With what ancient ethnicity do you most identify, and what has DNA told you ?

[English Lad]

As far as YDNA goes, I identify with the Vikings who lives in the West of Norway. As far as automosal goes, I'd still identify with Germanic folk, Celtic folk a little less.

 

[Aberdeen]

I'm a mixture of English and German on my mother's side, but I identify more with my paternal ancestors who all came from northeastern Scotland, Aberdeen and Banffshire. People in that part of Scotland are like Scotland's third tribe, not really Highlanders or Lowlanders but their own unique culture. And I see myself as a Pict, which according to me is pre-IE but according to a lot of other people being a Pict would make me a Welshman.

 

[Keegah]

Americans have an unsual way of identifying themselves ethnically. Throughout much of the country people, especially the South, people genetically descended from Northwest Europeans simply refer to their ethnicity as "Americans" with no further qualification. All other people in America generally hyphenate a particular race, ethnicity or religion to give distiction follow by "-American". How every American choses to identify himself on the U.S. Census is in iteself a very interesting and much studied topic.

If you ask a 'non-ethic' white in the tire shop or barber shop what his race or heritage is, he will tell you he is "White"
"White Americans" through much of the country, and particularly the South, use the term "White" in several ways that can easily be misunderstood.
Although "White" can be substituted for Caucausian, many Whites use the term as an ethnic distinction. For example, it may refer exclusively to native born American Whites who are generally descended from the British Islands with minor inputs from Germans, France, etc.
White can also mean a Northern European type people to the exclusion of what are sometimes called "ethnics' or "ethnic whites" (in other words, people from another European culture, religion or culture)

American "Whites" generally seem to identify somewhat with their assumed to be native culture (like being Irish, German or Scottish) but strangely almost never identify with England. That is bizarre given the genealogical data white suggests that American Whites and a component of all other ethnicities (such as Cherokees or Blacks) have very substantial amounts of English ancestry.

Personally, I think this is because English culture is so well-represented in America, American culture being derived from it, but everything else is not. Even though there are almost as many, if not more, Irish-Americans and German-Americans in America as there are people of English descent. I'm convinced that the desire to know more about and to assert your culture and heritage is an inbuilt trait of humans. For Europeans, their heritage and ancestral identity is all around them. Not so for Americans, unless you're English. I think that this is why you see such vocal pride in their heritage from Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, sometimes German-Americans, etc.. It's a way to compensate for being immersed in a culture that you cannot claim any ancestral identity with. This is all just conjecture though.

 

[Aberdeen]

Personally, I think this is because English culture is so well-represented in America, American culture being derived from it, but everything else is not. Even though there are almost as many, if not more, Irish-Americans and German-Americans in America as there are people of English descent. I'm convinced that the desire to know more about and to assert your culture and heritage is an inbuilt trait of humans. For Europeans, their heritage and ancestral identity is all around them. Not so for Americans, unless you're English. I think that this is why you see such vocal pride in their heritage from Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, sometimes German-Americans, etc.. It's a way to compensate for being immersed in a culture that you cannot claim any ancestral identity with. This is all just conjecture though.

Judging by the content of many American television shows and movies I've seen, I think the American reluctance to identify with the English has to do with the fact that many Americans are still fighting the American Revolution, and don't want to identify with King George of England. That's why Americans of English descent will often identify themselves as "just white Americans" and why they frequently deny that many of the roots of their culture and many of the roots of their legal and political institutions can be found in England. And if you talk to Americans about American law, for example, you'll find that many of them will deny that things like habeas corpus and trial by a jury of one's peers are English inventions. Those are things that Americans have, so they're American.

 

[Keegah]

Judging by the content of many American television shows and movies I've seen, I think the American reluctance to identify with the English has to do with the fact that many Americans are still fighting the American Revolution, and don't want to identify with King George of England. That's why Americans of English descent will often identify themselves as "just white Americans" and why they frequently deny that many of the roots of their culture and many of the roots of their legal and political institutions can be found in England. And if you talk to Americans about American law, for example, you'll find that many of them will deny that things like habeas corpus and trial by a jury of one's peers are English inventions. Those are things that Americans have, so they're American.

Well, that's the other thing. It's something of an interesting paradox in America, and has been since the birth of this country. Even though there has been a strong anti-English sentiment in America until fairly recently, that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of our history we have looked down on and marginalized anyone that wasn't of English Protestant descent. Anti-Irish, Anti-German, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Black, Anti-Chinese, Anti-pretty much anyone that isn't a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant sentiment has been a mainstay of American culture for a very long time, and to some extent still is. All other cultures other than English culture are viciously stereotyped and the common denominator to these stereotypes is often lesser intelligence or sophistication in some way. See the historic Know-Nothing Party and the Nativists for an example. Now, working class America doesn't necessarily view this as a bad thing. I wouldn't say that Hibernophobia still thrives in America, because the qualities that Irishmen have historically been and still are stereotyped with - drunkeness, propensity to fight, a reliance on folk wisdom instead of intellectual knowledge - are now viewed as admirable by most Americans. That probably isn't a good thing, but that's a topic for another discussion. Still, while other ethnic groups are stereotyped as being foolish or borderline-barbaric, the English are typically stereotyped as being sophisticated and knowledgeable to a fault. I think that this is a holdover from the days when we viewed English culture as the only true representation of American culture, even if we refused to admit that said American culture was derived from the hated English.

