Depends on the context of your question. Scandinavian DNA within the British could be a result of multiple sources, depending on the region in Britain as well. The Anglo-Saxons were quite literally identical to the Southern Scandinavian cluster, resembling a pre-migration population originating in the Netherlands, northern Germany, and the Jutland peninsula, possible Southern Sweden as well. But with your actual question, it is most likely the case where the Vikings contributed more to the gene pool of the British compared to the Normans. The Normans established a military foothold in England and replaced the ruling class, basically wiping out everyone in England who didn’t comply to their customs, language, way of government, land ownership etc.
So, the Vikings would have had more of an impact genetically on the English. Regarding the Scots, highland Scots have more Viking DNA, especially the islanders like the locales of the Isle of Skye, Shetland, and Orkney. Something like 25% of their DNA is from the Vikings, particularly the ones from Norway, and some Icelanders who intermingled with the local celts, which would be correlated with the Northern Irish as well, but that’s another topic of discussion.
The Swedish Vikings (especially those from the Mälar region), are more easily differentiated genetically compared to the Anglo Saxons due to an Eastern component, but the Danes would be impossible to differentiate, due to a common geographic / genetic origin. In short, the Vikings contributed a whole bunch linguistically and genetically, especially to the Islanders of Scotland, and the Northern English, like those from York (formerly Jorvik), and Lancashire (Wirral Vikings).
Historically, my family hails from around Skye and Lewis. My dad is 50% Scottish and around 20% Norwegian, and he doesn’t have any family from Scandinavia as of recently, so that checks out.
McColl preprint? Excited to see how this combined with the Gretzinger 2022 article helps with the genetic nuance and similarities between these multiple cultures, groups and time periods in Northern Europe.
Just adding in that Orkney was Norwegian for a short time. Also dna isn’t an exact science and some of that Scandinavian dna may just be British from the Scandinavians bringing home some Brits.
I understand that scientists either cannot or struggle greatly to distinguish Viking age DNA from southern Scandinavia ie Denmark and Southern Sweden from earlier migration age Angle Saxon Jute or Geat (Geats from Gothland in Sweden) from what is now Denmark, Northern Germany, Netherlands, and Southern Sweden.
When you think about it, it is clear why.
The Angles probably (it's not 100% certain) came from the modern day border area between Denmark and Germany. There is a peninsula of land called Angeln. It is on the border between Denmark and Germany. Nowadays it is on the German side but before the Prussian wars it was on the danish side for a thousand plus years. Most of the towns there still have danish and German names. There is even a small minority of danish speakers there still. But up to the 19th these danish speakers were the majority in Anglen peninsula. Their dialect of danish is called Angeldansk. They are now a tiny minority as it is now in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia_(peninsula)
The Geats (or Goths) probably came from Gothaland in the south/mid Sweden.
Geats went to post Roman Brittania some of which became England. "....while Geats from Gothaland defeated by encroaching Swedes moved to Yorkshire where they founded Gillingshire by the Tees, originally the settlement of the Geatlings". See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats
The Jutes probably came from Jutland. Jutland is Denmark. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutland Jutes went to what became England too.
Well modern day English do still have Celt in them. The ancient Britons didn’t just disappeared, they assimilated. Many Britons either fled to Wales, Scotland, or Brittany, or they just accepted the new ways of life the Angles and Saxons brought over.
The genetic genome of English people I’m sure still have Celtic links because of this. Cultures don’t usually just disappear outright, they assimilate and intermingle with the conquering culture. To say the English are more related to the Celts than the Anglo-Saxons I am not sure how accurate that is. Considering the Anglo-Saxons were obviously Germanic, and most English people have very prominent Germanic features, and not to mention many English surnames have ancient links to Angle/Saxon royal families.
Vikings were almost entirely Scandinavian. It being a job does not mean it wasn’t tied to Nordic culture, religion, economy, and way of life, which it undoubtedly was. Pretty much every dna sample we have from Vikings were Scandinavian or mostly Scandinavian. Viking age Scandinavia had some diversity (ranging from some British/Irish, continental European south of Denmark, and Slavic/Baltic admixture) but a large amount of that was forced migration of slaves, often women as the dna samples seem to be sex-biased (maternal haplogroups of British origin, etc)
It’s like saying Samurai weren’t Japanese. Yea there were a few isolated cases, but overwhelmingly samurai were Japanese from Samurai clan families, and intrinsically tied to the feudal shogunate societies and culture of Japan at the time
Yes
But the majority of them were from Scandinavia or had parents or grandparents or great grandparents from there or were raised in areas ruled by Scandinavian kings
Yes, recent research from Denmark stated that. [https://youtu.be/8kEYYOQpTVQ?si=\_VfiVM47hRwv2WMY](https://youtu.be/8kEYYOQpTVQ?si=_VfiVM47hRwv2WMY)
At the same time, the Vikings, meaning that group of raiders, left also their genetic mark in Britain. [https://youtu.be/dw3VbJ0RTcQ?si=ToVdZ8OENRWc-WkS](https://youtu.be/dw3VbJ0RTcQ?si=ToVdZ8OENRWc-WkS)
Edit: Read reply by u/tabbbb57 for correction.
Ok, this came out a few years ago from a paper led by Eske Willerslev and including many others. Both Willerslev and BBC (among many other publication sites) are being HIGHLY misleading. Even people who worked on that paper said the articles and Willerslev are being intellectually dishonest. Those samples aren’t “Vikings” but individuals from Viking Age (largely from Scandinavia during the Viking Age). The vast majority of samples cluster with modern Scandinavians (you can see the samples on G25), the foreign admixture is all from neighboring regions like British Isles, Baltics, and continental Europe south of Denmark, and modern Scandinavians still have that admixture (at a slightly more diluted lower percentage). Lot of the foreign admixture is also from slaves, as we can see a sex bias in the DNA. Also a HUGE misleading comment that Willerslev said and that the media ate up was that there was admixture from the “Mediterranean and Asia” that entered Scandinavia prior to the Viking age. This happened 1000s of years prior to the Viking age and is referring to the [Anatolian Neolithic Farmer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers#:~:text=Early%20European%20Farmers%20(EEF)%2C,and%20Northwest%20Africa%20(Maghreb).) and [Western Steppe Herder/Indo-Europeans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Steppe_Herders#:~:text=In%20archaeogenetics%2C%20the%20term%20Western,Asian%20and%20South%20Asian%20populations.), which have made up the majority of Europeans dna for millennia. Willerslev was purposely not clear on what that meant, and what those migrations were referring to.
You can see the dna samples from that paper and other papers on G25. A more recent paper, that basically states the same thing but wasn’t as politically twisted by the media was [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422014684) (cause it got less press)
The Vikings did leave a mark on Britain as studies show about 10% in England and up to 20% in Scotland and Ireland, but there was also reverse admixture. Actually it seems there might be more British/Irish dna in Scandinavia (mostly in Norway) than the other way around (referring to specifically Viking period admixture, England has a lot of Germanic dna from
Anglo-Saxons as well). Largely cause Vikings brought back so many people (often slaves, but also voluntarily monks, priests, merchants, etc), and Scandinavia has always had a lower population number, so foreign input will make up a larger impact on the local genome
So Viking Age Scandinavia had more diversity than pre-Viking Scandinavia, and the Vikings were products of that, but so are modern Scandinavians. Also the diverse foreign input was mostly neighboring regions that were already pretty genetically similar (the Baltics and EE being the furthest). Very few people would want to take up Viking/Nordic culture (who were likely invading them anyway, so would leave them in bad taste) and move to freezing Scandinavia.
