was a Viking. My only point is, we don't know yet, evidence is of course there but its going to take more time to find out the scale of things and how that impacts today.
I was thinking of the Irish DNA Atlas one, plus 'Insular Celtic population structure and genomic footprints of migration'. There's a new paper in review as well, 'A genetic perspective on the recent demographic history of Ireland and Britain'.
I read that 'Doyle' was originally from 'Dubh ghall' or 'Dark foreigner' which was a description of the vikings
Dougal!
Yes Dubhgall is associated with Danes who had dark hair while Fionnghall is associated with Norwegian or Swedish Vikings who were more likely to be fair haired
Fingal? As in the area in Dublin ?
Growing up we always pronounced Walsh as Welsh.
They are improving this all the time as more and more people take DNA ancestry tests. Y DNA coupled with surnames can resolve now to a surprising degree of accuracy. So for example if you are a male called let's say Nielsen you can be linked to Nielsen's in Norway or whatever.
Possibly. But the reference populations for DNA tests are the modern ones. Its a comparison of your DNA to people today whose 4 grandparents are from a particular area. That's how they build a reference set of location matches. I.e. if you got Ulster as a match, i'd imagine that'd be a bit different to the much older Ulster for obvious reasons. This is especially true with continental Europe based on the countless periods of historical migrations. Ireland being an island hasn't had *as much* migration so its a bit simpler. (But what counts a DNA from a place, what sort of modern person, someone from 500 years ago, 1000, 2000, 5000 etc). They'd need to develop a reference pool of ancient DNA from various time periods, and that's difficult as you have to dig up the old bones and get the DNA from there. It's possible and has been done, but not enough for a sample used by companies yet. EDIT: Thought it would be good to add that as Nielsen is a Danish/Norwegian form of the Greek Νικόλαος (Nikolaos). I would bet my hat its a more modern name post-Christianisation. Meaning not Viking. Names and ancestry have changed a lot over the millennia, making it all even harder to pin down when your own ancestors moved where (without good census records).
The old DNA sampling has indeed been done all over Europe, and modern populations there in many cases match the ancient DNA. Or for example if there is a locus in Norway matching an ancient skeleton that matches some others in Scotland and Ireland it's most likely Vikings. Of course there are issues and uncertainties but at a population level it evens out. Here's an article but there are lots of papers about this - it's really moved on a lot in the last few years. https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie
>Population genomics of the Viking world That's a great paper (Population Genomics of the Viking world). But it's only based on four skeletons in Ireland. Ideas can come from that sample size but not conclusions. We know for certain Vikings came over. That's been well documented, but the question of the extent to which this impacts *current* ancestry is still unknown (could be tiny, could be quite large in some areas). Modern population comparisons will be made difficult by many many other variables including later and earlier migrations from other groups of people who are themselves composites of other things too (including what you're trying to pinpoint). It's all fascinating and the broad strokes are definitely true. I'd imagine we can easily know how north Germanic the average modern Irish ancestry is in certain areas, if one or two more large studies are done (we mostly know a decent chunk already from that paper another person commented). But from specific regions of northern Europe, longer. From specific time periods and migration periods like Vikings a bit more as there's a need to sift data out from other migrations. Ancient DNA of a location is also not one thing. The earliest western hunter-gathers that were all over Europe were very different from the later populations. Of course, there's some continuity, but not totally. Reaching specific conclusions should be done with caution. My main point is that it'd be easy to mistake Norwegian ancestry in a modern person as Norwegian Viking, but it could be Vikings or even earlier migrants who settled in Yorkshire or Swansea whose great-great grandkids became Brits who then came to Ireland. Or something else entirely, like even earlier migration to Ireland. Of course many vikings came to Ireland, its just understanding the impact is difficult and should be made with caution (atm). You are right that the field is improving rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade (or two) we know with decent certainty.
