That's a very interesting article, Vee. My mother's maiden name was Duncan and family oral history said they were of Scottish descent, but my aunt who really dug into genealogy found who she thought was the first of our ancestors to arrive in the colonies c. late 1600s and he came from Ireland. We now suspect he was a transplanted Scot.

Fascinating article. I loved the line, "Britons have proved champions at staying put." I've done a lot of New England genealogy and quite a bit of my husband's family excelled at staying put (I think he's related to pretty much everybody in New Hampshire). One side of the family moved between Maine and Canada for decades, it would be interesting to see the genetic markers overlapping there.

Both my DH and I had our DNA tested via Ancestry, and though I've traced almost all his lines back to England/Scotland, his results came back with a lot of Scandinavian DNA. It would be interesting to compare the specific points of English origin I do have (and I don't have very many) with the Viking invasion maps.

Once I managed all the rigmarole that I have to do to follow links, I was glad to see the very good maps. I have read most of the substance of the text in various books, but the maps were always lacking something. These maps make things much clearer. Thanks, Vee!

I've never been able to explain my affinity for the UK. As far as I know, I have no ancestors who came directly from England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, but three (or four) of the seventeen genetic groups represented in the UK (found in the Oxford study) are also well represented in my own ancestry: Anglo-Saxons, Norse Viking, and French. Possibly it's no wonder that I've always been fascinated especially with Yorkshire and the Hebrides.

Fascinating! I will be studying this for a while. Unlike the people tested in Great Britain, Americans travel constantly and despite their uneasiness on the topic, mix constantly. It would really be interesting to see a similar map of the United States.

Recently I had DNA ancestry testing done through Ancestry.com to see whether or not the beloved family legend of a Native American Indian ancestor were true. It could be. My earliest ancestors (father's mother's people) were in America in the early 1600's with another group in Canada in the 1700's. My mother's side also arrived in the 1700's. Alas, it was not so. I was told that a sibling might get slightly different results because he or she might have inherited a different portion of our common genes.

My results showed me to be 41% Irish, 34% Scandinavian, and 14% from Great Britain (does this mean Anglo-Saxon?), along with bits and pieces of other regions. I'm pretty sure that the Scandinavians were Vikings since they were heavily present in the parts of England where my family originated. But perhaps they were Norman English, who were only a few generations from the Vikings themselves. No Scottish, though I know for a fact that I have Scottish ancestors from several different sources. If I read this article correctly, my Scottish ancestors probably showed up as Irish. The "other regions" were intriguing. 3% Iberian Peninsula! Spanish sailors shipwrecked on the Irish coast? Who knows? 3% Finland/ Northwest Russia. I have no idea where that comes from. Then there is the 1% North African/Middle Eastern. I am imagining a Roman soldier in early Britain with an Egyptian slave. I cannot imagine how else it could happen, but the past truly does have its mysteries.

But sad to say, no Indian ancestors. Too bad. I had even figured out a place in the family tree where it might have happened.

Rosefolly

What seems interesting is that this latest research is more precise and less wooly than previous information.
From what I understand we are now told that there is very little evidence of DNA from the Roman, Viking or Norman 'settlements'. Possibly caused by the true 'Romans' just being those 'in charge/in top jobs' with their underlings coming from the vast reaches of the Empire. The lack of Viking traces, even in areas known to have been raped/pillaged/laid waste by them seems more surprising. I would have thought there would have been evidence at least along all the coastlines around the North of Britain and Ireland.
We ie. the common-folk, are unlikely to have many Norman ancestors. Again they came, conquered, laid waste to the North and dwelt in castles. They never mixed with the common herd (from which this DNA is largely taken) so I guess to find traces of their genes one would need to 'test' the aristocracy!
nb. when you see 'Irish' on the map, it doesn't refer to the modern people of the Republic of Ireland or even the geographical unit of Ireland, but to the ancient 'tribe' who are confusingly also called Scots . . . and appear to have been quite different from the Picts . .. or the Celts.
One comment I couldn't get my heard round (might have been on another thing I read) was that before the ice age ie. how ever many thousands of years ago, there was no one in what we now call the British Isles. Why not? There was a land-link with the Continent. In the shallow seas of the English Channel/North Sea remains of tools, bones etc have come up in fishing nets, I always understood they were pre-iceage.
It would have been interesting to take part in the survey but I am only three quarters English and one of those grandmothers came from more than 50 miles away from my 'Midlands of England' roots. My other quarter is American, mostly from English stock and judging by my grandfather being a Zimmerman, also from Germany.