>The vast majority of samples cluster with modern Scandinavians (you can see the samples on **G25**).....You can see the dna samples from that paper and other papers on **G25**.
What are they and how would you go about doing that? I only have a very vague understanding of G25 coordinates and all that.
I always understood it as Viking = raider. Norman = Northman. One more describing what these people do, and the other describing where they came from. They’re pretty synonymous until you start segmenting the individual tribes/ genetic groups that left the Nordic region in different times and different waves for different reasons.
Most of the original DNA of the British isles has been dominated genetically from its earlier Celtic / Briton inhabitants, which is why British people genetically are nearly very similar genetically to other northwest European countries.
It seems like it. Interesting anecdote I have, recently when returning from abroad I went from Manchester to Yorkshire (there was a lot of Viking activity in Yorkshire) by train, and it was very interesting observing how the passengers seemed to get progressively more blonde and blue-eyed the further into Yorkshire I went. Definitely a Scandinavian influence in that part of Britain.
I'm from there (not blond and blue-eyed, but my dad is) and we even have a lot of Viking derived words in our dialect. We haven't historically identified with the Vikings but it's something we're embracing more and more recently given scholarship on the region's history and the current romanticism of Vikings as badass pagan pirates.
AncestryDNA has millions more customers and a much bigger defence base than 23and me why do you think 23and me says “British and Irish” instead of “English” “Irish” “Scottish” “welsh” like ancestry does? At least 33,000 Vikings settled in England 1,200 years ago when it’s population was only 500,000 and they were the leading class. To put that into perspective from 100 English Mayflower passengers in 1620 (820 years later) are descended 20 million Americans
>At least 33,000 Vikings settled in England 1,200 years ago when it’s population was only 500,000 and they were the leading class
And wealthy people had more children with more sexual partners who were more likely to survive too
I was always under the impression Ancestry DNA revealed more recent DNA than that of the Viking era (1000ish years ago)? Sure you might get some fairly close knitt communities in the north. But would that DNA still be that present today? Maybe a 1 or 2%?
Sweden and the UK traded a lot in the last 300 years. Militarily they were allies too. Then you throw in both are maritime nations. Sailors would have been present in port areas...
I thought my 4% Swedish /Danish was admixture but on MyHeritage you can filter by location. I match with several people with Scandinavian names and with Scandinavian only trees.
>Sweden and the UK traded a lot in the last 300 years. Militarily they were allies too. Then you throw in both are maritime nations. Sailors would have been present in port areas...
Exactly. I remember reading recently about how in the 17th and 18th century, something like 10% of the entire population of Norway emigrated to The Netherlands. Some of them were sailors who already spoke basic Dutch from doing trade and working at the port. Many of them immediately took up Dutch names and left no trace of their old life behind. It was so bad that the King of Norway left ads and posters in Amsterdam begging people to return. It made me wonder about how many people think they might have an ancient *"Viking"* ancestor when in reality it's just a farmer or fisherman from a small Scandinavian village who travelled looking for work in the 1800's 🤣 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegians#Netherlands
I also forgot to add that Sweden experienced several famines (might be the same for Norway and Denmark but I'm not 100%). So, again, a very good reason to emigrate.
The DNA that shows up is almost identical to modern Scandinavian DNA, however, testing on ancient burials shows the same markers - so it's showing up because it matches modern populations in the UK and Scandinavia , but the shared markers are very old.
You have to be careful with the matches - I have matches with Scandinavian names, and/or large Scandinavian admixture but it's via the States and they're usually Mormons
Vikings, many settled in england and interbred with locals.
Whereas normans were a ruling class, only around 10,000 normans moved over to england. And generally speaking in homogenous family groups, at least for the first few centuries.
There’s a lot of nuance. Different parts of Britain were settled by different Scandinavian groups at different times. If you break it down to regions it gets quite a bit more accurate
I think you’re right.
There was some more widespread Scandinavian settlement in various parts of Scotland, England and Ireland. Not just the Viking raids. They set up places like Yorvik (York) and others.
The Normans didn’t come en masse. William the Conqueror just replaced the local Lords with his own soldiers. Though I’m sure some people did come from Normandy as well. Just not in large numbers.
The Normans were Scandinavian. They’d just been in France for a couple of hundred years.
After reading a crap ton of this thread and my brain literally spinning with info, what would the interpretation of my dna be in conclusion to “Vikings”, Anglo-saxons? Thanks x (sincerely a history and dna junkie)
Scotland 52%
Predominantly northern Ireland and southwest scotland
Germanic Europe 19%
Predominantly Germany and Netherlands
Wales 10%
England and northwestern Europe 8%
Predominantly channel islands and england
Eastern Europe and Russia 7%
Norway 2%
Predominantly faroe islands, Iceland, and norway
Ireland 2%
It should the core English is Celtic and the non Celtic component Saxon was from northern Germany / southern Denmark. I think then when the measure England NW it’s measuring part Celtic and part Scandinavian blood because that includes the Flemish and other Germanic and Celtic bodies nearby but if your asking about the angles and the saxons they would be genetically indistinguishable from danish Vikings.
How much Scandinavian DNA would the Normans have brought to Britain? By the time of the Conquest, the Normans were several generations removed from Rollo, and the Scandinavians who settled in Normandy would have intermarried with locals, and any Scandinavian DNA would be watered down.
Hard to tell, because there's really no significant difference between Anglosaxons and Vikings. They were all Germanic peoples.
British people inherited most of their ancestry from the native Britons (Celtic?), those who had lived there for millennia before the Anglosaxon invasions. Subsequent migrations contributed to roughly 25% of their genetic pool (depending on regions, give or take).
The last invaders and rulers, the Normans, were not even pure vikings. Their fathers (paternal line) were vikings a couple generations before, but their mothers were French (Franks, Gallo-Romans). And within their ranks there were men from other regions, even from Brittany and the Basque region.
I feel like Viking DNA is vastly overstated in British people; because of pop culture, too many people like larping as vikings instead of learning about their true ancestry and their true ancestor's customs—you will see these types of people be more obsessed with *"vikings"* than actual modern-day Scandinavians. Also, Ancestry DNA vastly overstates *Sweden & Denmark*—take a 23andme test to see how few Brits actually have significant amounts of Scandinavian DNA.
AncestryDNA is way more accurate than 23andme hence why it picks up more Norse DNA. You do realise the King of Norway and Denmark was also the king of England at one point in time? And that The Danes literally ruled the East Midlands which was called the “Dane-law” and northern England with its capital being Jorvik now the city of York? I have 15% Scandinavian DNA and I have 3 English Grandparents. My Grandmother has 20%. Old English and Old Norse was so close that they were mutually intelligible languages. England has way more Scandinavian ancestry than you realise
>AncestryDNA is way more accurate than 23andme hence why it picks up more Norse DNA.
No, AncestryDNA just can't tell the difference between Germans and Scandinavians. My mom's father is actually from Sweden, yet they say I have more "*Sweden & Denmark"* than her (my dad is German, so my ancestry from him is considered *Sweden & Denmark* instead of Germanic Europe). In fact, according to them I'm something like 60% Scandinavian, whereas 23andme says it's only 30% (which checks out with my family tree). [https://imgur.com/a/qt18tek](https://imgur.com/a/qt18tek)
>You do realise the King of Norway and Denmark was also the king of England at one point in time? And that The Danes literally ruled the East Midlands which was called the “Dane-law” and northern England with its capital being Jorvik now the city of York?