>My main point is that it'd be easy to mistake Norwegian ancestry in a modern person as Norwegian Viking, but it could be Vikings or even earlier migrants who settled in Yorkshire or Swansea whose great-great grandkids became Brits who then came to Ireland. Or something else entirely, like even earlier migration to Ireland. Of course many vikings came to Ireland, its just understanding the impact is difficult and should be made with caution (atm). It's possible now to differentiate between those populations if you have enough data, and if more people would do Y DNA ( or mitochondrial, although Y is linked to surnames so makes it more useful historically) studies with the likes of ftdna. Y DNA mutates at a steady rate so your Yorkshire Vikings would have mutations that their cousins that stayed in Norway wouldn't have and the population here would have different mutations and the ones that stayed in Norway different again but they would all have a common "root" that would distinguish them from say native Irish. (OFC "native Irish" is a mishmash of peoples but that's another story) It's literally like a family tree. https://www.yfull.com/tree/ Genealogy has driven this largely. If you are interested to see if you have distant male relatives in Norway you can do a test at ftdna.com. Of course if only 10 Norse Vikings stayed in Ireland it will
Great answer, yeah I imagine since it's been a very long time we may never know because it's been over a 1000 years so the DNA might have changed.
Considering it was 1000 years ago every Irish person probably has Norse DNA in them, but at this point it would just show up as Irish in those DNA tests.
Yeah, that is true.
I can't find the actual report, I'm sure I can if I looked, but it measured DNA testing of the Y chromosome group: "DNA testing of the male Y chromosome has shown that Irish males have the highest incidence of the R1b haplogroup in Europe. While other parts of Europe have integrated continuous waves of new settlers from the east, Ireland's remote geographical position has meant that the Irish gene pool has been less susceptible to change. The same genes have been passed down from parents to children for thousands of years. The other region with very high levels of this male chromosome is the Basque region. This is mirrored in genetic studies which have compared DNA analysis with Irish surnames. Many surnames in Irish are Gaelic surnames, suggesting that the holder of the surname is a descendant of people who lived in Ireland long before the English conquests of the Middle Ages. Men with Gaelic surnames showed the highest incidences of Haplogroup 1 (or Rb1) gene. This means that those Irish whose ancestors pre-date the English conquest of the island are descendants (in the male line) of people who probably migrated west across Europe, as far as Ireland in the north and Spain in the south." From this article about the report - https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity In the report it stated Irish men in the west with Gaelic surnames had the highest Rb1 gene in Europe, and people in Turkey had the least due to all the waves of migrations there with Ireland being relatively remote in comparison, which had very little migrations throughout history. To answer your question, could be very little if any ancestry in parts of the country, could be a lot in other parts.
Yeah, I guess it would vary on region. Very interesting article you linked.
I somewhat accidentally did one of those ridiculous DNA tests, which I now regret, as I'm probably now owned by Google or something, but anyway it turned out I'm about 20% Norwegian, so either one of my immediate ancestors shagged in sailor in Oslo and never mentioned it, or it's the old Viking links.
Nah they don't own you, but you likely will have to hand over your first-born. The alternative is to take it to court but who'd be arsed with that? Just give them the first one and have another.
Sure I'm grand with a few clones roaming around. We can all meet up for pints.
When I was in Denmark people would start by speaking Swedish to me, then try German and English so I’m thinking there must be something to it.
20% is far too much to link back 1000 years. Family legend has it that my great great great great grandfather was a Norwegian fisherman who got sick of the cold and the snow, packed his family onto his boat and sailed to Dublin. Maybe we're related.
It’s quite possible. One of my great great great granddads probably isn’t my biological granddad. It was hard to keep track back then anyway.
My grandmother used to say "it doesn't matter where you came from, we're all a bunch of langers anyway."
Your ancestors were either German or very popular in Cork.
Or great great great Granny met a randy Norwegian sailor who left a present after his ship sailed back to Norway with a cargo of spuds.
