Vikings, Vikings, Vikings! “eastern” ancestry in the whole Baltic Iron Age

Open access Population genomics of the Viking world, by Margaryan et al. bioRxiv (2019), with a huge new sampling from the Viking Age.

Interesting excerpts (emphasis mine, modified for clarity):

To understand the genetic structure and influence of the Viking expansion, we sequenced the genomes of 442 ancient humans from across Europe and Greenland ranging from the Bronze Age (c. 2400 BC) to the early Modern period (c. 1600 CE), with particular emphasis on the Viking Age. We find that the period preceding the Viking Age was accompanied by foreign gene flow into Scandinavia from the south and east: spreading from Denmark and eastern Sweden to the rest of Scandinavia. Despite the close linguistic similarities of modern Scandinavian languages, we observe genetic structure within Scandinavia, suggesting that regional population differences were already present 1,000 years ago.

Maps illustrating the following texts have been made based on data from this and other papers:

  • Maps showing ancestry include only data from this preprint (which also includes some samples from Sigtuna).
  • Maps showing haplogroup density include Vikings from other publications, such as those from Sigtuna in Krzewinska et al. (2018), and from Iceland in Ebenesersdóttir et al. (2018).
  • Maps showing haplogroups of ancient DNA samples based on their age include data from all published papers, but with slightly modified locations to avoid overcrowding (randomized distance approx. ± 0.1 long. and lat.).

Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe during the Viking expansions (full map). See other maps from the Middle Ages.

We find that the transition from the BA to the IA is accompanied by a reduction in Neolithic farmer ancestry, with a corresponding increase in both Steppe-like ancestry and hunter-gatherer ancestry. While most groups show a slight recovery of farmer ancestry during the VA, there is considerable variation in ancestry across Scandinavia. In particular, we observe a wide range of ancestry compositions among individuals from Sweden, with some groups in southern Sweden showing some of the highest farmer ancestry proportions (40% or more in individuals from Malmö, Kärda or Öland).

Ancestry proportions in Norway and Denmark on the other hand appear more uniform. Finally we detect an influx of low levels of “eastern” ancestry starting in the early VA, mostly constrained among groups from eastern and central Sweden as well as some Norwegian groups. Testing of putative source groups for this “eastern” ancestry revealed differing patterns among the Viking Age target groups, with contributions of either East Asian- or Caucasus-related ancestry.

Ancestry proportions of four-way models including additional putative source groups for target groups for which three-way fit was rejected (p ≤ 0.01);

Overall, our findings suggest that the genetic makeup of VA Scandinavia derives from mixtures of three earlier sources: Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers, and Bronze Age pastoralists. Intriguingly, our results also indicate ongoing gene flow from the south and east into Iron Age Scandinavia. Thus, these observations are consistent with archaeological claims of wide-ranging demographic turmoil in the aftermath of the Roman Empire with consequences for the Scandinavian populations during the late Iron Age.

Genetic structure within Viking-Age Scandinavia

We find that VA Scandinavians on average cluster into three groups according to their geographic origin, shifted towards their respective present-day counterparts in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Closer inspection of the distributions for the different groups reveals additional complexity in their genetic structure.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Danish ancestry” among Vikings.

We find that the ‘Norwegian’ cluster includes Norwegian IA individuals, who are distinct from both Swedish and Danish IA individuals which cluster together with the majority of central and eastern Swedish VA individuals. Many individuals from southwestern Sweden (e.g. Skara) cluster with Danish present-day individuals from the eastern islands (Funen, Zealand), skewing towards the ‘Swedish’ cluster with respect to early and more western Danish VA individuals (Jutland).

Some individuals have strong affinity with Eastern Europeans, particularly those from the island of Gotland in eastern Sweden. The latter likely reflects individuals with Baltic ancestry, as clustering with Baltic BA individuals is evident in the IBS-UMAP analysis and through f4-statistics.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Norwegian ancestry” among Vikings.

For more on this influx of “eastern” ancestry see my previous posts (including Viking samples from Sigtuna) on Genetic and linguistic continuity in the East Baltic, and on the Pre-Proto-Germanic homeland based on hydrotoponymy.