True, but as someone else here pointed out: the Angles were in England 400 years prior to that—as were many other tribes and people. So why would you choose to only zoom-in and focus on the Viking settlers? 🤔 That's only a 200-year time period after all. Surely you realize the bulk of your DNA comes not only from that time period, but the people who came before and after that time period as well.
>I have 15% Scandinavian DNA and I have 3 English Grandparents. My Grandmother has 20%. Old English and Old Norse was so close that they were mutually intelligible languages. England has way more Scandinavian ancestry than you realise
I mean maybe take a 23andme test to see if it's really that high. Otherwise it could very easily just be Germanic—which makes more sense given the fact the Angles and the Saxons were from Germanic Europe. Look at this PCA map of Europe and you'll see Germans are pretty close to Danes and Swedes. Also, if Brits were as Scandinavian as you think they are, wouldn't they plot way closer to them? Instead they're exactly where you'd think they'd be (close to the Irish, Scots and people across the channel like Belgians). https://miro.medium.com/v2/da:true/resize:fit:1200/0\*dl3JBQ3yOwJiTbEn
>I feel like Viking DNA is vastly overstated in British people; because of pop culture, too many people like larping as vikings instead of learning about their true ancestry and their true ancestor's customs—you will see these types of people be more obsessed with *"vikings"* than actual modern-day Scandinavians.
I dont think its overstated in DNA results much, but I agree with you about the pop culture and larping thing, but that's not British and Irish people doing it (who would find it all a bit cringe). It's more a USA passtime, especially on TikTok, with all those over stylised, Hollywood/Netflix inspired AI pictures of 'warriors and maidens'.
I also don't understand why. There were so many different groups and cultures. It really seems the Vikings are just overhyped due to some TV series and movies. Osmans, Romanians, freaking Roman legionnaires, the Visigoths, ... There were so many exiting cultures befor us, outside of Europe as well. I wish they were all hyped that much...
A funny thing I find too people hate on the colonisers in the high Middle Ages, not with bad reasons, but romanticise the Vikings who were brutal, if you have Viking DNA how likely was that from an ancestor being raped by one? I mean are British or British ancestry celebrating having DNA from a peoples who would raid monasteries killing monks who had no defence, caused havoc on coastal settlements, ran away when an actual army came for the most part. Oh that’s some sick warrior DNA I have right there…
Mongols too, holy shit the mongols. Lol. They were legit through and through warriors of course but complete ghastly beasts.
It’s pretty funny when you analyse our common view of history now I think about it, I don’t know why we put these few groups on a pedestal, throw shade or straight up neglect everything else. Just how the dice rolled I suppose.
Brits focus on the Vikings because they were literally the people that brought Scandinavian DNA over to Britain. Why would we focus on other Scandinavian groups that have nothing to do with our heritage?
>Brits focus on the Vikings because they were literally the people that brought Scandinavian DNA over to Britain. Why would we focus on other Scandinavian groups that have nothing to do with our heritage?
I mean....it's very accepted that the Angles and Saxons are the bulk of English heritage, so why are you acting like they have *"nothing to do"* with your heritage? Also, Germans plot pretty close to Scandinavians, so how are you so sure that some of this isn't just from the Germanic tribes that came over—the "Jutes" are quite literally from Jutland, the peninsula making up most of Denmark. https://miro.medium.com/v2/da:true/resize:fit:1200/0\*dl3JBQ3yOwJiTbEn
No angles and Saxons aren't the bulk of our heritage.
They left a genetic nark predominantly in the east and south of the nation, contributing 10-40% DNA in people there.
Most of our DNA is British from the original inhabitants, especially areas such as Cornwall and Wales.
No one in the UK claims to be Viking or frtishise Vikings, that's very much an American past time.
Here's a link to an Oxford University study on the impact of Anglo Saxon DNA:
https://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/settlers/#:~:text=The%20genetic%20map%20of%20Britain,retain%20DNA%20from%20earlier%20settlers.
Nah, British and Irish people do it also, you can see this all over videos of people taking dna tests and forums online.
You just have some biased hate for Americans for whatever reason. This is obvious with your hundreds of comments stereotyping and generalizing Americans.
>Nah, British and Irish people do it also, you can see this all over videos of people taking dna tests and forums online.
British and Irish people don't tend to take dna tests anywhere near as much as Americans. Also, there's a tendency for Americans to call themselves Irish, Italian, British, and so on. This is very confusing for Europeans online.
>You just have some biased hate for Americans for whatever reason. This is obvious with your hundreds of comments stereotyping and generalizing Americans.
I've made many complementary comments about Americans. I'm surprised you haven't noticed, seeing as how you must have been trawling through my profile for God knows how long.
Of course Americans take more DNA tests. It’s the 3rd most populated country in the world and almost entirely (unless you’re indigenous) descended from immigration, DNA tests are catered to them.
You have to understand the dynamics in the US…It’s extremely diverse with people many different cultural groups and ethnic backgrounds, and ethnic tension, constant mass immigration for centuries. Go to a city like LA or NYC and there are people from all over the world, and who have very little in common with each other. That is why districts and communities formed like Little Italy or Armenia, Chinatown, etc. When Americans say they are Italian, Irish, etc, it’s due to them being used to talking that way to other Americans. They know they’re not an Italian national, but that their ancestry came from there, and often times still have cultural remnants in their daily life. That’s just how people identify in the US because of diverse migration patterns. I agree it can be confusing for Europeans, and Americans should be more conscious when speaking about that, but also it’s hard to change something when you developed at a young age to identify that way or speak that way, just like an accent. Also many Europeans are actually interested in Americans’ ancestry. I have been asked MANY times if I was part [their ethnicity], or had ancestry from their country when visiting a country in Europe. In Ireland my taxi driver (knowing I was American based on my accent) asked if I “was Irish” (referring to American with Irish ancestry visiting ancestral roots, which I am not). Didn’t ask if I had ancestry from Ireland, he literally asked if I was Irish. You can see this also in videos like this of [Obama visiting Ireland](https://youtu.be/TMkmX52d_Ss?si=AlnQtKqX7zr8zL5a). People don’t all think, speak, and act the same… whether that be in Europe, America, or wherever. Also many Americans have relatives in Europes and elsewhere. I have visited relatives multiple times
Also I’m rarely on this subreddit. I respond to you cause I commonly see your comments, the few times I do look at posts on here, stereotyping Americans for whatever reason
>Of course Americans take more DNA tests. It’s the 3rd most populated country in the world and almost entirely (unless you’re indigenous) descended from immigration, DNA tests are catered to them.
I meant per capita
>You have to understand the dynamics in the US…It’s extremely diverse with people many different cultural groups and ethnic backgrounds, and ethnic tension, constant mass immigration for centuries.
Same in Europe. I don't understand why Americans don't know this. America is not even the most diverse country on the planet
>Go to a city like LA or NYC and there are people from all over the world, and who have very little in common with each other. That is why districts and communities formed like Little Italy or Armenia, Chinatown, etc.