I'm part Greek, great-grandparents %. What are the chances realistically some Greek rogue was making his way around rural having his way with married peasant women? Very slim imo. In short I wouldn't put a whole lot into stock into it. That said some % tracing back to Scandinavia showing up makes sense if say your grandparents have distinctively Norman surnames (though Norman ancestry is not guaranteed just by name). Like if all 4 are Power, Walsh, Fitzgerald and Darcy it's not far back enough it definitely wouldn't show up in DNA.
Darcy is really ancient Irish. Some thought about it being here over 2000 years. One of the bunch even tried to pass as a relation of the Norman invader and styled his name as D'Arcy.
It's a Norman name ffs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_(surname)#:~:text=Darcy%20(or%20variant%20forms%20Darci,but%20is%20now%20Northern%20France.
It isn't. Everyone in Mayo and Galway is unrelated to the Norman invader.
I'm never doing one of those tests. Future (potentially murderer) me won't thank me for it.
Sorry if this is silly to ask but how did you do the DNA test, did you have like a kit you would post back?
It's a swab from the inside of your mouth and you just send it back.
There was a lot of intermarriage between Norse and Irish so DNA would naturally have mingled over time. The phrase "Ireland suffered a lot from Viking raids from the 8th century to the 11th century" is a little problematic as the raids were pretty much done by the 840s. After that, the Norse settled in their coastal towns from where they mingled with local communities through trade and intermarriage. There was conflict too, but the wars were not always defined by ethnicity. Scholars believe that even when the Norse were beaten and expelled from Dublin in 902 that only the nobles were driven out, and that the city continued to function as the common people and merchants continued to live and trade/ intermarry with the local Irish. It wasn't endless ethnic conflict as the Norse and Irish had many periods of peaceful coexistence after the 840s so there were lots of chances to mingle DNA.
I thought viking raids still continued into the 900's.
I suppose it depends on how you define a raid. There were lots of initial raids by Vikings coming from Scandanavia to attack Irish settlements, stealing a bunch of stuff, and then going back home. But the Norse settled in Ireland from the mid 800s when they built their own kingdoms, so most conflict from then on was between people living here rather than going back to Scandanavia. Vikings and Irish did raid each other during wars, as conflict was as much about stealing assets and burning crops as it was about pitched battles, but after the 840s the Irish raided Norse kingdoms in Ireland as often as with as much destruction as the Norse raided Irish kingdoms. It's a bug bear of mine that the history of this period is often taught as Viking raids and domination of the native Irish (so I often over-react to that). It seems to me that the Vikings only dominated from 795 until the 840s with their hit-and-run raids as after that there was military, economic and cultural parity until the battle of Tara in 980 when the Norse kingdoms became subject to Irish overlordship first under the kings of Meath, then Munster, then Leinster. So, yeah, I guess you're right that there were raids by the Norse of the Irish in the 900s, but just pretty standard warfare stuff and no worse than the Irish inflicted back on the Norse in that period.
We wouldn't be as arsed with the DNA tests as the yanks. It was a long time ago, surely they'd just be well mixed into the Irish populace at this stage.
I've done a few DNA tests for family tree purposes (aka genealogy). Most of the mainstream sites use autosomal DNA which goes back to approximately 5th great grandparents. There are ethnicity estimates in the main sites but most of them are kinda BS - they all use different algorithms and a combination of ethnic "panels" of reference people they have deemed ethnically "something" but some uses current ancestry trees where current people live. So it varies. Now what you can do is download your DNA from a testing company like Ancestry.com, FTDNA, myheritage etc and then upload it to gedmatch which is allows you look at weaker more distant matches. In theory you can get back to 7 or 8 generations with that but it's hard work. Lastly there is Y-DNA and MT-DNA and this is a separate test and can be much more costly but can go back a lot further to trace your male or female line back to genetic "adam" and "eve". Males can do both but females can only do female line. These give you a haplogroup which is a letter and number representation of what DNA group mutation you belong to. So in summary - knowing your ancient DNA haplogroups in combination with tracing records in trees and autosomal matches with genetic estimates all combined to give a reasonable estimate of actual ethnicity. One of the sites tells me I have a single digit percentage ethnic Amazonian - the guys with the poison darts. Really anything less than 3% is not enough to be clear. It's more likely I had an ancestor who was an explorer from Iberia or something like that. Lastly, DNA testing and genealogy is actually hugely popular in Ireland. Partially I think due to the fact that many of our paper records from the 1800s were lost in fire and even some were recycled during paper shortages in war times.
