Vikings arrived in Ireland when the population was in serious decline

Jovialis

Advisor
Messages
9,528
Reaction score
6,246
Points
113
Location
New York Metropolitan Area
Ethnic group
Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R-PF7566 (R-Y227216)
mtDNA haplogroup
H6a1b7
New research has found that the population of Ireland was in decline for almost 200 years before the Vikings settled.

The research from Queen's University Belfast's School of Natural and Built Environment is the first of its kind and has been published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.


Previously it was thought that the population of Ireland gradually increased over the years. However, the researchers have found that the population was in serious decline for almost two centuries before the Vikings migrated.

Using rigorous archaeological data science algorithms, the experts have released an estimate of past population numbers. The data shows the importance of migration as without the Vikings, the population decline could have been much worse.

Dr. Rowan McLaughlin, Research Fellow from the School of Natural and Built Environment, explains: "Millions of people lived in Ireland during prehistory and the earliest Christian times.

"Around the year 700, this population in Ireland mysteriously entered a decline, perhaps because of war, famine, plague or political unrest. However, there was no single cause or one-off event, as the decline was a gradual process."

He adds: "The Vikings settled in Ireland in the tenth century, during the phase of decline and despite being few in number, they were more successful than the 'natives' in expanding their population. Today, genetic evidence suggests many Irish people have some Viking blood."

For the study, the researchers used a database of archaeological sites discovered during the "Celtic Tiger' years, when there was a boom in motorway building and other development in Ireland.

Developers are required by law to employ archaeologists to record sites before they are destroyed. This allowed the researchers to access information that was not previously available.

Dr. McLaughlin commented: "This large database has opened up a completely new perspective on the past that we simply could not obtain any other way."

Emma Hannah is the lead author of the paper and is taking the work further with her Ph.D. research. She explains: "Often in archaeology we are focused on interpreting the evidence from a single site, but analyzing quantities of data in this way allows us to think about the long term. Now we know these broad trends, we can better understand the details of everyday life."


https://phys.org/news/2019-08-vikings-ireland-population-decline.html
 
Perhaps where the red hair comes from?

So, no ethnic group in Europe is precisely the same as they were in the Bronze Age.
 
Perhaps where the red hair comes from?

So, no ethnic group in Europe is precisely the same as they were in the Bronze Age.

That's a good possibility, I would guess. Irish people have an interesting array of phenotypes. One of my Irish friends looks like he could be a true Viking. He is blonde, though. Then there are others that look more Mediterranean, like General Michael Flynn.

Also, it is true it seems, no one group is the same as they were in the Bronze-Age.
 
I don't understand.

Haplogroup-R1b-L21.png


80 % of Irish have R1b-L21 Y-DNA which is British Celtic, not Viking.
 
My mtdna, which came from Ireland in the person of my maternal grandmother's maternal grandmother, is also found in Denmark. Viking women, eh? That would explain my sister.
 
I don't understand.

Haplogroup-R1b-L21.png


80 % of Irish have R1b-L21 Y-DNA which is British Celtic, not Viking.

Do we know how much U-106 is in Ireland, and I1, bicicleur? Is it found more so around areas of undoubted Viking settlement like Dublin perhaps?

Then there are the women to consider, as Joey has already pointed out.

I don't know what percentages they're talking about.

The paper seems to be behind a paywall.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440318304977?via=ihub
 
if r1b-L21 is 80 % (acoording to Maciamo) there is only 20 % left for other
and the women, their fathers or brothers also have 80 % r1b-L21
the Vikings, it was not particularly an invasion of women

80 % r1b-L21 does not correspond to a dwindling population in Ireland before arrival of the Vikings, as the authors suggest
there would have been an almost total replacement of Y-DNA in favor of I1 and r1b-U106, as we have witnessed in other migration events
 
I don't know, Bicicleur. I didn't get the impression they were talking about a total or near total replacement event. What I got from it is that there are "some" signs of Scandinavian genetic intrusion at that time.
 
I strongly doubt that.

On the other hand, modern Norwegians have significant British-Irish admixture:

A recent study with ancient (Pre-Viking) Norwegian samples indicates that there is actually more of British-Irish admixture in modern Norway, than the other way around (than of Norwegian admixture in Britain-Ireland).

Quote from the study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/703405v1

"(...) The genetic impacts are stronger in the other direction [from Britain/Ireland to Scandinavia]. The ?British-like? populations of Orkney became ?Scandinavian? culturally, whilst other British populations found themselves in Iceland and Norway, and beyond. Present-day Norwegians vary between 12 and 25% in their ?British-like? ancestry (...)"


This is based on comparing Pre-Viking Norwegians (who still did not have such admixture!) to modern Norwegians (who have it).

This was obvious even before we had any autosomal data, it is enough to see how much of R1b-L21 there is in Western Norway.

On the other hand, the Irish have probably 5-10% up to 15% of Viking admixture (various studies estimated 5-20%, but the highest figure of 20% was based on a model assuming that modern Norwegians are 0% British and therefore any similarity to Norwegians detected in the Irish must be due to Viking admixture in Ireland, not British-Irish admixture in Norway - an assumption proven wrong thanks to ancient DNA from Norway).