Baltic ancestry in Gotland

Genetic clustering using IBS-UMAP suggested genetic affinities of some Viking Age individuals with Bronze Age individuals from the Baltic. To further test these, we quantified excess allele sharing of Viking Age individuals with Baltic BA compared to early Viking Age individuals from Salme using f4 statistics. We find that many individuals from the island of Gotland share a significant excess of alleles with Baltic BA, consistent with other evidence of this site being a trading post with contacts across the Baltic Sea.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Finnish ancestry” among Vikings.

The earliest N1a-VL29 sample available comes from Iron Age Gotland (VK579) ca. AD 200-400 (see Iron Age Y-DNA maps), which also proves its presence in the western Baltic before the Viking expansion. The distribution of N1a-VL29 and R1a-Z280 (compared to R1a in general) among Vikings also supports a likely expansion of both lineages in succeeding waves from the east with Akozino warrior-traders, at the same time as they expanded into the Gulf of Finland.

Density of haplogroup R1a-Z280 (samples in pink) overlaid over other R1a samples (in green, with R1a-Z284 in cyan) among Vikings.

Vikings in Estonia

(…) only one Viking raiding or diplomatic expedition has left direct archaeological traces, at Salme in Estonia, where 41 Swedish Vikings who died violently were buried in two boats accompanied by high-status weaponry. Importantly, the Salme boat-burial predates the first textually documented raid (in Lindisfarne in 793) by nearly half a century. Comparing the genomes of 34 individuals from the Salme burial using kinship analyses, we find that these elite warriors included four brothers buried side by side and a 3rd degree relative of one of the four brothers. In addition, members of the Salme group had very similar ancestry profiles, in comparison to the profiles of other Viking burials. This suggests that this raid was conducted by genetically homogeneous people of high status, including close kin. Isotope analyses indicate that the crew descended from the Mälaren area in Eastern Sweden thus confirming that the Baltic-Mid-Swedish interaction took place early in the VA.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Swedish ancestry” among Vikings.

Viking samples from Estonia show thus ancient Swedes from the Mälaren area, which proves once again that hg. N1a-VL29 (especially subclade N1a-L550) and tiny proportions of so-called “Siberian ancestry” expanded during the Early Iron Age into the whole Baltic Sea area, not only into Estonia, and evidently not spreading with Balto-Finnic languages (since the language influence is in the opposite direction, east-west, Germanic > Finno-Samic, during the Bronze Age).

N1a-VL29 lineages spread again later eastwards with Varangians, from Sweden into north-eastern Europe, most likely including the ancestors of the Rurikid dynasty. Unsurprisingly, the arrival of Vikings with Swedish ancestry into the East Baltic and their dispersal through the forest zone didn’t cause a language shift of Balto-Finnic, Mordvinic, or East Slavic speakers to Old Norse, either…

NOTE. For N1a-Y4339 – N1a-L550 subclade of Swedish origin – as main haplogroup of modern descendants of Rurikid princes, see Volkov & Seslavin (2019) – full text in comments below. Data from ancient samples show varied paternal lineages even among early rulers traditionally linked to Rurik’s line, which explains some of the discrepancies found among modern descendants:

  • A sample from Chernihiv (VK542) potentially belonging to Gleb Svyatoslavich, the 11th century prince of Tmutarakan/Novgorod, belongs to hg. I2a-Y3120 (a subclade of early Slavic I2a-CTS10228) and has 71% “Modern Polish” ancestry (see below).
  • Izyaslav Ingvarevych, the 13th century prince of Dorogobuzh, Principality of Volhynia/Galicia, is probably behind a sample from Lutsk (VK541), and belongs to hg. R1a-L1029 (a subclade of R1a-M458), showing ca. 95% of “Modern Polish” ancestry.
  • Yaroslav Osmomysl, the 12th century Prince of Halych (now in Western Ukraine), was probably of hg. E1b-V13, yet another clearly early Slavic haplogroup.

Density of haplogroup N1a-VL29, N1a-L550 (samples in pink, most not visible) among Vikings. Samples of hg. R1b in blue, hg. R1a in green, hg. I in orange.

