Posted by n/a on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:14 | #

You’re promoting misinformation from a decade ago that was outdated when it was originally published. Ancient DNA leaves no doubt the British predominantly descend from post-Neolithic, Indo-European settlers (both pre-Celtic/Celtic and Germanic), not in situ hunter-gatherers.

Posted by In situ hunter gatherers: straw man on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:49 | #

First of all, if the article is stating that the English and other British natives derive primarily from Basques beforehand, how is it that she is saying that they evolved from “in situ hunter gatherers?”

Posted by n/a on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:18 | #

Daniel. Here is what Oppenheimer was claiming (as bolded in the posted excerpt):

“The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.”

The notion was that Basques represented a Paleolithic western European survival. They don’t. Nor do the British have any special connection to Basques. The British (and to a lesser degree, Basques) are descended from late Neolithic / Bronze Age Indo-European invaders.

Your ostensible Asian friend resident in Britain is explaining to the British that they should rest their claims to their own land on the discredited notion that they descend overhwelmingly from the original post-Ice Age inhabitants.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:39 | #

“But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots.”

Now, what am I not understanding?.

.....“Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country.”

 

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:43 | #

n/a on August 03, 2015, wrote:
Ancient DNA leaves no doubt the British predominantly descend from post-Neolithic, Indo-European settlers (both pre-Celtic/Celtic and Germanic)

So what do you think happened to the original people? Also, where’s your proof?

Posted by Still not German on balance on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:05 | #

GW recommended this more recent information from Oxford.

“Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry”

Analysis over 20 years reveals heavy Anglo-Saxon influence, with French and Danish DNA coming from earlier migrations than the Normans or Vikings.

A major genetic study has revealed different genetic clusters across the UK, but overall white Britons share 30% of their DNA with modern Germans.

The Romans, Vikings and Normans may have ruled or invaded the British for hundreds of years, but they left barely a trace on our DNA, the first detailed study of the genetics of British people has revealed.

The analysis shows that the Anglo-Saxons were the only conquering force, around 400-500 AD, to substantially alter the country’s genetic makeup, with most white British people now owing almost 30% of their DNA to the ancestors of modern-day Germans.

People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago.

Prof Peter Donnelly, director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, who co-led the research, said: “It has long been known that human populations differ genetically, but never before have we been able to observe such exquisite and fascinating detail.”

The study found that people’s ancestral contributions varied considerably across Britain, with people from areas of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland emerging as separate genetic clusters, providing a scientific basis to the idea of regional identity for the first time.

The population of the Orkney Isles was found to be the most genetically distinct, with 25% of DNA coming from Norwegian ancestors who invaded the islands in the 9th century.

The Welsh also showed striking differences to the rest of Britain, and scientists concluded that their DNA most closely resembles that of the earliest hunter-gatherers to have arrived when Britain became habitable again after the Ice Age.

Surprisingly, the study showed no genetic basis for a single “Celtic” group, with people living in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall being among the most different from each other genetically.

“The Celtic regions one might have expected to be genetically similar, but they’re among the most different in our study,” said Mark Robinson, an archaeologist from the Oxford University Museum of Natural History and a co-author. “It’s stressing their genetic difference, it’s not saying there aren’t cultural similarities.”

The study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, is the culmination of 20 years of work. Scientists began collecting DNA samples from people in Orkney in 1994 and gradually worked across most of the British Isles.

The participants were all white British, lived in rural areas and had four grandparents all born within 50 miles (80km) of each other. Since a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, the scientists were effectively obtaining a snapshot of British genetics at at the beginning of the 20th century.

Sir Walter Bodmer, of the University of Oxford, who conceived the study, said: “We’re reaching back in time to before most of the mixing of the population, which would fog history.”

The team also looked at data from 6,209 individuals from 10 European countries to reconstruct the contributions their ancestors made to the genetic makeup of the British.

The analysis shows that despite the momentous historical impact on British civilisation of the Roman, Viking and Norman invasions, none of these events did much to alter the basic biological makeup of people living here. The findings support records suggesting that few high ranking Roman officials settled in Britain and that they and their families remained largely segregated from the local Celts.

The Danish Vikings, who ruled over large swathes of Britain from 865AD, are known to have inter-married with locals, but the latest study shows that the conquering force, while powerful, must have comprised relatively few fighters.