Diversity of Celtic Groups

Vee, the DNA findings are so complex that short articles barely skim the surface and condensing explanations is not easy. Even the longer books leave out a lot. Also, this is such a fast-changing subject that it's hard to keep up with the new information being discovered. But I think reading the books of Barry Cunliffe, Stephen Oppenheimer, Chris Stringer, J. P. Mallory, Bryan Sykes, Steven Mithen and others helps to fill in some of the holes in coverage, so to speak.

Most of those writers start before the Last Glacial Period which ended about 12,000 years before the present. During the Last Glacial Maximum about two-thirds of the British Isles and Ireland was covered by the thick ice sheet. I have forgotten where the front of the ice sheet ended, but south of the face was tundra that was much like what is in Siberia now. All people and most animals had fled the region and it remained uninhabited until the ice began to melt and first the animals and then the people following the animals moved back. But before the last Ice Age there were people in what was the extreme northwest of the Eurasian continent, as evidenced by the Red 'Lady' of Paviland (about 33,000 years old), the cave painters of Creswell Crags, and the older (not sure about the younger) Cheddar Gorge man, etc. There's also evidence of Neanderthals in places (such as caves) that the ice didn't manage to scour clean (the last Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago in what is now Spain).

Doggerland remained dry until about 6500 to 6200 BC (about 8500 years before the present), some 4000 to 6000 years after the last (big) ice age ended. It flooded rather gradually (in people terms but not geologic ones), from what I understand.

I wanted to write more but I am being called to family duty. Maybe we can continue later. I hope. :-)

Frieda, very interesting info. I know little about that vast chilly period . . . am on firmer and less slippery ground with rather more 'modern' history, though I had heard of the 'Red Lady' find. I understand that the 'total' ice covering of the UK petered out roughly where we live . . . a diagonal line between the rivers Severn and Trent . .. to the SE the winters were sub zero and the summers just above freezing. Anything North of the line had endless years of cold (rather as you in the Eastern US/Canada have suffered this last winter. ;-(
How Much Cold Can you Take?
Just found the article above from the BBC with more 'surviving the Ice Age' theories.
My 'family duties' . . . other than housework and quite caveman-like . . . have been to spend the afternoon lighting and tending an overlarge bonfire while we enjoy a spell of dry weather. You can probably smell the smoke from where you are.

Warning, Vee! Our local enviro sniffers may show up at your front door to tell you that they have detected a bonfire emanating from your premises. No matter that you are in another country and half a world away. Our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a ban on the use of barbecue grills, charcoal- and gas-burning. Fat chance of that actually happening, but our local gooberment has already tried to put the kibosh on wood-burning fireplaces. If this kind of thinking goes global what, for instance, will the Australians do if they can't put "shrimp on the barbie"?

I read somewhere that after 20 generations (if one generation is estimated at 25 years that means about 500 years), the chances of anyone having actual DNA from an ancestor before then are astronomical. Well, I can understand the process of dilution and we are naturally going to have a larger percentage of our DNA from more recent ancestors, but I still haven't found a really comprehensible explanation (thus more easily re-explained by and to non-scientists) of how the scientists know that, as the Oxford study seems to indicate, that they can tell a lot about our ancestry even further back from 500 years (20 generations). Did you pick up on an explanation, Vee (or anyone), in your reading or education?

Well, I hope I didn't completely flabbergast everyone with the inarticulateness of my second paragraph in my previous post. It indicates my confusion, though. Sometimes when I don't feel I have a complete grasp of a concept, if I attempt to write it out -- no matter how tortured it seems -- perhaps I can work it out in my mind.