Finnish ancestry

Firstly, modern Finnish individuals are not like ancient Finnish individuals, modern individuals have ancestry of a population not in the reference; most likely Steppe/Russian ancestry, as Chinese are in the reference and do not share this direction. Ancient Swedes and Norwegians are more extreme than modern individuals in PC2 and 4. Ancient UK individuals were more extreme than Modern UK individuals in PC3 and 4. Ancient Danish individuals look rather similar to modern individuals from all over Scandinavia. By using a supervised ancient panel, we have removed recent drift from the signal, which would have affected modern Scandinavians and Finnish populations especially. This is in general a desirable feature but it is important to check that it has not affected inference.

PCA of the ancient and modern samples using the ancient palette, showing different PCs. Modern individuals are grey and the K=7 ancient panel surrogate populations are shown in strong colors, whilst the remaining M-K=7 ancient populations are shown in faded colors.

The story for Modern-vs-ancient Finnish ancestry is consistent, with ancient Finns looking much less extreme than the moderns. Conversely, ancient Norwegians look like less-drifted modern Norwegians; the Danish admixture seen through the use of ancient DNA is hard to detect because of the extreme drift within Norway that has occurred since the admixture event. PC4 vs PC5 is the most important plot for the ancient DNA story: Sweden and the UK (along with Poland, Italy and to an extent also Norway) are visibly extremes of a distribution the same “genes-mirror-geography” that was seen in the Ancient-palette analysis. PC1 vs PC2 tells the same story – and stronger, since this is a high variance-explained PC – for the UK, Poland and Italy.

Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) analysis of the VA and other ancient samples.

Evidence for Pictish Genomes

The four ancient genomes of Orkney individuals with little Scandinavian ancestry may be the first ones of Pictish people published to date. Yet a similar (>80% “UK ancestry) individual was found in Ireland (VK545) and five in Scandinavia, implying that Pictish populations were integrated into Scandinavian culture by the Viking Age.

Our interpretation for the Orkney samples can be summarised as follows. Firstly, they represent “native British” ancestry, rather than an unusual type of Scandinavian ancestry. Secondly, that this “British” ancestry was found in Britain before the Anglo-Saxon migrations. Finally, that in Orkney, these individuals would have descended from Pictish populations.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “British ancestry” among Vikings.

(…) ‘UK’ represents a group from which modern British and Irish people all receive an ancestry component. This information together implies that within the sampling frame of our data, they are proxying the ‘Briton’ component in UK ancestry; that is, a pre-Roman genetic component present across the UK. Given they were found in Orkney, this makes it very likely that they were descended from a Pictish population.

Modern genetic variation within the UK sees variation between ‘native Briton’ populations Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Ireland as large compared to that within the more ‘Anglo-Saxon’ English. This is despite subsequent gene flow into those populations from English-like populations. We have not attempted to disentangle modern genetic drift from historically distinct populations. Roman-era period people in England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland may not have been genetically close to these Orkney individuals, but our results show that they have a shared genetic component as they represent the same direction of variation.

Density of haplogroup R1b-L21 (samples in red), overlaid over all samples of hg. R1b among Vikings (R1b-U106 in green, other R1b-L151 in deep red). To these samples one may add the one from Janakkala in south-western Finland (AD ca. 1300), of hg. R1b-L21, possibly related to these population movements.

For more on Gaelic ancestry and lineages likely representing slaves among early Icelanders, see Ebenesersdóttir et al. (2018).


As in the case of mitochondrial DNA, the overall distribution profile of the Y chromosomal haplogroups in the Viking Age samples was similar to that of the modern North European populations. The most frequently encountered male lineages were the haplogroups I1, R1b and R1a.

Haplogroup I (I1, I2)

The distribution of I1 in southern Scandinavia, including a sample from Sealand (VK532) ca. AD 100 (see Iron Age Y-DNA maps) proves that it had become integrated into the West Germanic population already before their expansions, something that we already suspected thanks to the sampling of Germanic tribes.

Density of haplogroup I (samples in orange) among Vikings. Samples of hg. R1b in blue, hg. R1a in green, N1a in pink.
Density of haplogroup I1 (samples in red) overlaid over all samples of hg. I among Vikings.