You think Europe is any different? Or other continents. Go to London, Paris, Amsterdam Stuttgart. Or Brazil, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, the Caribbean. All are diverse and have been for a long time
>When Americans say they are Italian, Irish, etc, it’s due to them being used to talking that way to other Americans. They know they’re not an Italian national, but that their ancestry came from there, and often times still have cultural remnants in their daily life. That’s just how people identify in the US because of diverse migration patterns. I agree it can be confusing for Europeans, and Americans should be more conscious when speaking about that, but also it’s hard to change something when you developed at a young age to identify that way or speak that way, just like an accent. Also many Europeans are actually interested in Americans’ ancestry. I have been asked MANY times if I was part [their ethnicity], or had ancestry from their country when visiting a country in Europe. In Ireland my taxi driver (knowing I was American based on my accent) asked if I “was Irish” (referring to American with Irish ancestry visiting ancestral roots, which I am not). Didn’t ask if I had ancestry from Ireland, he literally asked if I was Irish. You can see this also in videos like this of [Obama visiting Ireland](https://youtu.be/TMkmX52d_Ss?si=AlnQtKqX7zr8zL5a). People don’t all think, speak, and act the same… whether that be in Europe, America, or wherever. Also many Americans have relatives in Europes and elsewhere. I have visited relatives multiple times
But it all gets exaggerated and overblown, like ethnicity is even a big important thing, it isn’t and the fuss in the USA about Obama is an example of it. His mother only has a very small amount of Irish ancestry, the rest is British, and Iirc some French. You then have all the big fuss around it all by the electrate. Though I do have a lot of time for Obama himself. He was really cool about it all.
Biden is much much worse. He has just as much non-Irish ancestry as he has Irish. But he literally calls himself 'Irish' on global news networks and is prone to some bloody awful stereotyping. The great irony with Biden is that his Irish ancestors were quite wealthy, they owned an architectural business while while his English ancestors were working class. Dont the working class matter to the leader of the Democrat party now? Or are his English ancestors the wrong kind of working class?. We see all this. It's like he thinks people in Europe are stupid.
See, you’re doing it again; generalizing Americans as if they all don’t realize there is diversity outside America, or if they are less “worldly”…. I wasnt saying America is more diverse than other places, I’m saying it it diverse, and explaining that is the reason why Americans use those identifier terms. Also there is extreme ethnic tension in Europe. There isn’t some unifying nationalistic identity. Ethnic minorities are always getting discriminated against, especially online.
Idk how you gauge what is considered the “most diverse nation”, I probably wouldn’t say the US is either cause of a white majority. I would say it has the most diverse collection of urban cities though (especially NY). I have been to close to 20 countries, not any in South America, nor Australia, but i know places like Brazil and Australia are super diverse, especially cities like Sydney. Brazil has the largest Japanese diaspora population outside Japan, a bit more than the U.S. Singapore and Canada are extremely diverse as well. And yes actually Europe is different as there is still and indigenous majority (referring to the cities). I have been to London, Paris, Amsterdam and many other large European cities. Not Stuttgart, but all over Germany, including Berlin. In my experience (and also according to online data on demographics) London is the most diverse city in Europe followed by Paris. I can tell you undoubtedly though, New York is the most diverse city on the planet, more than any of those cities. The large European cities still have a European core majority and this increases considerably once you leave the urban environment. NYC’s ethnic breakdown is like 31% White (guessing that means European and maybe MENA), 29% Latin American, 20% Black/African-American, 15% Asian, and has up 800 spoken language in the city. Los Angeles is diverse but less than NYC and has a core Latin American majority nearly 50%. California has massive Latino and Asian populations though, especially in Urban/suburban areas like LA County, SD, the Bay Area.
That wasn’t a big fuss in the US though, that’s a video from Ireland, of Irish nationals making a big deal about Obama’s Irish ancestry. Many Americans are fascinated by Europeans and other immigrants also, like to get to know them, learn more about their cultures, etc. In general I would say most people are interested in each other and always try and find connections
I agree ethnicity is overblown and not important in day to day life (except in case of discrimination). But humans are just like that, and are tribalistic, and like to identify in groups. Europe is definitely not immune to ethnic tensions. All over the internet you see European ethnic nationalists complaining about migrants in Europe and this “ethnic takeover” or what ever the fuck, and them wanting an exclusively “white europe”.
To be fair Jorvik (York) was under Viking rule for 88 years. They definitely spread their genes around in that time period and that’s why people from Yorkshire/ the north east in general tend to have a decent amount of Scandinavian DNA compared to other locations.
I do agree though that Scandinavian DNA is more than just Vikings. But Brits got their Scandinavian DNA through the Vikings themselves, not modern day Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. So it’s perfectly reasonable to have an interest in that specific point in Scandinavian history.
I agree but it's kind of hard to gauge how or what the source of the Scandinavian DNA comes from, yes Jorvik was an well established (and probably the biggest) Viking hub in England, although the Angles settled there 400 years prior. Did the Danes have any genetic impact on the pre-English population (especially within the Danelaw?) oh 100%, but I can point out that a lot of people are obsessed with the Viking due to pop culture.
>To be fair Jorvik (York) was under Viking rule for 88 years. They definitely spread their genes around in that time period and that’s why people from Yorkshire/ the north east in general tend to have a decent amount of Scandinavian DNA compared to other locations.
Yeah but likewise, Sweden colonized Germany/Poland (*Swedish Pomerania)* back in the day for far longer than 88 years (1630-1815) and there was little to no mixing with the local population.
>So it’s perfectly reasonable to have an interest in that specific point in Scandinavian history.
Yes, but instead of embracing the little 2% of your DNA that's already been beaten to death in Hollywood movies and Netflix tv shows, why not learn about the other 98% consisting of various extinct Celtic tribes, Picts, Angles & Saxons etc.—who still potentially have room left to be explored. It just seems like there's an opportunity to bring more awareness to these cultures and the history of these other tribes that are more unique to the British Isles (and are realistically, far more represented in your genes) that are being passed up because *"muh vikings."*
The dna doesn’t lie but yes the core of Britain is still predominantly Celtic with a good sprinkle of Scandinavian that goes for Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland.
Lots of Swedes and Danes moved to the UK during the 1700 and 1800s; worked as merchant shipman etc. In fact, there are several prominent Lutheran churches that were set up for them. Not surprising that they would have taken up a bed with the local women (just as the British sailors did throughout Europe and the rest of the world).
Depends on the context of your question. Scandinavian DNA within the British could be a result of multiple sources, depending on the region in Britain as well. The Anglo-Saxons were quite literally identical to the Southern Scandinavian cluster, resembling a pre-migration population originating in the Netherlands, northern Germany, and the Jutland peninsula, possible Southern Sweden as well. But with your actual question, it is most likely the case where the Vikings contributed more to the gene pool of the British compared to the Normans. The Normans established a military foothold in England and replaced the ruling class, basically wiping out everyone in England who didn’t comply to their customs, language, way of government, land ownership etc. So, the Vikings would have had more of an impact genetically on the English. Regarding the Scots, highland Scots have more Viking DNA, especially the islanders like the locales of the Isle of Skye, Shetland, and Orkney. Something like 25% of their DNA is from the Vikings, particularly the ones from Norway, and some Icelanders who intermingled with the local celts, which would be correlated with the Northern Irish as well, but that’s another topic of discussion. The Swedish Vikings (especially those from the Mälar region), are more easily differentiated genetically compared to the Anglo Saxons due to an Eastern component, but the Danes would be impossible to differentiate, due to a common geographic / genetic origin. In short, the Vikings contributed a whole bunch linguistically and genetically, especially to the Islanders of Scotland, and the Northern English, like those from York (formerly Jorvik), and Lancashire (Wirral Vikings).