What instigated this is Rosefolly's account of her Ancestry.com DNA test results, as well as Sheri's results that she related in a previous thread. Rosefolly mentions that her results do not indicate that she had a Native American ancestor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she did not have one; it's only that through random selection she did not receive genes from a particular possible ancestor. The further back that possible ancestor lived (generation-wise), the less likely she would have got his/her genes. But as she said, it's possible that one or more of her siblings could have Native American genes show up in their DNA analysis results. Thank you, Rosefolly; I hope you don't mind that I used you as an example. Did I mirror what you know and understand accurately enough?

Okay, and then we get to the Oxford study that Vee gave the link for. Some of the DNA results are indicating the absence of certain DNA genes -- such as that of Normans, Vikings, etc. that are known to have settled, intermarried, raped, or otherwise interbred with the locals but their DNA doesn't show up. Perhaps, because this began a lot longer ago than 20 generations, that DNA had become diluted (so to speak) or nonexistent in some, but perhaps not all, descendants. Am I making better sense?

I can understand the absence of Roman DNA, as in Roman from Rome, because a lot of the so-called Roman soldiers actually originated elsewhere in the empire, as Vee mentioned. I remember that the 20th Legion in Roman Britain was actually manned by Germanic tribes. Thus, this brings up the distinct possibility that there were Angles and Saxons in Britain even before they decided to move in after the Romans left. How can the pre- and post-Roman Angles and Saxons be distinguished? Barry Cunliffe, archaeologist and writer, thinks the Germanic tribes were already in Britain long before the Romans invaded.

Frieda re DNA I have never read anything about it in detail nor was it more than a faint twinkle in the eye of the scientific community when I was at school/college. I can appreciate that DNA is stronger (if that word makes sense) from less remote generations but don't understand the theory . . . using Rosefolly's possible Native American connection . . . what is the reason that some DNA might show up in one family member but not in another?

An interesting idea of Cuncliffe's (he was big way back in the day at Birmingham Uni. a city in which I studied 'though not in his place of learning!) that Germanic peoples could have been here before the Romans, or, for that matter, groups could have arrived during the 400 years the Romans were 'in charge'. If there had been no mass 'invasion' a few boats/long ships could have made their way to the coast undetected. And I suppose the traffic must have gone in both directions with some simple trade taking place.

...what is the reason that some DNA might show up in one family member but not in another?

Random selection, Vee. Otherwise known as The Genetic Lottery. Even amongst full siblings, no two individuals (except identical twins) will receive exactly the same set of genes from their parents -- some genes that could be inherited will be omitted or lost in the recombination process that creates the new individual.

Thanks Frieda, obvious when one thinks about it. Somehow I thought that 'ancient' genes would be 'fixed'.

Vee, it seems that the ancient genes must be 'fixed' in some way. How else can they be known? How can they be dated, read, interpreted, etc.?

I wish DNA studies had been around when I was at college and university. I definitely would have taken classes. I suppose I still could; but since the opportunity to make a career of it has passed for me, I probably won't. However, as an autodidact I can follow this wonderful subject to my heart's content. That is until something else comes along and diverts my interest. There will always be something, I hope. :-)

If I remember correctly, Barry Cunliffe stirred the hornet's nest by saying the Celts in Britain were only legend and myth. He would accept the term 'Celtic' as linguistic and cultural description, but he didn't believe the Celts were a distinct group of people in Britain. Yes in Gaul but not in Britain. I always thought his arguments made a lot of sense if one was seeking reality and not fantasy. Nothing wrong with fantasy, though, as long as fantasy and facts can be distinguished. More and more of the DNA studies seem to be vindicating Cunliffe's view.

I know a few people who are hostile to the study of DNA, mostly the ethical aspects. Also, I suppose there will always be people who will try to turn anything into human one-upmanship: " My ancestors squatted in such-and-such place longer than your ancestors did. Mine are better than yours. Our DNA says so. Neh-neh-neh." That sort of thing. Unfortunately.