Haplogroup R1b (M269, U106, P312)

Especially interesting is the finding of R1b-L151 widely distributed in the historical Nordic Bronze Age region, which is in line with the estimated TMRCA for R1b-P312 subclades found in Scandinavia, despite the known bottleneck among Germanic peoples under U106. Particularly telling in this regard is the finding of rare haplogroups R1b-DF19, R1b-L238, or R1b-S1194. All of that points to the impact of Bell Beaker-derived peoples during the Dagger period, when Pre-Proto-Germanic expanded into Scandinavia.

Also interesting is the finding of hg. R1b-P297 in Troms, Norway (VK531) ca. 2400 BC. R1b-P297 subclades might have expanded to the north through Finland with post-Swiderian Mesolithic groups (read more about Scandinavian hunter-gatherers), and the ancestry of this sample points to that origin.

However, it is also known that ancestry might change within a few generations of admixture, and that the transformation brought about by Bell Beakers with the Dagger Period probably reached Troms, so this could also be a R1b-M269 subclade. In fact, the few available data from this sample show that it comes from the natural harbour Skarsvågen at the NW end of the island Senja, and that its archaeologist thought it was from the Viking period or slightly earlier, based on the grave form. From Prescott (2017):

In 1995, Prescott and Walderhaug tentatively argued that a dramatic transformation took place in Norway around the Late Neolithic (2350 BCE), and that the swift nature of this transition was tied to the initial Indo-Europeanization of southern and coastal Norway, at least to Trøndelag and perhaps as far north as Troms. (…)

The Bell Beaker/early Late Neolithic, however, represents a source and beginning of these institution and practices, exhibits continuity to the following metal age periods and integrated most of Northern Europe’s Nordic region into a set of interaction fields. This happened around 2400 BCE, at the MNB to LN transition.

NOTE. This particular sample is not included in the maps of Viking haplogroups.

Density of haplogroup R1b (samples in blue) among Vikings. Samples of hg. I in orange, hg. R1a in green, N1a in pink.
Density of haplogroup R1b-U106 (samples in green) overlaid over all samples of hg. R1b (other R1b-L23 samples in red) among Vikings.
Density of R1b-L151 (xR1b-U106) (samples in deep red) overlaid over all samples of hg. R1b (R1b-U106 in green, other R1b-M269 in blue) among Vikings.

Haplogroup R1a (M417, Z284)

The distribution of hg. R1a-M417, in combination with data on West Germanic peoples, shows that it was mostly limited to Scandinavia, similar to the distribution of I1. In fact, taking into account the distribution of R1a-Z284 in particular, it seems even more isolated, which is compatible with the limited impact of Corded Ware in Denmark or the Northern European Plain, and the likely origin of R1a-Z284 in the expansion with Battle Axe from the Gulf of Finland. The distribution of R1a-Z280 (see map above) is particularly telling, with a distribution around the Baltic Sea mostly coincident with that of N1a.

Density of haplogroup R1a (samples in green) among Vikings. Samples of hg. R1b in blue, of hg. I in orange, N1a in pink.
Density of haplogroup R1a-Z284 (samples in cyan) overlaid over all samples of hg. R1a (in green, with R1a-Z280 in pink) among Vikings.

Other haplogroups

Among the ancient samples, two individuals were derived haplogroups were identified as E1b1b1-M35.1, which are frequently encountered in modern southern Europe, Middle East and North Africa. Interestingly, the individuals carrying these haplogroups had much less Scandinavian ancestry compared to the most samples inferred from haplotype based analysis. A similar pattern was also observed for less frequent haplogroups in our ancient dataset, such as G (n=3), J (n=3) and T (n=2), indicating a possible non-Scandinavian male genetic component in the Viking Age Northern Europe. Interestingly, individuals carrying these haplogroups were from the later Viking Age (10th century and younger), which might indicate some male gene influx into the Viking population during the Viking period.

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Italian ancestry” among Vikings.