“There were very large numbers of people - hundreds of thousands - in those parts of Britain, so to have a substantial impact on genetics there would have to be very large numbers of them,” said Robinson. “The fact that we don’t see that reflects the numbers rather than the relative allure or lack thereof of Scandinavian men to British women.”

The analysis also settles a long-running dispute about the nature of the Anglo-Saxon takeover of England following the collapse of the Roman empire. The replacement of the Celtic language by Anglo-Saxon and the complete shift towards North-West German farming and pottery styles has led some to suggest that local populations must have retreated to Wales or even been wiped out in a genocide.

“[Our results] suggest that at least 20% of the genetic makeup in this area is from Anglo-Saxon migrants, and that there was mixing,” said Robinson. “It is not genocide or complete disappearance of Britons.”

Posted by n/a on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:14 | #

This is what Oppenheimer was claiming (and what Kumiko Oumae quoted and bolded): “The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.”

If you have trouble comprehending this, I can’t help you.

The claim is that 3/4 of the ancestry of the British has been in western Europe since the Paleolithic, weathered the last glacial maximum in a refugium in Franco-Cantabria, and was in place in Britain no later than the Mesolithic flooding of Doggerland. There is no ambiguity here. This is what is being claimed, and no part of this claim is correct.

Kumiko Oumae,

“So what do you think happened to the original people?”

They were largely displaced by Neolithic farmers, who in turn were largely displaced by Indo-Europeans (with the Indo-Europeans who reached western Europe being a mix of eastern European Steppe herders, central European Neolithic farmers, and central and northern European hunter-gatherers).

“Also, where’s your proof?”

The ancient DNA evidence, which has been pointing in this direction for years and which currently leaves no room whatsoever for the sort of story told by Oppenheimer.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/07/population-genomics-of-early-bronze-age.html

 

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:01 | #

You’ve still got it wrong.

You were attributing the term “in situ” to Kumiko’s and Oppenheimer’s claim, as if they were saying that the English did not have evolutionary origins outside of the island.

That is a straw man.

This is what Oppenheimer was claiming (and what Kumiko Oumae quoted and bolded): “The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.”

If you have trouble comprehending this, I can’t help you.

No need for your help, I’ll refer to the science, which is not quite so determined as you are to see English and other native British at one with Germans.

While the more recent Oxford results as recommended by GW concludes that there is more German genetics than the Oppenheimer study, it shows 30%, not an overlap. In fact, it shows a higher percentage of French - 40%.

Whether the hunter-gathers who came into Britain count as “Pre-Germanic” in a way that you would call “German” or the 20-30 percent German admixture cited in the later Oxford study is more strictly a result of “post Germanic” admixture”, as in, intermixing with what even non-Germanophiles (i.e., not you) would now call Germans, it is apparent that even the later study does not consider British to be German on balance.

The larger percentage of French - 40 percent - could argue for the Basque incubation angle.

 

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:57 | #

Daniel, that Guardian article conflicts to some extent with what the prof’s in the POBI project have said, reported in the Telegraph thus:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11480732/Britons-still-live-in-Anglo-Saxon-tribal-kingdoms-Oxford-University-finds.html

Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.
“It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference lies directly on the boundary.”
Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of perhaps 1400 years ago.”
The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80km of each other.
Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.
They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles, using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic groupings.
Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such exquisite and fascinating detail.
“We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are closer genetically.
“In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland.
“And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.”
The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.
But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.
“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.
“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”
There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up.

The first POBI paper is this one:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v20/n2/full/ejhg2011127a.html

Posted by n/a on Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:44 | #

Daniel,

You are deeply confused.

The Oppenheimer claim was that “Celts” were not genetically Celtic/Indo-European, but largely Paleolithic western European remnants. The ancient DNA evidence rules this possibility out completely.

The question of Germanic vs. Celtic ancestry today is about the degree to which the British descend from Iron Age Britons vs. later Germanic incomers (with these two groups being fairly genetically similar, both deriving ancestry from the same major sources, including the Steppe).

The methods of the study recommended by GW, which uses only modern DNA, are fairly useless for answering this question. But, largely coincidentally, the best current estimate informed by ancient DNA puts the Germanic ancestral proportion in the modern English at around 30% (which is probably a reasonable estimate for today, but at least somewhat lower than the proportion of Germanic ancestry that would have been found in the English 200, 500, or 1000 years ago).