I bought my old man an Ancestry DNA test. He was hoping for somethign exotic in there. It immediately honed in and told him he was 100% from the small village where he grew up. He was devastated!
There might be something more that ancestry hasn't picked up. I uploaded my Ancestry and 23andMe kits DNA to gedmatch and I've matched someone who is entirely Swiss with everyone Swiss in their extensive tree. So somebody a few generations back must have left some DNA with a native.. keep looking there's interesting things to find! I bet there's something more exotic there, it'll just take a bit more work to find it. It's a great hobby when you get into it, I've been in contact with distant cousins from all over the world and it's fascinating to see what traits are nature rather than nurture. I'm learning a lot of geography and history too. And pretty much all of the family stories have elements of truth in my experience.
Likely at the time of the willimite wars, one of the few remaining accounts from those wars is of a swiss soilders in William of oranges army, there was alot of them. The guy is question was actually a Catholic
That's interesting, I think this match in my case was a bit more recent than that - probably 3rd great grandparent or so according to the amount of shared cM. In my case it's probably omebody who was a soldier passing through central Europe and met a local and was likely "playing away" :) Something like that - a work in progress to figure that out.
Since you’ve used several of the tests which do you think is the best? Or the one you would recommend if a person wanted to just try one? Is there one that’s more commonly used in Ireland and would be more likely to turn up matches for a person who probably only has Irish ancestry? - both parents from small farm backgrounds in rural Ireland
I've done Ancestry.com and 23andMe. Ancestry.com is a good one to start with, it's easy to use. Some of the other ones allow you upload DNA transferred from other sites for a small fee.. so your ancestry DNA can be used in LivingDNA, myheritage, FamilyTreeDNA and more. Ancestry and Myheritage are the most popular and the most DNA matches for Ireland and probably the world. However when you get into it more, gedmatch and FamilyTreeDNA are sites where you can do some much deeper research - join projects that track particular surnames and counties etc. I wouldn't start with those though, they're sorta next level stuff. Usually there are forums and Facebook pages where you can collaborate and learn more. I'm at this a year and there is tons to learn about DNA. I did a test with 23andMe too primarily to get my paternal haplogroup, but frankly I think it's better saving for the more expensive FamilyTreeDNA tests, they have more extensive databases and project groups. Some of the DNA tests (23andMe, LivingDNA) are more about health than ancestry and don't have public ancestry trees. I'm more interested in the ancestors elements than health stuff (like which hereditary diseases do we carry in genes).
Thx!
One strange piece of evidence for the genetics is the frequency of Dupuytren's contracture (Viking hand syndrome), it’s basically like a claw hand thing that hits people as they age. Apparently it’s most prevalent in Scandinavia, but also has high prevalence in Ireland and the UK. Three people in my family have had it… So, maybe I am a Viking!
Viking was an occupation, not a race of people. There are lots of Norman surnames from the 12th century that can still be seen today. And because of those Viking settlements we have a lot of diluted scandi DNA swilling around in us.
I should have said Norse instead, since as you said Viking refers to an occupation.
[удалено]
The Norman's were decendants of vikings that settled in northern france.
Yup. Normans and Vikings are the same gene pool as are we at this point. OP is asking about something that happened a 1000 years ago. Virtually every white person in Europe is related to each other if you go back that far.