As the paper says, the small sample size of rare haplogroups cannot distinguish if these differences are statistically relevant. Nevertheless, both E1b samples have substantial Modern Polish-like ancestry: one sample from Gotland (VK474), of hg. E1b-L791, has ca. 99% “Polish” ancestry, while the other one from Denmark (VK362), of hg. E1b-V13, has ca. 35% “Polish”, ca. 35% “Italian”, as well as some “Danish” (14%) and minor “British” and “Finnish” ancestry.

Given the E1b-V13 samples of likely Central-East European origin among Lombards, Visigoths, and especially among Early Slavs, and the distribution of “Polish” ancestry among Viking samples, VK362 is probably a close description of the typical ancestry of early Slavs. The peak of Modern Polish-like ancestry around the Upper Pripyat during the (late) Viking Age suggests that Poles (like East Slavs) have probably mixed since the 10th century with more eastern peoples close to north-eastern Europeans, derived from ancient Finno-Ugrians:

Natural neighbor interpolation of “Polish ancestry” among Vikings.

Similarly, the finding of R1a-M458 among Vikings in Funen, Denmark (VK139), in Lutsk, Poland (VK541), and in Kurevanikha, Russia (VK160), apart from the early Slav from Usedom, may attest to the origin of the spread of this haplogroup in the western Baltic after the Bell Beaker expansion, once integrated in both Germanic and Balto-Slavic populations, as well as intermediate Bronze Age peoples that were eventually absorbed by their expansions. This contradicts, again, my simplistic initial assessment of R1a-M458 expansion as linked exclusively (or even mainly) to Balto-Slavs.

Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe during Antiquity (full map). See other maps of cultures and ancient DNA from Antiquity.


15 thoughts on “Vikings, Vikings, Vikings! “eastern” ancestry in the whole Baltic Iron Age

  1. Very interestingly. The picture of course strange appears. At us in Russia several hundreds of years go fight of “normanist” against “Slavophiles”. The first, based on chronicles, and then and archeology – claim that Russia was founded by Vikings. The second stand on the idea of the autochthonic Slavic population. And the absence argument in a modern gene pool of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians of massive crossings with a modern gene pool of Scandinavians was the last argument of Slavophiles-. But it is similar that in the early dark Middle Ages distribution гаплогрупп and the nature of migrations could be other, could be difficult.
    Is of special interest for me ancient DNA of my branch z92. Which is still called baltsky.
    And here lately there are “surprises”.
    5 samples of ancient z92 DNA are known to me now
    And 4 of them are connected with Scandinavians.
    The earliest so far – VK480 Estonia_Salme_II-E SM10602: VI Estonia Saaremaa EarlyViking 8th century CE R1a1a1b1a2a U4a2a1 Z92
    is still
    VK156 Poland_Bodzia B4 Poland_Bodzia E58 Poland Bodzia Viking 10-11th centuries CE 2d_rel_VK154 R1a1a1b1a2a J1c2c2a Z92
    VK480 Estonia_Salme_II-E SM10602:VI Estonia Saaremaa EarlyViking 8th century CE R1a1a1b1a2a U4a2a1 Z92
    in the territory of Estonia the 13th centuries – the region of Kukruse, Ida-Viru, EST
    And an interesting grave in the center of Kazakhstan of 13-14 centuries – time of the Golden Horde – where as a part of 4 representatives obvious the Mongol, is buried the person with the evpropeysky anthropology and autosomes showing on Baltic origin.

    There is a natural question – whether we are result our branch of the early Scandinavian migrations from Fennoscandia?
    But not Balts, Slavs and other???

  2. Yeah they found two L1029’s! It didn’t take a genius, though, to determine at least my subclade YP445 was in the Viking voyages as the first sample I noted was from a John Shanner of Yorkshire, England, a noted area of Danish Viking settlement. Another subclade of L1029 (YP4647, I believe?) also made its way to England with the Batt/Batte family, one descendent of the latter spelling, a Californian, is in my Facebook M458 group.

  3. I have just updated the ancestry maps, because I noticed I failed to include some samples when mixing the sheet of lat/long with the sheet of ancestry. Changes are probably minimal, though.

    This post may be particularly slow now, because of the added size of all maps.