GW,

The Wellcome trust people were pushing to minimize Germanic ancestry in Britain and attempting to hang on to the anti-migrationist narrative to the maximum extent possible. We now have the first autosomal ancient DNA results from Britain, and it’s clear significant Germanic ancestry is present in both England (something like 30% in present-day English, even without attempting to filter recent Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or French admixture) and Scotland (around 20%). What’s also clear is that Iron Age Britons were not Paleolithic or even Neolithic survivors, but shared a great deal of ancestry with later Germanic invaders.

re: the notion that “The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.”

It’s clear these differences reflect much more recent patterns of isolation / inbreeding than the Wellcome trust people preferred to imagine.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:50 | #

N/A: Now you are saying the same thing that I am saying while charging that I am “deeply confused.”

On the contrary, I hold out that there is murkiness and debate about when to call the hunter gatherers “German” and you are calling that “confusion.”

If you want to stretch how things count as “German” far enough, then I could be called half German.

Nevertheless, you point to the same extent of Germanness in the British population as concluded by the Oxford study - 20 to 30 percent.

20-30 percent is far from “English being the same thing as Germans” which has been the common (mis)understanding.

 

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 03:42 | #

The primary reason why I would emphasize that the English and other native British are not one and the same as Germans would be in order to assert their unique evolution in the context of Britain and therefore particular warrant to claim it as their homeland.

I am sure that Kumiko’s motivation is of the same good will.

The longstanding and commonly held misconception that the English are quite nearly the same as Germans undermines that warrant by lending itself to the propositional argument that England is a nation of immigrants and therefore the English do not have a unique claim to their land.

Of course, there is also my “nefarious” motivation to show that the English have not been merely misguided and “disloyal” Germans, who need to understand why, as Germans, they should have acted precisely in lock-goose step with Nazi Germany.

Posted by n/a on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:34 | #

DanielS,

Science and reality do not care about your anti-Germanism. The genetic data says what it says; Oppenheimer incorrectly claimed what he claimed; you’ve promoted the misinformation you’ve promoted. You can rage at Germany as much as you want, but you don’t get to make up facts to suit your politics.

“The longstanding and commonly held misconception that the English are quite nearly the same as Germans undermines that warrant by lending itself to the propositional argument that England is a nation of immigrants and therefore the English do not have a unique claim to their land.”

On a global scale, the English are “quite nearly the same as Germans” (just as they’re “quite nearly the same” as most other NW Europeans). A substantial fraction of English ancestry does in fact represent “recent” Germanic immigration (which has comparatively little to do with the modern republic of Germany and more to do with the Low Countries and Denmark; modern Germany likely has not insubstantial amounts of Celtic ancestry).

The English do not need any justification to control their own territory. They don’t require moral absolution from an Italo-Pole or Japanese. Attempting to found a justification on denying Germanic ancestry among the English means you are arguing, e.g., the Welsh have a greater claim to England than the English, or that to acknowledge Germanic settlement (and later continental European immigration into Britain) somehow justifies the replacement of the English in England with subcontinentals, Africans, or Japanese.

“as concluded by the Oxford study - 20 to 30 percent.”

The POBI study did not in fact argue for “20 to 30 percent” Germanic ancestry in the English. They argued for 10-50% depending on what one subjectively deemed “likely”, with the authors themselves pushing the low end of that uselessly broad estimate as most likely.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:32 | #

DanielS,

Science and reality do not care about your anti-Germanism.

Get it through your skull that I am NOT anti-German.

And don’t make that charge again because it is Not true.

Where the first post may have been mistaken there were the comments and that is one of the key things that the comments are for - for correcting errors.

GW pointed to a newer study, I quickly referred to it, and readily acknowledged that English were more German than the Oppenheimer study claimed.

I also explained my benign reason for de-emphasizing the impact of German immigration on English genetics.

The genetic data says what it says; Oppenheimer incorrectly claimed what he claimed; you’ve promoted the misinformation you’ve promoted.

He was not wrong in saying that English are not the same thing as Germans. That was the fundamental point of the post.

It is not about being anti-German (that is in your head and you will not be able to prove that I am anti-German because I simply am not anti-German), it is about being pro-the-fact that English have natavist warrant - which is mitigated by your philo-Germancisim.