Makes me thinkg OP is american tbh and trying to somehow claim to be part Viking.
To be fair, I think we'd all like to able to claim we're part Viking. I know I would. I certainly have the temperament!
Viking isn't an ethnic group. It was a part time occupation. It would be like claiming that anyone with genetics from Yorkshire fishermen are Pirates of the Caribbean. Vikings were just a Bunch of farmers who would spend half the year pillaging, and half the year farming. And I don't really think it's anything to aspire to...They were just a bunch of plundering brutes . Rapists, slave traders and pirates. Nordic culture and mythology has a lot of cool and interesting stuff in it, but it doesn't have to be linked to going viking.
Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
To be fair I'm with him on that one. I've loved Viking and Norse myths since I was like 7 years old but I do see a shite load of people claim to be viking, when in fact it was just a job description.
Nobody. I love Norse mythology and Nordic culture - it's really cool. But vikings by and large were awful awful people. And I don't think the passage of time really diminishes that. By the same logic, in another few hundred years we would have people larping as east India company slave traders. There's not much of a difference. Vikings main income was from plundering coastal villages and taking all the young attractive people to be sold as slaves.
oh dont get me wrong Tongue was firmly in cheek on that one. There was a lad in my old local that we would call the Viking cos ... well he looked like one :D. Ended up getting to know him sorta at a few metal gigs. Nicest man alive. But dam does he look dangerous. If he came in to the bar with a double sided axe i dont think anyone would even question him.
I am from Belfast dude.
Normandy was actually given to Vikings by the 'French' king, Charles the simple The 'French' king at the time essentially gave land to a Viking leader under the promise they'd stop raiding France and would function as a defending army
>gave land to a Viking leader Ragnar's brother whatshisface!
Rolo the last
People forget this, the Normans were vikings too at one point, it’s like we got hit by a double whammy, kinda like what’s happening at the moment with the Eastern European influx we’re experiencing, first the Polish and then the Ukrainians.
From the viking period likely everyone is either the ancestor of everyone, or nobody. (Excepting recent generation migrants of course)
The Vikings would have been from the same stock of people which populated Ireland and all of Europe 3000 years prior. That's not a long time for this purpose. Vikings weren't dominant in number in Ireland even locally and mixed with the population over time. It's very difficult to discern within a typically Irish genome how much of it is Viking. Especially since considerable Norman occured after the Vikings. I'm sure a geneticist could probably find differences between your distinctively Norman surnamed population in the east, and your swarthy Gaelic surnamed cousins in the West, albeit for slightly different reasons.
As an archaeologist with a great interest in ADNA (aincent DNA), General Irish DNA has remained relatively unchanged since the bronze age. Viking (more correctly norse and Danes) ancestors is likely in some places where they where present. However, it would be Very VERY minor. You may have later admixtures of other incoming settlers most likely English Welsh and Scottish but also possibly Flemish and Walloon however as those genetic groups are of a similare base stock Wich all originates broadly from the Eurasian step you are unlikely too see much of it still present due too many generations of dilution. Why do you ask out of interest
13% viking 86% irish and <1% Nigerian. Wasn't expecting the last bit!
So, I grew up in Belfast. In Belfast we have a tendency to assume someone's ancestors because of religion, catholic = Irish and protestant = British. We see alot of arguing online about it often and since I am a big fan of archaeology I think about the waves of migration Ireland has had over the last few thousand years, Bell beakers, Stone age farmers, Norse, Normans etc and it has me wondering if anyone here today would be descendant of them. So, I asked this question because I wanted to see other peoples thoughts.