 

[Finbar]

Whith what ancient ethnicity do I most identify?
Well, in my family tree there is about a 50-50 mix of Gaelic Irish and "Old English" names. I presume many of the "Old English" took native wives, so that would make me probably around 75% native Irish, 25% other (Norman, Flemish, Breton, Anglo-Saxon, etc.) but about 50% "Old English" in the male line.
Historically, my family name seems to have emerged in a coastal area of the old earldom of Northumbria, which could mean anything, as it is on the border of England and Scotland, and was a historical ingress point for continental invasions/migations.
What my DNA has told me is that I might be I2b, and that the accesible internet record of y-dna results is pretty much devoid of anyone of a genetic distance closer than 10, whatever that means.

 

[sparkey]

What my DNA has told me is that I might be I2b, and that the accesible internet record of y-dna results is pretty much devoid of anyone of a genetic distance closer than 10, whatever that means.

A GD of 10 on how many markers? Could be an interesting result. Care to share your results?

 

[Finbar]

My apologies. There are better matches (GD 5 on 23 markers being lowest). What I should have said was that there is GD of 10 on 25 markers for a testee with the same surname and the same area of ancestral origin as me.
Our name is relatively uncommon (Prendergast), and very likely goes back to pre-Norman Conquest Northumbria. So there is a definite 1000 year time frame for divergence/mutation, or a possible 1500 year or more.
If you go to the FTDNA Pendergraft-Prendergast name group results page (I'm not allowed to post a link, but it's easy to find on google), you will see one member in group 2, kit number 13909, and in the "Ungrouped" section at the bottom you will see me, kit number 324866.
Neither of us have been assigned a haplogroup by FTDNA, but we both test as I2b using the Whit Athey predictor. We are given a genetic distance of 10 by ysearch.org.
If anyone can tell me what this means, or if it means nothing, I would be really grateful. I'm new to this, but to me it seems that two people sharing a relatively uncommon surname and a pretty uncommon haplogroup, coming from the same area, there is likely a link. Yes?

 

[ukaj]

I strongly identify with Ancient Greeks and a bit with Franks because where my parents come from the frankish influence was big. Recently I learned that I indeed have Frank ancestors but no one in my family has done a dna test so I don't have any information on y and m haplogroups.

In general, Greeks are very proud of their ancestors and I doubt you will find a Greek not identifying with Ancient Greeks.

lol so not true

 

[ukaj]

sup

I am Bulgarian and identify with all Slavs in the world and with the ancient Thracian, I also feel connected with Greeks and Italians. My DNA test has not shown anything to make me change my mind ofc

Slavs are not thracians my friend,,Maybe without being rude you should try find where the word bulga comes from then you may find your real roots,,

 

[sparkey]

My apologies. There are better matches (GD 5 on 23 markers being lowest). What I should have said was that there is GD of 10 on 25 markers for a testee with the same surname and the same area of ancestral origin as me.

That is pretty darned distant. Hard to say if that's a real relationship, or if you just happen to be the same haplogroup. I think the latter, so I wouldn't commit to it being a match. Personally, I get a GD of 0 on 37 with people who are 300 years removed. (I've also seen GD of 2 on 25 within 200 years, so it varies of course.)

Neither of us have been assigned a haplogroup by FTDNA, but we both test as I2b using the Whit Athey predictor. We are given a genetic distance of 10 by ysearch.org.

Cullen's Predictor is quite confident that you are indeed I2-S23, AKA I2b (to use FTDNA's nomenclature, ISOGG calls it "I2a2"), and more specifically puts you as M223-. The only known I2 S23+ M223- subclade is I2-L38. I suggest you confirm that and possibly get even more specific by joining the I2-L38 Project. Cullen's Predictor is just as confident that 13909 is I2-L38, so he should join too, and you should see if you end up in the same cluster within that subclade.

 

[Mars]

I'm northern italian. According to my DNA test, I bear Y haplogroup R-u152, subclade Z-36 which is associated to central euro celts. My paternal ancestors were ligurian, that many scholars consider a celtic branch, so it should make sense. My mtdna is HV, likely neolithic. When italics came to Italy, neolithic farmers descendents were pushed into the appenninic regions: well, my maternal line comes from the deep appennine valleys of Emilia-Romagna, so a neolithic ancestry makes sense, too.