You can rage at Germany as much as you want, but you don’t get to make up facts to suit your politics.

I do not rage against Germany.

“The longstanding and commonly held misconception that the English are quite nearly the same as Germans undermines that warrant by lending itself to the propositional argument that England is a nation of immigrants and therefore the English do not have a unique claim to their land.”

On a global scale, the English are “quite nearly the same as Germans” (just as they’re “quite nearly the same” as most other NW Europeans).

Listen, I have already been clear that with the ambiguity of common origins one can frame the genetic history in such a way as to say that the English are the same as Germans - it depends upon your unit of analysis.

One could say that I am half German depending upon how badly they wanted to stretch the definition.

But the Oxford unit of analysis resulted in the conclusion that British are 20 -30 percent German (in my preliminary understanding of what they said, anyway).

A substantial fraction of English ancestry does in fact represent “recent” Germanic immigration (which has comparatively little to do with the modern republic of Germany and more to do with the Low Countries and Denmark; modern Germany likely has not insubstantial amounts of Celtic ancestry).

The study says 30% on the whole, that is substantial - granted; and obviously some individuals will be of an even higher percentage.

The English do not need any justification to control their own territory.

Yes, they do. They need all the help they can get against political correctness. And what you propose as help (in Gemanizing them) is probably more counter productive than you realize.

They don’t require moral absolution from an Italo-Pole or Japanese.

I help all Europeans, whether they “require it of me” or not.

Kumiko’s will is good as well.

Attempting to found a justification on denying Germanic ancestry

I don’t deny their German ancestry, I said the evidence shows that they are not the same as Germans on balance.

“among the English means you are arguing, e.g., the Welsh have a greater claim to England than the English”

Maybe I would have argued that in about 600 a.d. but there comes a practical statute of limitations.

or that to acknowledge Germanic settlement (and later continental European immigration into Britain) somehow justifies the replacement of the English in England with subcontinentals, Africans, or Japanese.

I am not saying that at all, but the politically correct could and have taken angles like that - you know how they are. That is why I have sought to de-emphasize “the waves of immigration” theme.

“as concluded by the Oxford study - 20 to 30 percent.”

The POBI study did not in fact argue for “20 to 30 percent” Germanic ancestry in the English. They argued for 10-50% depending on what one subjectively deemed “likely”, with the authors themselves pushing the low end of that uselessly broad estimate as most likely.

The facts are the facts, and I am not against the English, the Germans or their nationalisms however their make-ups sort out.

Even if the English were 100% German, of course I would still defend them. To question that is ridiculous. I simply defend all Europeans and their discreet kinds.

However, I believe that the English are more helped (argumentatively) in their claim to their land by emphasizing their unique make-up in relation to that land.

Posted by Sunic re: the guilt trips on Germans on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:59 | #

Good point, Tom, thank you for bringing that to our attention. I might add, however, that this phenomenon of guilt being laid on Germans, seemingly in perpetuity, is all the more reason to disambiguate European identities so that they don’t get wrapped up in guilt trips and are more able to help those who are.

Tom Sunic
August 13, 2015 - 5:53 am | Permalink

Mr. Joyce. Thanks for the well written piece. What happened to Germans in 1945 befell more or less all European peoples in the aftermath of WWI. Not only did Germany physically lose the war but was forced, under the legal provisions of the London August 8, 1945 Agreement to adopt the process of self-denial and self- hate in the construction of its new self- consciousness, and thenceforth in its legislation and higher education. Under the legal provisions of the UN Charter (the “Feindstaatenklausel” # 53, # 57 ), Germany is still an “enemy state”.

Likewise, the entire German cultural legacy ( to a lesser extent of all European peoples ), even prior the Nuremberg Trials, had been transposed by the Allied local occupying and educational authorities — and later on by the Hollywood grand communicators — to the realm of “scholarly demonology,” and not into a field of dispassionate historical research. Thus, the terms such as “National- Socialism” and “Fascism” began to acquire gradually no longer the signifed of specific historical, political and cultural movements, but became instead metaphysical notions of the absolute evil. Even the works of Germany’s 18th 19th ct. “Sturm and Drang” thinkers, as well as other Central European Romantic thinkers and poets, who were quite popular in NS Germany and elsewhere in the pre-WWII Europe, came to be extrapolated and reinterpreted on the basis of these newly Allied educational ukases. Ironically, it was on grounds of physical ugliness and verbal mendacity (i.e. “ double talk”), used by the communist reeducators, that the similar Allied process of brainwashing went unsuccessful in the communist DDR ( East Germany) and Central and East Europe. It fell apart by 1990. By contrast, in today’s Germany, but also in other EU countries, such expiating legal and law enforcement restraint, but also in the US ( “the Ferguson syndrome”), continues unabated — to the great joy of criminal-minded “minorities. ”