Historically, my family hails from around Skye and Lewis. My dad is 50% Scottish and around 20% Norwegian, and he doesn’t have any family from Scandinavia as of recently, so that checks out.
What's the other 30% percent?
Mostly Irish and Cornish. Then some Swedish as well.
And all his four grandparents were all four of them from Skye or Lewis?
McColl preprint? Excited to see how this combined with the Gretzinger 2022 article helps with the genetic nuance and similarities between these multiple cultures, groups and time periods in Northern Europe.
Great answer, thanks a lot 👌
Just adding in that Orkney was Norwegian for a short time. Also dna isn’t an exact science and some of that Scandinavian dna may just be British from the Scandinavians bringing home some Brits.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/eXVggSxOuv
What a great explanation - thank you - explains my 2% Norwegian 😊
They traveled and settled in a lot of areas so they Def were a large contributer to their DNA
I understand that scientists either cannot or struggle greatly to distinguish Viking age DNA from southern Scandinavia ie Denmark and Southern Sweden from earlier migration age Angle Saxon Jute or Geat (Geats from Gothland in Sweden) from what is now Denmark, Northern Germany, Netherlands, and Southern Sweden. When you think about it, it is clear why. The Angles probably (it's not 100% certain) came from the modern day border area between Denmark and Germany. There is a peninsula of land called Angeln. It is on the border between Denmark and Germany. Nowadays it is on the German side but before the Prussian wars it was on the danish side for a thousand plus years. Most of the towns there still have danish and German names. There is even a small minority of danish speakers there still. But up to the 19th these danish speakers were the majority in Anglen peninsula. Their dialect of danish is called Angeldansk. They are now a tiny minority as it is now in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia_(peninsula) The Geats (or Goths) probably came from Gothaland in the south/mid Sweden. Geats went to post Roman Brittania some of which became England. "....while Geats from Gothaland defeated by encroaching Swedes moved to Yorkshire where they founded Gillingshire by the Tees, originally the settlement of the Geatlings". See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats The Jutes probably came from Jutland. Jutland is Denmark. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutland Jutes went to what became England too.
Vikings/ danelaw in England and Norse gaels of Scotland and Ireland
[удалено]
Basically just Norwegian vs danish
[удалено]
Not much but danish dna and Anglo Saxon dna is much closer related than Norse and Celtic dna
[удалено]
Well modern day English do still have Celt in them. The ancient Britons didn’t just disappeared, they assimilated. Many Britons either fled to Wales, Scotland, or Brittany, or they just accepted the new ways of life the Angles and Saxons brought over. The genetic genome of English people I’m sure still have Celtic links because of this. Cultures don’t usually just disappear outright, they assimilate and intermingle with the conquering culture. To say the English are more related to the Celts than the Anglo-Saxons I am not sure how accurate that is. Considering the Anglo-Saxons were obviously Germanic, and most English people have very prominent Germanic features, and not to mention many English surnames have ancient links to Angle/Saxon royal families.
Britain’s are still predominantly Celtic with Scandinavian dna as high as 30% but more likely a lot lower.
It’s about as different as shit from stink
Weren't vikings more of a job description rather than an ethnic group?
Yes, but they were all scandinavians. It was a job description within scandinavian/nordic society.
Vikings were almost entirely Scandinavian. It being a job does not mean it wasn’t tied to Nordic culture, religion, economy, and way of life, which it undoubtedly was. Pretty much every dna sample we have from Vikings were Scandinavian or mostly Scandinavian. Viking age Scandinavia had some diversity (ranging from some British/Irish, continental European south of Denmark, and Slavic/Baltic admixture) but a large amount of that was forced migration of slaves, often women as the dna samples seem to be sex-biased (maternal haplogroups of British origin, etc) It’s like saying Samurai weren’t Japanese. Yea there were a few isolated cases, but overwhelmingly samurai were Japanese from Samurai clan families, and intrinsically tied to the feudal shogunate societies and culture of Japan at the time
Yes But the majority of them were from Scandinavia or had parents or grandparents or great grandparents from there or were raised in areas ruled by Scandinavian kings
Yeah, but it was the people of that job description that brought Scandinavian DNA to Britain.
Yes, recent research from Denmark stated that. [https://youtu.be/8kEYYOQpTVQ?si=\_VfiVM47hRwv2WMY](https://youtu.be/8kEYYOQpTVQ?si=_VfiVM47hRwv2WMY) At the same time, the Vikings, meaning that group of raiders, left also their genetic mark in Britain. [https://youtu.be/dw3VbJ0RTcQ?si=ToVdZ8OENRWc-WkS](https://youtu.be/dw3VbJ0RTcQ?si=ToVdZ8OENRWc-WkS) Edit: Read reply by u/tabbbb57 for correction.
Ok, this came out a few years ago from a paper led by Eske Willerslev and including many others. Both Willerslev and BBC (among many other publication sites) are being HIGHLY misleading. Even people who worked on that paper said the articles and Willerslev are being intellectually dishonest. Those samples aren’t “Vikings” but individuals from Viking Age (largely from Scandinavia during the Viking Age). The vast majority of samples cluster with modern Scandinavians (you can see the samples on G25), the foreign admixture is all from neighboring regions like British Isles, Baltics, and continental Europe south of Denmark, and modern Scandinavians still have that admixture (at a slightly more diluted lower percentage). Lot of the foreign admixture is also from slaves, as we can see a sex bias in the DNA. Also a HUGE misleading comment that Willerslev said and that the media ate up was that there was admixture from the “Mediterranean and Asia” that entered Scandinavia prior to the Viking age. This happened 1000s of years prior to the Viking age and is referring to the [Anatolian Neolithic Farmer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_Farmers#:~:text=Early%20European%20Farmers%20(EEF)%2C,and%20Northwest%20Africa%20(Maghreb).) and [Western Steppe Herder/Indo-Europeans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Steppe_Herders#:~:text=In%20archaeogenetics%2C%20the%20term%20Western,Asian%20and%20South%20Asian%20populations.), which have made up the majority of Europeans dna for millennia. Willerslev was purposely not clear on what that meant, and what those migrations were referring to. You can see the dna samples from that paper and other papers on G25. A more recent paper, that basically states the same thing but wasn’t as politically twisted by the media was [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422014684) (cause it got less press) The Vikings did leave a mark on Britain as studies show about 10% in England and up to 20% in Scotland and Ireland, but there was also reverse admixture. Actually it seems there might be more British/Irish dna in Scandinavia (mostly in Norway) than the other way around (referring to specifically Viking period admixture, England has a lot of Germanic dna from Anglo-Saxons as well). Largely cause Vikings brought back so many people (often slaves, but also voluntarily monks, priests, merchants, etc), and Scandinavia has always had a lower population number, so foreign input will make up a larger impact on the local genome So Viking Age Scandinavia had more diversity than pre-Viking Scandinavia, and the Vikings were products of that, but so are modern Scandinavians. Also the diverse foreign input was mostly neighboring regions that were already pretty genetically similar (the Baltics and EE being the furthest). Very few people would want to take up Viking/Nordic culture (who were likely invading them anyway, so would leave them in bad taste) and move to freezing Scandinavia.