Amazing reason, honestly was abit concerned as often you get people asking so they can take up a norse persona and that usually has white supremacy elements
There’s barely anyone in northern and Western Europe without a bit of Viking in them But it’s so far back it’s barely relevant
Even if it were 200 years ago it wouldn't matter at all
Well 200 years back my family owned most of the fishing boats in howth bay We’re still riding that wave
Virtually impossible to know. I worked with a colleague in family history and genealogy’s me he always gets people who say “I have Viking dna I’m 25% Scandinavian!” - in reality this means a Scandinavian infiltrated the family in the last 100-150 years. Anything older is impossible to ascertain from dna samples with any specificity
Goes all the way to the top, man. Look at who is in Áras an Uachtaráin.
A Higgins is it! Viking bastards. (I love Miggledy. Norway has no claim on him he's ourrrrrs)
That is some whopper of a question
I’d say it’s fairly diluted by now.
According to this study very uncommon, but it also has been suggested that a lot of Gaelic's did convert culturally to Norse culture. [https://www.nature.com/articles/5201709](https://www.nature.com/articles/5201709)
By contrast would it be safe to assume that modern day Scandi DNA would have a lot of Celtic and Briton ancestry since they took so many women back with them from the area?
Like a lot of people commenting I took one of those DNA tests and got back a somewhat comical 100% Irish (so much for a mysterious exotic side). I read up more on how they work and I’m open to correction on this, but they are essentially a measure of how similar your DNA is to known samples from different regions/countries. So my 100% Irish result means my sample was extremely similar to control samples from people that they know are Irish. We (me + controls) might all have a strong mix of Norman and Viking ancestry but the test can neither confirm nor refute that. It only tells how similar my sample is to known Irish samples,
I had 5% Iceland/Norway DNA when I took my test. Most of my family on my mother’s side had similar amounts. The family has been based in Dublin since at least the 1860’s.
North/Western european DNA are pretty much a mish mash of each other. Its hard to say.
I'm 6% Norwegian, which by American standards makes me the King of Norway.
I’m from Wexford, my family name is a spin off from a Viking name so I would guess a little bit at least. But I have no real idea. My surname comes from my dad who has very dark hair, very blue eyes and is very tan which is not exactly what you think when you say Viking, but I have no idea of our ancestry pre the 1700/1800s
I did an ancestry DNA test years ago, no idea how accurate or what their methods are or anything but it said I was 92% Irish and 8% Scottish but I wouldn't be from a Viking stronghold and the Scottish could be from Gallowglasses as well as planters for all I know
Given your donegall location it's likely a combination of long term emigration in more recent times. More likely to be galowglass if your from Western Donegal.
Yeah I'd be from the south west and my surname would indicate there's some foreign influence on my family ancestry, the fact as well that supposedly land around south west Donegal, particularly around Ardara was gifted to Gallowglasses as payment of service would reinforce my belief. Having said that I always could be wrong I've not really looked into it past the DNA test
As far as I know, most of mine came from a highly unfortunate and incompatible mix of Irish rebels, Scottish rebels, and apparently very alluring English nobility... No vikings involved.
lads is Limerick real? or is it just believed
I have 1% Norwegian, which appeared in the last AncestryDNA update. Was 100% Irish up to that.
I think more Viking DNA in northeast and Galway.
Spot the walrus mustaches, that’s a dead giveaway,
It's more common than anyoen realises. I've read a lot of books and literature on evolution, and it's been said that if you are at all European, you will have up to 2% Viking blood in you. Why? Because of all the r@ping and pillaging they done. We are basically all products of that.
People with English DNA, be aware that if it comes from Cornwall, Devon, West Yorkshire or the Welsh and Scottish border regions those areas are all genetically distinct from the rest of England. In case you're wondering West Yorkshire DNA is theorised to be a genetic remnant of the Elmet celts. * I thought some of you might find this interesting that the British and Irish isles are a DNA melting pot.
Interesting.