=====

Results which show that Norwegians have more Irish-British admixture than the other way around seem counter-intuitive at first but they are actually very easy to explain - Viking Age Norway had very few people, still much fewer than Ireland, even if Ireland had experienced a demohraphic decline shortly before that.

1000 Irish moving to Norway would make a greater impact on Norway's autosomal gene pool, than even 2000 Norwegians moving to Ireland - simply because Ireland had few times more inhabitants.

I think that a major source of British admixture in Norway could also be Orkney Vikings, Western Isles Vikings and Norse-Gaels etc. moving back to Scandinavia. Those Vikings were only culturally Norse. Most of Orkney Islanders are autosomally British with relatively minor Norse ancestry, but culturally and linguistically they are Norse. And if such people moved back to Scandinavia, this explains why they spread this admixture.
 
So, no ethnic group in Europe is precisely the same as they were in the Bronze Age.

Italians from Bergamo cluster with the Bronze Age samples from nearby Dalmatia in Global25:

(from my own research, North-East Italians from Veneto are also similar to those Dalmatians)

26jAzAY.png


^^^ Here are the three Dalmatia_BA samples in question:

VJStH6x.png


=====

Edit:

Could it indicate that ancient Venetic peoples were closely related to ancient Illyrians?:

(or maybe those 3 Bronze Age Dalmatians were ancestors of Venetic ethnic groups?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnians - were Liburnians related to Venetic groups?

800px-Iron_Age_Italy.svg.png
 
Italians from Bergamo cluster with the Bronze Age samples from nearby Dalmatia in Global25:

(from my own research, North-East Italians from Veneto are also similar to those Dalmatians)

26jAzAY.png


^^^ Here are the three Dalmatia_BA samples in question:

VJStH6x.png


=====

Edit:

Could it indicate that ancient Venetic peoples were closely related to ancient Illyrians?:

(or maybe those 3 Bronze Age Dalmatians were ancestors of Venetic ethnic groups?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnians - were Liburnians related to Venetic groups?

800px-Iron_Age_Italy.svg.png


No group is the same as they were in the Bronze age. I recall there was a paper that showed there was an extra East Asian migration in Eastern, and North Eastern Europe that came after the Bronze-Age.

cKG1UoH.png


For example, Estonians plot right on top of their Bronze-age ancestors. But their Autosomal make-up is different.
 
There was a Genetic survey of the Irish, published only a few years ago that indicated, that the modern people of Ireland show very little 'Viking DNA'.

Despite the Viking established trade towns of Dublin, Waterford, Wexford etc, very little confirmed Viking DNA was actually found in the Irish people tested and living there.

" The vikings left little impact on Ireland, other than towns, and certain words added to the Irish Language"

The 'Norse Vikings' were expelled from Ireland, from at least 918 AD onwards, many settled in Northern, and Western parts of England, and other parts of Britain.

These Norse/Irish Vikings left a legacy, different from the traditional Danish Vikings settled in the North of England. This difference can still be traced today by their Settlement's having distinctive, and additional 'Norse/Irish elements' in there naming.
 
There was a Genetic survey of the Irish, published only a few years ago that indicated, that the modern people of Ireland show very little 'Viking DNA'.

Despite the Viking established trade towns of Dublin, Waterford, Wexford etc, very little confirmed Viking DNA was actually found in the Irish people tested and living there.

" The vikings left little impact on Ireland, other than towns, and certain words added to the Irish Language"

The 'Norse Vikings' were expelled from Ireland, from at least 918 AD onwards, many settled in Northern, and Western parts of England, and other parts of Britain.

These Norse/Irish Vikings left a legacy, different from the traditional Danish Vikings settled in the North of England. This difference can still be traced today by their Settlement's having distinctive, and additional 'Norse/Irish elements' in there naming.

Yes, I know, but this is a genetics test too, and they claim they found some. Somewhere I read they're talking about 5-15%. I haven't read the methodology carefully, so I couldn't tell you if they're on to something.
 
Yes, I know, but this is a genetics test too, and they claim they found some. Somewhere I read they're talking about 5-15%. I haven't read the methodology carefully, so I couldn't tell you if they're on to something.

They might well be, but I think there should be a lot more, as it is a main seaway use, and there must also be some Viking Dna, added by the AngloNorman settlements, and later.

It should not be too long, before they separate all the Haplogroups into finer subclades and really tell us what is going on.

I noticed YFull M Tree recently, has updated, and is indicating possibly a lot of new information has become available as they have changed quite a lot of the branches and Sub clades of their M tree.
 
Last edited:
Somewhere I read they're talking about 5-15%.

Yes, that's correct. But surely a more unexpected find is that Norwegians are more British/Irish than the other way around!:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/17/703405.full.pdf

^^^ From page 16/36 of the PDF paper:

"(...) The genetic impacts are stronger in the other direction [from the British Isles into Scandinavia]. The ?British-like? populations of Orkney became ?Scandinavian? culturally, whilst other British populations found themselves in Iceland and Norway, and beyond. Present-day Norwegians vary between 12 and 25% in their ?British-like? ancestry (...)"