I checked out on-line the latest book by Cunliffe and have to face the fact that I will never have time to sit down and do more than glance at such a heavy tome, however interesting/informative; so I have made-do with this summary
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/07/britain-begins-barry-cunliffe-review

I too have often wondered about all the ballyhoo surrounding all things Celtic especially, it might be said, from the western side of the Pond where the cheerleaders for the cause twirl their batons so enthusiastically. These latest DNA results add weight to Cunliff's argument that their is little evidence of a genetically united Celtic peoples. Often the Celtic yea-sayers are the same people who truly believe in King Arthur, Robin Hood and associated myths where a small amount of truth has been built into something of super-hero proportions.

Vee, I have several of Cunliffe's books, including the one reviewed at The Guardian site. They are beautifully produced -- quality paper, profusely illustrated with photos, etc. -- and Cunliffe's text is nicely broken up between the photos and diagrams and is never overpowering. I find them to be perfect for 'thumbing' through. Just looking at the photos makes me want to hop on the next flight to the UK. But I don't like his maps, mainly because there aren't enough of them. However, because you are undoubtedly more familiar with the geography and all the place names discussed, you probably don't need the maps as much as I do.

I didn't realize just how much some folk cherish the idea of Celtishness until I witnessed how blazing mad they get if the idea is questioned. It reminds me of the identity-of-Shakespeare debate. :-)

Are you as intrigued by the following as I am?

But we have not learnt everything. In fact, our research has revealed a great mystery. We found evidence of another major wave of migrations, very likely over many hundreds of years, about which effectively nothing is known. It is probably the biggest single contributor to DNA now in England and much of Scotland, but it has had no impact on Wales. It must have occurred later than the earliest migrations, because unlike those ones the DNA hasn’t spread everywhere. But it doesn’t match any of the migrations we know from history. -- Professor Peter Donnelly (from The Telegraph article 'The secret history of Britain is in our genes')

Good grief! It's one thing to pique a reader's interest, but Donnelly has succeeded in torturing me. Does anyone have a guess for the 'mystery migration' he's talking about?

Yes Frieda, I too had been surprised at Donnelly's comments about these bits of DNA that don't seem to fit with anything . . . presumably
anywhere. Surely some Eurasian match must be out there somewhere? He doesn't make it clear if this 'extra' DNA is of one type (probably the incorrect words but I hope you know what I mean .-) ) or from several sources ie. places in the Ancient World.

Sheri, if you are out there you might be interested in the link I added a couple of posts above from the guardian.

And on a more up-to-date DNA theme have any of you been following the finding and about-to-be-reburied body of Richard III? Remarkable that a) they could pin-point his burial place so accurately and b) he did indeed have some curvature of the spine. Even more amazing is all the ballyhoo that is going on with thousands watching his body being brought to Leicester (led by mounted and armoured 'knights') and now queuing to get into the Cathedral.
It has all led to some heated discussions about whether he should have been reburied in York (as Duke of York) but Leicester, where he was found won that round. Also some people feel he should have an RC burial as he would have been of that denomination, but the C of E say the service will be indistinguishable from the original except in English rather than Latin.
Certainly all good for the City of Leicester and way more romantic than its tradition of hosiery manufacture.

Richard 111 watch video

I've not read Cunliffe, but had read in other sources that the so-called "Celts" of Wales and Ireland were well related to the peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, going back centuries. One can still see Spanish folk today with the fair, freckled skin of the Irish, quite common in North Spain. From my readings, these early peoples were quite adept at building primitive vessels (the Irish curagh?) and sailing around the various islands and entering sea coasts of Western Europe. Ancient peoples were always coming and going, seeking new lands, new adventures, even desireous of capturing slaves, so it is quite possible that Germanic peoples were in Britain long before the Romans, and long before the Saxons, etc.

Vee, thanks, I just read the article this morning, the book sounds fascinating. I had never heard of either the "Red Lady" or the Sweet Track specifically, though the latter may have had a mention in book I read about Lindow Man.