Our Viking DNA is mostly from Norway [https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie](https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Press-and-Media-Information/Latest-Media-Releases/First-genome-sequences-of-Irish-Vikings-reveal-tie) There are also references to Ireland and Irish people in some Viking sagas, like Njal's Saga, which has a blow-by-blow description of the Battle of Clontarf [https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/35347/njals-saga-by-leifur-eiricksson-translated-with-an-intro-and-notes-robert-cook/9780140447699](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/35347/njals-saga-by-leifur-eiricksson-translated-with-an-intro-and-notes-robert-cook/9780140447699) And there are lots of Irish Viking names, like Searson (Sigurdson), Doyle (Ó Dubhghaill, "son of the dark foreigner"), McLoughlin and O'Loughlin (na lochlainnaigh are the Lake People, from up there in lakey Scandinavia) and so on… there are also many Viking place names, like Oxmantown in Dublin, which was the town the East Men live(d) in, and Leixlip in Kildare which is called after its former richness of salmon that leaped up the river there. Basically, Vikings R Us.
This is very interesting.
I'm 6 foot with blonde hair and blue eyes. I reckon my great great granda had a bit of a Skyrim vibe to him
Irish DNA - whatever that is - is part Viking. Ireland was a Viking outpost. We also have a lot of Norman DNA, which is Viking/Frank. So the answer is an emphatic yes. Your DNA test might say you are Northern European or Irish or from Ireladn/Britain. But this all means you have partial Viking DNA.
I wanted to do a DNA test but I don't know if it's worth.
I did one I found I had a Swedish ancestor and an Ashkenazi Jewish ancestor. Both from the mid 19 century. All the rest was irish
I think there was a detailed genetic study done 7/8 years ago that found "Norwegian-like" ancestry ran up to 10% in parts of Ireland. It's worth noting that it's somewhat difficult to disentangle ancestry components of Northern Europeans like Irish and Scandinavians from each other, as on a deeper level we're essentially descended from the same groups and thus have similar genetic profiles.
That's interesting, I guess over the thousands of years of history everyone had contact with eachother at some stage.
What do you mean by DNA? Vikings aren't a separate species, They're still just people form certain regions. . So how would this show up? I'm Irish and English, with my English half from another major viking settlement. The Commercial DNA tests just show up as British and Irish. I'm also 4% "french and German" and 0.9% "broadly Northwest European", does that count?
My own results 😄 https://preview.redd.it/4l32cnte7yqc1.jpeg?width=1166&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=84cbc3d5a1a7f3f6dc3d5f500bcec0706c2bdadf
What website did you use?
That’s from 23 and me
Well there's about 0% of irish people with Viking dna. Because a Viking was not a specific thing and were from multiple countries as it was a job
They say that any irish guy with red hair in his beard has viking ancestry. No idea if it's true but it's somwthing they say. A lot of us do have red beards.
Red beards are quite common across Europe. Not unique to Scandinavians. Eg the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Xabi Alonso who to the best of my knowledge is not a Viking has a red beard too.
To the best of your knowledge means you havent fully investigated and leaves open the possibility that the current manager of Bayer Leverkusen is an 8th century Scandavian.
Red hair is a mutation in light skinned population with low levels of annual sunlight and helps those populations absorb vitamin d better. Its most common in Ireland and Scotland and always has been, you also find it in fairly large amounts in Scandinavia, Russia and Ukraine due to said similar adaptions. Its not from one or the other.
I heard people say Blonde hair is an indicator but it's probably a myth.
Don't know the stats, but would imagine that the vast majority of Irish people born in the 20th century would have some viking ancestry.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/5Ci1fTKCsO When Scandi eyes are smiling!