    I think haplogroup maps are kind of lame, but better-looking alternatives like the map below for R1b-L21 (best suited for “usual” mainland density maps) are actually more artificial in this case.

    For seafaring and raiding Vikings, I think those posted above convey a more precise picture for smaller regions and islands.

  4. On Rurikids, which apparently remains a controversial topic for Slavic nation-building myths in the 21st century, we already had reliable information about N1a being one of the main paternal lines among descendants (if not the main one), so the arrival of N1a-L550 subclades with Swedes should not be a surprise.

    From the Conference Centenary of Human Population Genetics, Moscow, 29-31 May 2019:

    Genetic study of the Rurik Dynasty

    Volkov V.G., Seslavin A.N.

    Tomsk State Pedagogical University, Tomsk, Russia

    The Rurikids are one of the oldest dynasties of Europe and presently living descendants of Rurik can be found in various locations across the globe. In 2006 and initiated by a group of historians and genetic genealogists the “Rurikid Genome” project was started with candidates being sellected (based on their documented genealogy as being descendants of Rurik) to undergo DNA testing. From 2006 until 2017 over 40 DNA samples were obtained from living members of the Rurikid Dynasty and processed, the results grouped the participants into 3 haplogroups (N1c1, R1a1, and I2a1). The group that had the highest frequency and was also the most interrelated was the group belonging to subclade N-Y4339 (40%) represented by the following genealogical lines (Massalsky, Puzyna, Lobanov-Rostovsky, Khilkov, Gagarins, Putyatin, Rzhevsky, Tatishchev, Kropotkin, and Shakhovsky).

    The DNA samples of these genealogical lines of Rurikid underwent extensive sequencing of the Y chromosome (BigY test) in the laboratories of Family Tree DNA in Houston (USA), and the eventual results establishing the degree of paternal kinship.

    Within the haplogroup N-Y4339 there is a common SNP shared by all the Rurikid group, that being Y10931 and while the presences of certain SNP’s convincingly show that at the Rurikid group N-Y10931 is divided into three branches. One is determined by SNPs VL15, VL16, VL17 and VL18 (princes Massalsky and Puzyna), the second – VL11 (princes Lobanov Rostovsky, Gagarin and Putiatin) and the third – VL12 (princes Kropotkin and Shakhovski, Rzhevsky and Tatishchev).

    The extensively sequenced data clearly shows an extremely accurate correlation between the distribution of distinctive mutations within the different groups of Rurik’s descendants and the traditional documented pedigree of Rurikid. It testifies that the documentary genealogy of Rurikid as a whole truly reflects the real interreleted genetic structure of the participants within the study.

    A separate issue for consideration is the genetic origin of the whole group of Rurikid N-Y10931, i.e. connection to a common ancestor of this group with certain geographic regions. The genetic lineage of N-Y10931 is derived from the subclade N Y4339, and distrubition of this subclade is primarily found in Sweden (52%) followed by Finland (14%) Russia (10%), Britain (10%) with a smaller frequency in Norway (5%) and Ukraine (5%).

    The phylogenetic tree convincingly shows that the origin of the lineage N-Y4339 is in the territory of Sweden, and that the closest to Rurikid are the representatives of the lineage N-Y85136, whose ancestors lived in the Uppsala region of Sweden.

    In general, the genetic data indicates that the most likely region of residence of the closest paternal ancestors of Rurik to be in the territory of Sweden.

    Thus, the genetic data fully confirms the historical accounts of the early Russian chronicles about the Scandinavian origin of Rurik.

  5. “In fact, taking into account the distribution of R1a-Z284 in particular, it seems even more isolated, which is compatible with the limited impact of Corded Ware in Denmark or the Northern European Plain, and the likely origin of R1a-Z284 in the expansion with Battle Axe from the Gulf of Finland.”

    I think one Sarmatian (LS-13 from the southern Urals) from the recent western steppe paper is also shown to be under Z284.

  6. Before speculating that R1a-M458 might be Germanic based on samples from this study, haven’t you noticed (in Supplementary Table S6) that all these R1a-M458 Vikings are autosomally Slavic (“Polish-like” means Slavic), even the one from Funen (where we have also other, non-genetic, evidence of Slavic presence)?