I've also been following the Richard III story. What an incredible find, and even more incredible, DNA evidence to support it. I've also enjoyed checking out the "what did he look like?" reconstructions based on new access to his skull.

And I also felt like I was left hanging after the sweeping statement about the mystery migration. We found evidence of another major wave of migrations, very likely
over many hundreds of years, about which effectively nothing is known.
It is probably the biggest single contributor to DNA now in England and
much of Scotland, but it has had no impact on Wales. I'd love to know more. And how did the Welsh avoid this?

I recently read an article (and I wish I could remember where) that explained how despite receiving 50% of your DNA from each parent, you don't inherit equal amounts of your grandparent's DNA (I'd not thought much about it, but it surprised me). Which of course ties back to random selection and explains losing genetic markers after a certain number of generations.

Like Rosefolly, my husband's father's family had a legend that his 4th great grandmother was full-blooded Native American (it even wound up mentioned in a genealogy book, The Cram Sourcebook, as an aside to the family tree). On his mother's side, there was also rumor that another 2nd great-grandmother was Native American (though she identified as white on the 1870 US Census). Having looked at his DNA results (totally English/Irish and Scandinavian) and having found a photograph of one of these women, we concluded that this was legend and not fact, especially as the DNA in question would have been within 4-6 generations, not the 20 mentioned earlier, so I have to assume any Native American DNA would have shown up in his results. But maybe I should cajole his brother into having his DNA tested, as well ...?

After reading through this thread, I do wish I understood all this genetic stuff better! Frieda, your questions about how the DNA analysis can reveal ancient origins is an excellent one. If 20 generations is enough to knock out an ancestor's DNA, how can the DNA analysis tell me where my family originated 3,000 years ago? I wish I had the drive and focus to really educate myself about this, but at the moment I just don't.

We have a new puppy so my computer time has been vastly reduced over the past couple of days, but I am following this thread with
great interest (but only while he's napping ;). If I'm missing around here for a bit, I'm busy making
sure the new addition isn't chewing up my kitchen table legs or eating the dish towels.

There are a couple of types of DNA tests. One is autosomal which shows both parents DNA but only goes back maybe 7 generations or so. Then it pretty much gets diluted out. Another is the test for haplogroups, the tribe you originally came from. That one does not change over thousands of years, but there are mutations so it does change a little. To get that test you have to order mitochondrial DNA for women, and Y DNA for men. With the men, the haplogroup of both parents lines can be shown. Women, only their female line. My haplogroup is K1c1. It started out being plain K, but with mutations, they add on letters and numbers. I hear they are changing what different haplogroups are called, as it was getting too complicated, so they are simplifying it. Parents give each of their children exactly half of their DNA. That means there is half that didn`t get passed on, so siblings can vary in what DNA they have picked up. Only identical twins have the same exact DNA. Grandparents are different in that after the first generation, their DNA mixes, so you might be 46% grandpa Tom and 54% grandma Gertrude. I have a very small amount of Algonquin DNA going back to 1650 or so, which I knew from family history and found out it was true. You might google Roberta Estes and read some of her blogs.

Another thing they are now proving is Neanderthals didn`t die out. 23andme includes a test for % of Neanderthal, and around 2% to maybe 3% is the norm. Europeans and Asians have it, but people coming from Africa and coming straight to America do not, as they never were in Europe to mate with neanderthals. RoseFolly, I don`t know if I am allowed to say this, but you can transfer your raw DNA over from ancestry, 23andme, or family Tree DNA, to a free site called Gedmatch.com. It gives you a better breakdown of your genetic back ground, especially small amounts. That`s where I found my small amount of Algonquin Indian.