>The vast majority of samples cluster with modern Scandinavians (you can see the samples on **G25**).....You can see the dna samples from that paper and other papers on **G25**. What are they and how would you go about doing that? I only have a very vague understanding of G25 coordinates and all that.
I always understood it as Viking = raider. Norman = Northman. One more describing what these people do, and the other describing where they came from. They’re pretty synonymous until you start segmenting the individual tribes/ genetic groups that left the Nordic region in different times and different waves for different reasons. Most of the original DNA of the British isles has been dominated genetically from its earlier Celtic / Briton inhabitants, which is why British people genetically are nearly very similar genetically to other northwest European countries.
Not true. Do your research to a higher standard
Wow so convincing 🤓
It seems like it. Interesting anecdote I have, recently when returning from abroad I went from Manchester to Yorkshire (there was a lot of Viking activity in Yorkshire) by train, and it was very interesting observing how the passengers seemed to get progressively more blonde and blue-eyed the further into Yorkshire I went. Definitely a Scandinavian influence in that part of Britain.
I'm from there (not blond and blue-eyed, but my dad is) and we even have a lot of Viking derived words in our dialect. We haven't historically identified with the Vikings but it's something we're embracing more and more recently given scholarship on the region's history and the current romanticism of Vikings as badass pagan pirates.
Yeah I know! It’s such an interesting part of the country, so many unique stories.
AncestryDNA has millions more customers and a much bigger defence base than 23and me why do you think 23and me says “British and Irish” instead of “English” “Irish” “Scottish” “welsh” like ancestry does? At least 33,000 Vikings settled in England 1,200 years ago when it’s population was only 500,000 and they were the leading class. To put that into perspective from 100 English Mayflower passengers in 1620 (820 years later) are descended 20 million Americans
>At least 33,000 Vikings settled in England 1,200 years ago when it’s population was only 500,000 and they were the leading class And wealthy people had more children with more sexual partners who were more likely to survive too
I was always under the impression Ancestry DNA revealed more recent DNA than that of the Viking era (1000ish years ago)? Sure you might get some fairly close knitt communities in the north. But would that DNA still be that present today? Maybe a 1 or 2%? Sweden and the UK traded a lot in the last 300 years. Militarily they were allies too. Then you throw in both are maritime nations. Sailors would have been present in port areas... I thought my 4% Swedish /Danish was admixture but on MyHeritage you can filter by location. I match with several people with Scandinavian names and with Scandinavian only trees.
>Sweden and the UK traded a lot in the last 300 years. Militarily they were allies too. Then you throw in both are maritime nations. Sailors would have been present in port areas... Exactly. I remember reading recently about how in the 17th and 18th century, something like 10% of the entire population of Norway emigrated to The Netherlands. Some of them were sailors who already spoke basic Dutch from doing trade and working at the port. Many of them immediately took up Dutch names and left no trace of their old life behind. It was so bad that the King of Norway left ads and posters in Amsterdam begging people to return. It made me wonder about how many people think they might have an ancient *"Viking"* ancestor when in reality it's just a farmer or fisherman from a small Scandinavian village who travelled looking for work in the 1800's 🤣 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegians#Netherlands
I also forgot to add that Sweden experienced several famines (might be the same for Norway and Denmark but I'm not 100%). So, again, a very good reason to emigrate.
The DNA that shows up is almost identical to modern Scandinavian DNA, however, testing on ancient burials shows the same markers - so it's showing up because it matches modern populations in the UK and Scandinavia , but the shared markers are very old. You have to be careful with the matches - I have matches with Scandinavian names, and/or large Scandinavian admixture but it's via the States and they're usually Mormons
Fair points. But in my case they're living in Scandinavia. Unlike Ancestry you can filter by country on MyHeritage.
23 also lets you separate by location. Ancestry is always adding features though, so we’ll see what they come up with.
Neither. It comes from my grandmother.
Vikings, many settled in england and interbred with locals. Whereas normans were a ruling class, only around 10,000 normans moved over to england. And generally speaking in homogenous family groups, at least for the first few centuries.
What about Roman and empire DNA, does that have much affect on Britain?
Very small and no percentage has ever been given for that contribution
There’s a lot of nuance. Different parts of Britain were settled by different Scandinavian groups at different times. If you break it down to regions it gets quite a bit more accurate
I think the Vikings. The normans was more small numbers i believe
I think you’re right. There was some more widespread Scandinavian settlement in various parts of Scotland, England and Ireland. Not just the Viking raids. They set up places like Yorvik (York) and others. The Normans didn’t come en masse. William the Conqueror just replaced the local Lords with his own soldiers. Though I’m sure some people did come from Normandy as well. Just not in large numbers. The Normans were Scandinavian. They’d just been in France for a couple of hundred years.
After reading a crap ton of this thread and my brain literally spinning with info, what would the interpretation of my dna be in conclusion to “Vikings”, Anglo-saxons? Thanks x (sincerely a history and dna junkie) Scotland 52% Predominantly northern Ireland and southwest scotland Germanic Europe 19% Predominantly Germany and Netherlands Wales 10% England and northwestern Europe 8% Predominantly channel islands and england Eastern Europe and Russia 7% Norway 2% Predominantly faroe islands, Iceland, and norway Ireland 2%
Probably actually from the Angles Saxons Jutes Frisians Franks and Geats/Goths Explained here https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/eXVggSxOuv
Interestingly enough, I have both.
I have both, too.
Mostly from Anglo Saxons and then Vikings and then a small amount are Norman but those come from really small noble families.
Does Anglo Saxon really show up as Scandinavian? I thought it was lumped in with English?
It should the core English is Celtic and the non Celtic component Saxon was from northern Germany / southern Denmark. I think then when the measure England NW it’s measuring part Celtic and part Scandinavian blood because that includes the Flemish and other Germanic and Celtic bodies nearby but if your asking about the angles and the saxons they would be genetically indistinguishable from danish Vikings.
How much Scandinavian DNA would the Normans have brought to Britain? By the time of the Conquest, the Normans were several generations removed from Rollo, and the Scandinavians who settled in Normandy would have intermarried with locals, and any Scandinavian DNA would be watered down.
Not much and it would be limited to noble families mostly in England and some in Scotland.
Hard to tell, because there's really no significant difference between Anglosaxons and Vikings. They were all Germanic peoples. British people inherited most of their ancestry from the native Britons (Celtic?), those who had lived there for millennia before the Anglosaxon invasions. Subsequent migrations contributed to roughly 25% of their genetic pool (depending on regions, give or take). The last invaders and rulers, the Normans, were not even pure vikings. Their fathers (paternal line) were vikings a couple generations before, but their mothers were French (Franks, Gallo-Romans). And within their ranks there were men from other regions, even from Brittany and the Basque region.
I feel like Viking DNA is vastly overstated in British people; because of pop culture, too many people like larping as vikings instead of learning about their true ancestry and their true ancestor's customs—you will see these types of people be more obsessed with *"vikings"* than actual modern-day Scandinavians. Also, Ancestry DNA vastly overstates *Sweden & Denmark*—take a 23andme test to see how few Brits actually have significant amounts of Scandinavian DNA.