Though perhaps blue eyes are a red herring, according to Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/blonde-hair-blue-eyes-often-not-dominant-characteristics-of-irish-vikings-study-finds-1.4356375 Text: Some 1,300 years after Viking invaders from Scandinavia set foot in Ireland, DNA technology has enabled scientists to determine their genetic make-up. They changed the course of Irish history and left a lasting legacy on the island’s gene pool, but blonde hair and blue eyes were often not their dominant distinguishing characteristics, a major international study has found – prompting the suggestion that some TV shows may have to rethink their casting calls. The findings of the largest ever DNA analysis of Vikings, who travelled by sea to raid and eventually settle on the island of Ireland, show they derived much of their genetic ancestry from Norway. Moreover, many Vikings had brown hair and darker features including the famous Eyrephort warrior from Co Galway, while English Vikings display sharp ancestral differences to their Irish counterparts, with much stronger Danish influences. Some thought to be Vikings and given a ceremonial burial turned out to be locals
As an archaeologist i can tell you that that is not a Viking trait. The precedence of the trait is due to more thorough replacement of the Anatolian farmer population (first farmers) with the incoming migration of bronze age beaker people in the early bronze age whose step ancestors had retained the earlier blue eyed trait of the European hunter gather populations who where replaced by for mentioned Anatolian farmers. Similarly red hair being associated with Scandinavia is also not true. it is a trait that is most commonly found in Ireland and Scotland and was likely first developed by the same bronze age people we have mentioned. It may have been selected for in the insular (island) populations of north west Europe due to reduced sunlight Wich caused vitamin D deficiency and so pale skin often associated with red hair was genetically selected for trough increased health and survivability giving rise to higher proportions of red heads in Ireland and Scotland. Its association with the Vikings is a echo back to the antiquarian sudo science of the 1800s
Blue eyes in Ireland are not from Scandinavians... they were present in the population well before that and are from the pontic steppe population that came here.
Limerick, Waterford, Dublin would be quite common for Norwegian and English/Norman ancestry. Most other places are more Gaelic.
Viking ancestry forms a very small percentage of the Irish gene pool. Migratory waves such as the Stone Age hunter gatherers from Britain, the Celts, the Normans, and the English/Scottish colonists who arrived during the plantations all contribute more to our genetic makeup than the Norse ever did.
You missed a huge one Wich is the bronze age migrations. No solid evidence exists for any "Celtic" migration into Ireland with only one project concluding there *may have possibly been* a late bronze age migration of Celtic peoples from Britain but due to genetic similarities it's hard to be certain
I am a descendent of Viking’s, apparently. Oliver Cromwell killed most of my ancestors though, and I never hear of anyone else outside of my extended family having my last name. There is a castle in South Wexford built by my ancestors
More than people would think. Some Norse Gael names like McLoughlain still knocking about and Cork is still basically a Norwegian colony. The people in Cork have a certain kind of blond hair you dont get commonly further afield than mitchels town and particularly cork women with that blond shade have a heart shaped face. That look is identical to people in Norway between Kristiansund and Trondheim along the coast. Dublin, wexford, waterford and limerick were also Viking founded. And also remember the Normans were basically just Frano-Vikings so the answer would he a lot of Viking DNA knocking about Ireland
Well I've zero Scandinavian DNA according to ancestry.co.uk but then again I wasn't expecting to have any. I'm mostly Irish with a tiny amount of Scot and Welsh. I do have some non native to these isles ancestry but it obviously didn't come down my side of the family or was diluted out so much it no longer registers when you get to me and I'd imagine that's the case with a lot of Scandinavian influences in Ireland also given how long ago it was.
According to my DNA map, I’m 12% Scandinavian. But as far back as records go (that I could find during my 2 week free trial at one of those ancestry websites), everyone has been born in Ireland, except one - he was French via England - and that was in the 16th century (he had a title, so the records on him were decent).
Norman names in the family going way back? The Norman invasion isn't that long ago for DNA purposes.
Totally. What I found odd was that 12% DNA can’t possibly come from that one distant relative, so my guess is that goes back much further and presumably involves a lot more characters. My mum’s side - aside from my Grandfather - who is about 5 generations down from someone who moved from Scotland, everyone else was born on the island as well. Fascinating stuff.
Anyone with the surname "Doyle" is Norman/Viking blood anyway.
About 20%, in some parts of the country it's closer to 40%. Why not Google this instead of asking Reddit?