 

[Angela]

I'm northern italian. According to my DNA test, I bear Y haplogroup R-u152, subclade Z-36 which is associated to central euro celts. My paternal ancestors were ligurian, that many scholars consider a celtic branch, so it should make sense. My mtdna is HV, likely neolithic. When italics came to Italy, neolithic farmers descendents were pushed into the appenninic regions: well, my maternal line comes from the deep appennine valleys of Emilia-Romagna, so a neolithic ancestry makes sense, too.

Where did you read, if you don't mind my asking, that Z36 specifically is associated with central European Celts?

I certainly don't follow all the details on any yDNA, including R1b U152, and so my recollection could be faulty, but the last things I read showed that while the "modern" distribution of Z36 is certainly "Alpine", it's impossible to say where that specific mutation actually occurred.

As for being "Celtic", I'm not sure that the "Celts" even existed at the time that the Z36 mutation occurred. (If we take the dating of the hobbyists that it occurred about 2000 B.C.E., which is a big "if", in my opinion.) However, my knowledge about the formation of central European "Celticity" is even sketchier than my detailed knowledge about specific yDNA subclades, so I would leave that for others to discuss.


Also, just a general question...why would one choose to identify only with one's specific yDNA? What about one's mother's father's yDNA, or the other yDNAs that might actually be more numerous in one's family tree, or one's mtDNA, or one's father's mother's mtDNA, for example?

 

[Finbar]

That is pretty darned distant. Hard to say if that's a real relationship, or if you just happen to be the same haplogroup. I think the latter, so I wouldn't commit to it being a match. Personally, I get a GD of 0 on 37 with people who are 300 years removed. (I've also seen GD of 2 on 25 within 200 years, so it varies of course.)

That's very interesting, thank you, Sparkey.
The name shared by 13909 and I has a history going back potentially quite far, around 1000 years, perhaps more. I am not sure if the genetic distance is still too great to fit inside that time frame.
What is/was compelling about the possibility is that it seems quite long odds that two men of uncommon name and uncommon haplogroup being unrelated. However, it is far from impossible.
Do you know where I might find information on the frequency of I2-L38 in southern Ireland, or in the British Isles in general?

 

[sparkey]

Do you know where I might find information on the frequency of I2-L38 in southern Ireland, or in the British Isles in general?

It's rare everywhere, although supposedly there is a minor local frequency elevation of it in southern Ireland. De Beule gives:

• Ireland: 0.32% (highest concentrations in Cork and Limerick)
• Northern Ireland: 0.28%
• Scotland: 0.39%
• England: 0.48%
• Wales: 0.39%

I recommend De Beule's site for any information related to I2-L38. It is very thorough, and it's too bad there aren't sites like his for every haplogroup subclade.

 

[Finbar]

It's rare everywhere, although supposedly there is a minor local frequency elevation of it in southern Ireland.

• Ireland: 0.32% (highest concentrations in Cork and Limerick)
• Northern Ireland: 0.28%
• Scotland: 0.39%
• England: 0.48%
• Wales: 0.39%

I recommend De Beule's site for any information related to I2-L38. It is very thorough, and it's too bad there aren't sites like his for every haplogroup subclade.

I am reading it right now! Thanks again.

 

[motzart]

I identify most with monkeys.

 

[HansBiebel]

I think I relate to the people the Romans called barbarians the best. I have not had a DNA test but My dads side is tall, with long heads, square jaws, brown to blonde haired, all blue eyed and between medium to fair skin. I know it means nothing due to how fast languages change but they spoke German.

 

[PA Dutch]

Before DNA testing I figured I was 50/50 British and German. And I mainly identified with my British side. However what i've discovered since testing is i'm 60/70% PA Dutch which is the Germans who came here from the Palatine/Rhineland area starting in the late 1600's. I've recently discovered my paternal line as well as another grandparents line have been here prior to 1776. So since i've made these discoveries i've felt more connected to the ancient German tribes of the Rhine, as well as feeling more connected to America.

 

[sparkey]

Before DNA testing I figured I was 50/50 British and German. And I mainly identified with my British side. However what i've discovered since testing is i'm 60/70% PA Dutch which is the Germans who came here from the Palatine/Rhineland area starting in the late 1600's. I've recently discovered my paternal line as well as another grandparents line have been here prior to 1776. So since i've made these discoveries i've felt more connected to the ancient German tribes of the Rhine, as well as feeling more connected to America.

60/70% PA Dutch is a very high number for anybody but the Amish, and some Mennonites and Dunkards. I take it your ancestors were plain people? Because if they were "fancy Dutch" (Lutherans and German Reformed types) I think you'd be the highest percentage "fancy Dutch" descendant I've ever heard of.