No wonder that the traditional German bonhomie i.e. “Gutmütigkeit,” with its inherent dose of “Michael –German” naiveté, is being mimicked by an excessive number of Germans today, even toward certified criminal- minded immigrants. This process has been anthropologically reinforced by the 70 years of reeducation, resulting in a state without identity (cf. C. von Schrenck- Notzing, “Charakterwäsche: Die Re-education der Deutschen und ihre bleibenden Auswirkungen,” 1965, 2010), also steered and screened by the watchful eye of the ADL and its German version the“ Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland.”

The irony of history is that such a German- like self -denying process of spiritual and political atonement is far less visible in East Europe – due to the past hardship of the East European populace and its consequential present misgivings toward any authority. In Italy, Spain, let alone in Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, etc. most people don’t care a bit about the “plight of the refugees.” In fact, if a non- European immigrant commits a crime, let alone a rape – local cops handle such cases in a less vocal fashion. Hence the reason all non- European immigrants, from all parts of the world, prefer flocking to the forever atoning Germany. To be sure it can’t last forever.

Posted by Jimmy on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:18 | #

I rather wish people would stop using the decade old Oppenheimer work as if it were the most up to date evidence.

The Peoples of the British Isles Study referenced in other comments is the most accurate as of 2015.

Posted by British Celts have more Steppe than English on Mon, 30 May 2016 03:18 | #

Dienek’s Anthropolgy Blog, “British Celts have more steppe ancestry than British English”, 28 May 2016:

An interesting tidbit in a preprint about blood pressure genes:

  We consistently obtained significantly positive f4 statistics, implying that both the modern Celtic samples and the ancient Saxon samples have more Steppe ancestry than the modern Anglo-Saxon samples from southern and eastern England. This indicates that southern and eastern England is not exclusively a genetic mix of Celts and Saxons.

Southeastern England is genetically very homogeneous. If the people there were a mix of ancient Celts and Saxons you’d expect them to be intermediate between modern Celts (who should have more Celtic ancestry than the modern English) and ancient Saxons (who should have more Saxon ancestry than the modern English).

But, it seems that the English have less steppe ancestry than both modern Celts and ancient Saxons, so they’re not really intermediate. My guess is that the English have Norman ancestry that the Celts don’t. While the original Normans were Scandinavians with presumably lots of steppe ancestry, I’d be surprised if the post-1066 Normans that settled England were not already heavily admixed with the “French” and so had less steppe ancestry than the modern British Celts from Wales and Scotland.

Posted by Vaughn on Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:45 | #

   

99.1% European and that breaks down to 97.2% North Western European: British and Irish, French and German, Scandinavian, Finnish, broadly North Western European.

To get more specific, I am:

71.1% British and Irish. I was actually very surprised by this, because up until recently, we thought that on my biological father’s side that there was a lot of German. His last name was Vaughn - (I thought it was German but it’s) actually a Welsh name. Up until recently we went on information that led us to believe that we were at least 50% German and we found out that just is not the case. I’m 71.1% British and Irish.

       

I traced my maternal grandfather’s lineage back all the way to 1500’s England, to this little town called Lindsey in Suffolk, England. It’s just he quaintest little town….

For a little bit of reference, his last name was Farthing. So that’s where I traced him. I don’t know how much Irish, but I do have an Irish Grandmother.

I do have some German, I was 8.7% French and German.

I have more Neanderthal than 91% of people tested, which does correspond to ethnicity to an extent, because that’s traced to the Neandertal Valley in Germany.

Less than 1% of East Asian/native American (expected more).

.8% Scandinavian.

.8% Southern European

.7% Sub Saharan African

0.7% African = a 100% African 5X Great-grandparent or a 50% African 4X great-grandparent. BTW, we all have 64 - 4X great-grandparents and 128 - 5X great-grandparents.