Or do you think this excerpt will disappear from the final version of the publication, after peer-review? Thoughts? Comments?

No group is the same as they were in the Bronze age. I recall there was a paper that showed there was an extra East Asian migration in Eastern, and North Eastern Europe that came after the Bronze-Age.
Siberian (Nganasan-like), not East Asian, but the rest is correct.

Of course. And the paper you mentioned found out that N1c haplogroup was brought into Europe together with that Nganasan admixture. I remember few years ago everyone thought that N1c was more native to areas such as North Sweden, Estonia or Latvia than R1a - this has been disproven. Nganasan admixture and N brought Uralic languages into formerly Indo-European speaking (Corded Ware) and mainly R1a territories:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30424-5

I think it shows that this theory (link below) about recent expansion of Finno-Ugric languages was correct:

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomensynty.html
 
So, no ethnic group in Europe is precisely the same as they were in the Bronze Age.

Actually most of modern ethnic groups did not even exist in the Bronze Age - at least not in the Early Bronze Age.

I think between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Middle Ages is when ethnicities as we know them formed.

And Ireland could indeed receive additional gene flows from the continent in times between Beakers and Vikings.

=====

E.g. Poles formed in the 900s AD as a union of tribes and I don't think our genetics has changed much since then:

 
Actually most of modern ethnic groups did not even exist in the Bronze Age - at least not in the Early Bronze Age.

I think between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Middle Ages is when ethnicities as we know them formed.

And Ireland could indeed receive additional gene flows from the continent in times between Beakers and Vikings.

=====

E.g. Poles formed in the 900s AD as a union of tribes and I don't think our genetics has changed much since then:


I would say around that time for us as well, perhaps 1000 AD in Sicily? I know there were people in my father's mountain villages by that time, and they haven't gone anywhere or mixed since then. Well, not until the 1920s when the first road went in. Now a lot of them are scattered.

Not a lot of change in most of Italy from 400 BC to the present for Italy, however, if Coop knows what he's talking about, and I think he does.
 
From the new study, about County Donegal:

"The researchers were also able to analyse the county of Donegal in more detail than before, revealing it as the most genetically isolated region of Ireland observed to date. This isolation shows little evidence of the migrations that have impacted the rest of Ulster."

^^^
Here is an Irish with 100% ancestry from County Donegal in K36 Similtude map, very isolated indeed (no similarities over 85 except for Irish average itself):

https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/similitude.htm

Q78kwHE.png


^^^
And for comparison Irish 100% from County Donegal in Eurogenes K15:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Sea 36.44
2 Atlantic 35.98
3 Eastern_Euro 9.61
4 Baltic 7.79
5 West_Med 7.19
6 West_Asian 2.34
7 Amerindian 0.61
8 South_Asian 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 West_Scottish 5.52
2 Irish 5.78

3 Southeast_English 6.35
4 Orcadian 6.97
5 Southwest_English 7.69
6 Danish 8.21
7 North_Dutch 8.87
8 North_German 9.92
9 South_Dutch 11.49
10 West_Norwegian 12.02
11 Norwegian 12.23
12 Swedish 13.77
13 West_German 14.34
14 French 15.14
15 North_Swedish 15.91
16 East_German 18.17
17 Southwest_Finnish 19.77
18 Spanish_Cataluna 20.75
19 Austrian 21.18
20 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 21.91


Mixed Mode Population Sharing:


# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 88.9% West_Scottish + 11.1% French_Basque @ 4.55
2 90.7% Irish + 9.3% French_Basque @ 5.18
3 93.8% West_Scottish + 6.2% Spanish_Aragon @ 5.31
4 84.7% Orcadian + 15.3% French_Basque @ 5.31
5 94.4% West_Scottish + 5.6% Southwest_French @ 5.37
6 95% West_Scottish + 5% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 5.39
7 95.1% West_Scottish + 4.9% Spanish_Cantabria @ 5.41
8 95.7% West_Scottish + 4.3% Spanish_Valencia @ 5.43
9 97% West_Scottish + 3% Spanish_Andalucia @ 5.47
10 97.6% West_Scottish + 2.4% Spanish_Murcia @ 5.5
11 98% West_Scottish + 2% Spanish_Cataluna @ 5.51
12 98.2% West_Scottish + 1.8% Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon @ 5.51
13 98.7% West_Scottish + 1.3% Spanish_Extremadura @ 5.51
14 100% West_Scottish + 0% Abhkasian @ 5.52
15 100% West_Scottish + 0% Adygei @ 5.52
16 100% West_Scottish + 0% Afghan_Hazara @ 5.52
17 100% West_Scottish + 0% Afghan_Pashtun @ 5.52
18 100% West_Scottish + 0% Afghan_Tadjik @ 5.52
19 100% West_Scottish + 0% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.52
20 100% West_Scottish + 0% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 5.52
 
Back
Top