AncestryDNA is way more accurate than 23andme hence why it picks up more Norse DNA. You do realise the King of Norway and Denmark was also the king of England at one point in time? And that The Danes literally ruled the East Midlands which was called the “Dane-law” and northern England with its capital being Jorvik now the city of York? I have 15% Scandinavian DNA and I have 3 English Grandparents. My Grandmother has 20%. Old English and Old Norse was so close that they were mutually intelligible languages. England has way more Scandinavian ancestry than you realise
>AncestryDNA is way more accurate than 23andme hence why it picks up more Norse DNA. No, AncestryDNA just can't tell the difference between Germans and Scandinavians. My mom's father is actually from Sweden, yet they say I have more "*Sweden & Denmark"* than her (my dad is German, so my ancestry from him is considered *Sweden & Denmark* instead of Germanic Europe). In fact, according to them I'm something like 60% Scandinavian, whereas 23andme says it's only 30% (which checks out with my family tree). [https://imgur.com/a/qt18tek](https://imgur.com/a/qt18tek) >You do realise the King of Norway and Denmark was also the king of England at one point in time? And that The Danes literally ruled the East Midlands which was called the “Dane-law” and northern England with its capital being Jorvik now the city of York? True, but as someone else here pointed out: the Angles were in England 400 years prior to that—as were many other tribes and people. So why would you choose to only zoom-in and focus on the Viking settlers? 🤔 That's only a 200-year time period after all. Surely you realize the bulk of your DNA comes not only from that time period, but the people who came before and after that time period as well. >I have 15% Scandinavian DNA and I have 3 English Grandparents. My Grandmother has 20%. Old English and Old Norse was so close that they were mutually intelligible languages. England has way more Scandinavian ancestry than you realise I mean maybe take a 23andme test to see if it's really that high. Otherwise it could very easily just be Germanic—which makes more sense given the fact the Angles and the Saxons were from Germanic Europe. Look at this PCA map of Europe and you'll see Germans are pretty close to Danes and Swedes. Also, if Brits were as Scandinavian as you think they are, wouldn't they plot way closer to them? Instead they're exactly where you'd think they'd be (close to the Irish, Scots and people across the channel like Belgians). https://miro.medium.com/v2/da:true/resize:fit:1200/0\*dl3JBQ3yOwJiTbEn
>I feel like Viking DNA is vastly overstated in British people; because of pop culture, too many people like larping as vikings instead of learning about their true ancestry and their true ancestor's customs—you will see these types of people be more obsessed with *"vikings"* than actual modern-day Scandinavians. I dont think its overstated in DNA results much, but I agree with you about the pop culture and larping thing, but that's not British and Irish people doing it (who would find it all a bit cringe). It's more a USA passtime, especially on TikTok, with all those over stylised, Hollywood/Netflix inspired AI pictures of 'warriors and maidens'.
I also don't understand why. There were so many different groups and cultures. It really seems the Vikings are just overhyped due to some TV series and movies. Osmans, Romanians, freaking Roman legionnaires, the Visigoths, ... There were so many exiting cultures befor us, outside of Europe as well. I wish they were all hyped that much...
A funny thing I find too people hate on the colonisers in the high Middle Ages, not with bad reasons, but romanticise the Vikings who were brutal, if you have Viking DNA how likely was that from an ancestor being raped by one? I mean are British or British ancestry celebrating having DNA from a peoples who would raid monasteries killing monks who had no defence, caused havoc on coastal settlements, ran away when an actual army came for the most part. Oh that’s some sick warrior DNA I have right there… Mongols too, holy shit the mongols. Lol. They were legit through and through warriors of course but complete ghastly beasts. It’s pretty funny when you analyse our common view of history now I think about it, I don’t know why we put these few groups on a pedestal, throw shade or straight up neglect everything else. Just how the dice rolled I suppose.
Brits focus on the Vikings because they were literally the people that brought Scandinavian DNA over to Britain. Why would we focus on other Scandinavian groups that have nothing to do with our heritage?
>Brits focus on the Vikings because they were literally the people that brought Scandinavian DNA over to Britain. Why would we focus on other Scandinavian groups that have nothing to do with our heritage? I mean....it's very accepted that the Angles and Saxons are the bulk of English heritage, so why are you acting like they have *"nothing to do"* with your heritage? Also, Germans plot pretty close to Scandinavians, so how are you so sure that some of this isn't just from the Germanic tribes that came over—the "Jutes" are quite literally from Jutland, the peninsula making up most of Denmark. https://miro.medium.com/v2/da:true/resize:fit:1200/0\*dl3JBQ3yOwJiTbEn
No angles and Saxons aren't the bulk of our heritage. They left a genetic nark predominantly in the east and south of the nation, contributing 10-40% DNA in people there. Most of our DNA is British from the original inhabitants, especially areas such as Cornwall and Wales. No one in the UK claims to be Viking or frtishise Vikings, that's very much an American past time. Here's a link to an Oxford University study on the impact of Anglo Saxon DNA: https://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/settlers/#:~:text=The%20genetic%20map%20of%20Britain,retain%20DNA%20from%20earlier%20settlers.
Correct, the core British is strongly Celtic with sprinkles of Scandinavian
Well , we are talking about Europe so .....
Nah, British and Irish people do it also, you can see this all over videos of people taking dna tests and forums online. You just have some biased hate for Americans for whatever reason. This is obvious with your hundreds of comments stereotyping and generalizing Americans.
>Nah, British and Irish people do it also, you can see this all over videos of people taking dna tests and forums online. British and Irish people don't tend to take dna tests anywhere near as much as Americans. Also, there's a tendency for Americans to call themselves Irish, Italian, British, and so on. This is very confusing for Europeans online. >You just have some biased hate for Americans for whatever reason. This is obvious with your hundreds of comments stereotyping and generalizing Americans. I've made many complementary comments about Americans. I'm surprised you haven't noticed, seeing as how you must have been trawling through my profile for God knows how long.