My goodness beaverfoot, that certainly sounds complicated. Here in the UK I don't think the popularity of DNA testing has caught on . . unless it is for 'paternity testing' in court cases. ;-( Probably because until a couple of hundred years ago most people 'stayed put' as the Oxford tests indicate.
I have often wondered at the upheaval that must have been created when a family or family group decided to up sticks and make the journey to say America/Canada . . . even Australia . . . 'though those early settlers/convicts had little choice in the matter. These must have been people who hardly travelled the few miles to the nearest town on Market Day.
I was reminded of the map (top of article above) showing a lack of Viking influence in the far North of England (Northumbria) and wondered if it may have been because after the Norman Conquest, to prevent rebellion, William I laid waste to the North. His troops murdered everyone, killed the cattle/sheep and burnt all the crops. The few folk still alive walked South although I think there is no record of how many reached safety or if any of them tried to get back North.
We also know that the 'top' families after 1066 were Normans who, for several hundred years made no attempt to fit-in/breed with the Anglo-Saxons. Again this may partly be because virtually all the Anglo-Saxon 'nobility' were wiped out at Hastings.
Did any of you read that when the DNA of possible descendants of Richard III was being sought, a 'kink' was found in his line? Possible some lady had a dalliance with a servant!

Beaverfoot, thanks for the additional info. My haplogroup is U5a2c. I've had my DNA test done through both Ancestry and 23&Me (3% Neanderthal, here) and while the results should have been identical, the way they report various percentages and assign places of origin is a bit different. I will have to take a look at Gedmatch.

Vee, I saw that article about Richard III's line harboring some perhaps-not-so-royal blood. Interesting. It made me think of a scene in the Anne Rice book, Queen of the Damned, in which one character explains why their thousand-year family tree only follows the female lines. She states that there's no point following the male blood lines as only the mother knows the true father of her child, so it's only accurate to use a matriarchal approach. Of course with today's DNA testing, that no longer necessarily applies.

Just heard an interesting 'piece' on BBC radio about a scheme to trace the provenance/history of manuscripts using their DNA. The reasons for undertaking this task is twofold. Firstly to find out what sort of skin the parchment was made from, so by determining the breed of animal used; usually sheep but sometimes goat for 'everyday', calf was used to produce vellum, the most expensive. Secondly to see if the ms was made locally to where it was actually written/used.

And human skin?

Very interesting, Vee.

I just uploaded my Ancestry.com DNA file onto GEDmatch. They suggest that I wait a couple of days for complete processing, which seemed odd to me. However, I am awaiting results. Not sure what I am going to see, but I admit to being curious.

What is odd about that? It takes a few days for them to download your raw DNA. You can do a one to one comparison right away, but the one to many takes a little longer. My kit # is A180584. You can compare yourself to me right away. You can write to anyone that you have a connection to. I know about the first 15 people who I have the closest match to. There are different parts to gedmatch. One part you are comparing your DNA to others related to you. There is a different part called admixtures, where you can look at each of your chromosomes to see your ethinic background. I like to use Eurogenes, as it is supposed to be the best one for native american, which I do have a little of. (Piscataway Indian tribe from Md. back in around 1642), which I knew about from family history. I have some 3rd cousins who I share no match with. They thought that was really strange, but since you only get 1/2 of your DNA from each parent, that leaves 1/2 that you did not get. You will enjoy gedmatch! Who knows, Rosefolly, maybe we are related!

Rosefolly, I can't wait to hear about your results. If I get a little extra cash, I am considering having the test done too so we can compare the results and see how much we share and if we differ by very much.

Beaverfoot, apparently we are not related in any way that GEDmatch could find.

I admit to finding the whole GEDmatch interface confusing after the handholding that AncestryDNA provides. It certainly is giving me different information than AncestryDNA did - including a trace element of American Indian after all.

I find myself wondering what it all means. Which one is accurate?

Ancestry`s DNA is too general. 23andme gives you better info. RoseFolly, if you send me your email address, I will send you a little paper I made up for my relatives, explaining gedmatch, but I don`t claim to be an expert. My email is angelhair359@gmail.com. Gedmatch shows smaller amounts that ancestry or 23andme don`t show. The geneticists like gedmatch a lot! It is confusing until you get used to it. Now none of my family even looks at ancestry`s DNA results but go straight to Gedmatch. pat.

Will do!