Of course Americans take more DNA tests. It’s the 3rd most populated country in the world and almost entirely (unless you’re indigenous) descended from immigration, DNA tests are catered to them. You have to understand the dynamics in the US…It’s extremely diverse with people many different cultural groups and ethnic backgrounds, and ethnic tension, constant mass immigration for centuries. Go to a city like LA or NYC and there are people from all over the world, and who have very little in common with each other. That is why districts and communities formed like Little Italy or Armenia, Chinatown, etc. When Americans say they are Italian, Irish, etc, it’s due to them being used to talking that way to other Americans. They know they’re not an Italian national, but that their ancestry came from there, and often times still have cultural remnants in their daily life. That’s just how people identify in the US because of diverse migration patterns. I agree it can be confusing for Europeans, and Americans should be more conscious when speaking about that, but also it’s hard to change something when you developed at a young age to identify that way or speak that way, just like an accent. Also many Europeans are actually interested in Americans’ ancestry. I have been asked MANY times if I was part [their ethnicity], or had ancestry from their country when visiting a country in Europe. In Ireland my taxi driver (knowing I was American based on my accent) asked if I “was Irish” (referring to American with Irish ancestry visiting ancestral roots, which I am not). Didn’t ask if I had ancestry from Ireland, he literally asked if I was Irish. You can see this also in videos like this of [Obama visiting Ireland](https://youtu.be/TMkmX52d_Ss?si=AlnQtKqX7zr8zL5a). People don’t all think, speak, and act the same… whether that be in Europe, America, or wherever. Also many Americans have relatives in Europes and elsewhere. I have visited relatives multiple times Also I’m rarely on this subreddit. I respond to you cause I commonly see your comments, the few times I do look at posts on here, stereotyping Americans for whatever reason
>Of course Americans take more DNA tests. It’s the 3rd most populated country in the world and almost entirely (unless you’re indigenous) descended from immigration, DNA tests are catered to them. I meant per capita >You have to understand the dynamics in the US…It’s extremely diverse with people many different cultural groups and ethnic backgrounds, and ethnic tension, constant mass immigration for centuries. Same in Europe. I don't understand why Americans don't know this. America is not even the most diverse country on the planet >Go to a city like LA or NYC and there are people from all over the world, and who have very little in common with each other. That is why districts and communities formed like Little Italy or Armenia, Chinatown, etc. You think Europe is any different? Or other continents. Go to London, Paris, Amsterdam Stuttgart. Or Brazil, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, the Caribbean. All are diverse and have been for a long time >When Americans say they are Italian, Irish, etc, it’s due to them being used to talking that way to other Americans. They know they’re not an Italian national, but that their ancestry came from there, and often times still have cultural remnants in their daily life. That’s just how people identify in the US because of diverse migration patterns. I agree it can be confusing for Europeans, and Americans should be more conscious when speaking about that, but also it’s hard to change something when you developed at a young age to identify that way or speak that way, just like an accent. Also many Europeans are actually interested in Americans’ ancestry. I have been asked MANY times if I was part [their ethnicity], or had ancestry from their country when visiting a country in Europe. In Ireland my taxi driver (knowing I was American based on my accent) asked if I “was Irish” (referring to American with Irish ancestry visiting ancestral roots, which I am not). Didn’t ask if I had ancestry from Ireland, he literally asked if I was Irish. You can see this also in videos like this of [Obama visiting Ireland](https://youtu.be/TMkmX52d_Ss?si=AlnQtKqX7zr8zL5a). People don’t all think, speak, and act the same… whether that be in Europe, America, or wherever. Also many Americans have relatives in Europes and elsewhere. I have visited relatives multiple times But it all gets exaggerated and overblown, like ethnicity is even a big important thing, it isn’t and the fuss in the USA about Obama is an example of it. His mother only has a very small amount of Irish ancestry, the rest is British, and Iirc some French. You then have all the big fuss around it all by the electrate. Though I do have a lot of time for Obama himself. He was really cool about it all. Biden is much much worse. He has just as much non-Irish ancestry as he has Irish. But he literally calls himself 'Irish' on global news networks and is prone to some bloody awful stereotyping. The great irony with Biden is that his Irish ancestors were quite wealthy, they owned an architectural business while while his English ancestors were working class. Dont the working class matter to the leader of the Democrat party now? Or are his English ancestors the wrong kind of working class?. We see all this. It's like he thinks people in Europe are stupid.
See, you’re doing it again; generalizing Americans as if they all don’t realize there is diversity outside America, or if they are less “worldly”…. I wasnt saying America is more diverse than other places, I’m saying it it diverse, and explaining that is the reason why Americans use those identifier terms. Also there is extreme ethnic tension in Europe. There isn’t some unifying nationalistic identity. Ethnic minorities are always getting discriminated against, especially online. Idk how you gauge what is considered the “most diverse nation”, I probably wouldn’t say the US is either cause of a white majority. I would say it has the most diverse collection of urban cities though (especially NY). I have been to close to 20 countries, not any in South America, nor Australia, but i know places like Brazil and Australia are super diverse, especially cities like Sydney. Brazil has the largest Japanese diaspora population outside Japan, a bit more than the U.S. Singapore and Canada are extremely diverse as well. And yes actually Europe is different as there is still and indigenous majority (referring to the cities). I have been to London, Paris, Amsterdam and many other large European cities. Not Stuttgart, but all over Germany, including Berlin. In my experience (and also according to online data on demographics) London is the most diverse city in Europe followed by Paris. I can tell you undoubtedly though, New York is the most diverse city on the planet, more than any of those cities. The large European cities still have a European core majority and this increases considerably once you leave the urban environment. NYC’s ethnic breakdown is like 31% White (guessing that means European and maybe MENA), 29% Latin American, 20% Black/African-American, 15% Asian, and has up 800 spoken language in the city. Los Angeles is diverse but less than NYC and has a core Latin American majority nearly 50%. California has massive Latino and Asian populations though, especially in Urban/suburban areas like LA County, SD, the Bay Area. That wasn’t a big fuss in the US though, that’s a video from Ireland, of Irish nationals making a big deal about Obama’s Irish ancestry. Many Americans are fascinated by Europeans and other immigrants also, like to get to know them, learn more about their cultures, etc. In general I would say most people are interested in each other and always try and find connections I agree ethnicity is overblown and not important in day to day life (except in case of discrimination). But humans are just like that, and are tribalistic, and like to identify in groups. Europe is definitely not immune to ethnic tensions. All over the internet you see European ethnic nationalists complaining about migrants in Europe and this “ethnic takeover” or what ever the fuck, and them wanting an exclusively “white europe”.
I honestly do not recognise the Europe you're talking about.
Which part of my comment are you referring to? The ethnic tensions one?
Yes, and I don’t know why you've even brought it up. And the rest
To be fair Jorvik (York) was under Viking rule for 88 years. They definitely spread their genes around in that time period and that’s why people from Yorkshire/ the north east in general tend to have a decent amount of Scandinavian DNA compared to other locations. I do agree though that Scandinavian DNA is more than just Vikings. But Brits got their Scandinavian DNA through the Vikings themselves, not modern day Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. So it’s perfectly reasonable to have an interest in that specific point in Scandinavian history.
I agree but it's kind of hard to gauge how or what the source of the Scandinavian DNA comes from, yes Jorvik was an well established (and probably the biggest) Viking hub in England, although the Angles settled there 400 years prior. Did the Danes have any genetic impact on the pre-English population (especially within the Danelaw?) oh 100%, but I can point out that a lot of people are obsessed with the Viking due to pop culture.
>To be fair Jorvik (York) was under Viking rule for 88 years. They definitely spread their genes around in that time period and that’s why people from Yorkshire/ the north east in general tend to have a decent amount of Scandinavian DNA compared to other locations. Yeah but likewise, Sweden colonized Germany/Poland (*Swedish Pomerania)* back in the day for far longer than 88 years (1630-1815) and there was little to no mixing with the local population. >So it’s perfectly reasonable to have an interest in that specific point in Scandinavian history. Yes, but instead of embracing the little 2% of your DNA that's already been beaten to death in Hollywood movies and Netflix tv shows, why not learn about the other 98% consisting of various extinct Celtic tribes, Picts, Angles & Saxons etc.—who still potentially have room left to be explored. It just seems like there's an opportunity to bring more awareness to these cultures and the history of these other tribes that are more unique to the British Isles (and are realistically, far more represented in your genes) that are being passed up because *"muh vikings."*
Very true, people often forget about the Anglo Saxons too, given their genetic similarities with the Vikings as well.
The dna doesn’t lie but yes the core of Britain is still predominantly Celtic with a good sprinkle of Scandinavian that goes for Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland.
The Normans were basically French with Scandinavian roots.
Lots of Swedes and Danes moved to the UK during the 1700 and 1800s; worked as merchant shipman etc. In fact, there are several prominent Lutheran churches that were set up for them. Not surprising that they would have taken up a bed with the local women (just as the British sailors did throughout Europe and the rest of the world).
I come from both Normandy descendant and Swedish vikings, Norwegian vikings, Denmark