    Historical records (such as Snorri Sturulson and Saxo Grammaticus), toponymy, archaeology and earlier genetic studies all confirm Slavic/Polish influences in Denmark. For example:

    1. This study detected Polish admixture signal in Danish islands dated to before the Middle Ages (and “before the Middle Ages” = before 1050 AD according to Danish chronology):

    2. Slavic-derived toponyms exist in Danish islands:

    3. Polish mercenaries in Danish service:

    As for Lutsk – all samples in the study (even Bronze Age ones!) are labeled as “VK”, but that particular sample was not a viking, he was Rurikid prince Izjaslav Ingvarovich with R1a.

    Another Rurikid prince examined in this study was Gleb Svyatoslavich (grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, son of Sviatoslav) and he turned out I2a, which makes the Russian theory about N1c entering the Rurikid dynasty due to Ingegerd’s infidelity (Vsievolod was the son of Ingegerd’s Scandinavian lover – and not of Yaroslav the Wise – according to this theory) more probable. Here is the link to this Russian theory that Rurik was I2a:

    ^^^ According to this theory Ingegerd cheated on her husband Yaroslav, likely with Olaf II Haraldsson, and their son was Vsievolod (born few months after Olaf’s departure from Russia back to Norway). And this is supposedly how N1c entered the Rurikid dynasty. Sviatoslav was the other son of Yaroslav, and Gleb Svyatoslavich – determined by this study to be I2a rather than N1c – was Yaroslav’s grandson.


    So, I was not surprised by these Polish-like samples with R1a-M458. I was more surprised by autosomally Polish-like samples from Gotland, including one with a subclade of E1b1b associated – today at least – with Polish Jews rather than with Poles (and as you know Polish Ashkenazim would be represented by “Italian-like” admixture in their Table S6, not “Polish-like”):

    On the other hand, some E1b1b was already found before in Early Medieval Slavic burials from the island of Usedom:

    Could this particular subclade of E1b1b enter the Ashkenazi Jewish gene pool as the result of Polish and Belarusian conversions to Judaism?:

    And how had this subclade become Slavic before that? Perhaps it originated from the Trypillian culture.

  7. Your map has mistakes, there are also samples with Polish-like DNA from Denmark:

    From Supplementary Table S6, samples sorted from most to least of Polish-like DNA:

    On the other hand the map you posted indicates no Polish-like samples in Denmark:

  8. It is good that Carlos Quiles has begun to admit that he was wrong in the past [“This contradicts, again, my simplistic initial assessment of R1a-M458 expansion as linked exclusively (or even mainly) to Balto-Slavs”, p 19], but here he insists in his prejudices. The R-supposed P297 found in 2400 BC Norway is first of all uncertain, given its low coverage [“so this could also be a R1b-M269 subclade” p. 13], and could also be a more recent subclade, but Quiles says that it demonstrates an origin from the Swiderian culture [ “Also interesting is the finding of hg. R1b-P297 in Troms, Norway (VK531) ca. 2400 BC. R1b-P297 subclades might have expanded to the north through Finland with post-Swiderian Mesolithic groups (read more about Scandinavian hunter-gatherers), and the ancestry of this sample points to that origin”, p. 13], but he should know that also Baltic was peopled from the Southern European refuges after the Younger Dryas: “The Swiderian culture plays a central role in the Palaeolithic-Mesolithic transition. It has been generally accepted that most of the Swiderian population emigrated at the very end of the Pleistocene (10,000 BP uncalibrated; 9500 BC calibrated) to the northeast following the retreating tundra, after the Younger Dryas[citation needed]. Recent radiocarbon dates prove that some groups of the Svidero-Ahrensburgian Complex persisted into the Preboreal. Unlike western Europe, the Mesolithic groups now inhabiting the Polish Plain were newcomers. This has been attested by a 300-year-long gap between the youngest Palaeolithic and the oldest Mesolithic occupation. The oldest Mesolithic site is Chwalim, located in western Silesia, Poland; it outdates the Mesolithic sites situated to the east in central and northeastern Poland by about 150 years. Thus, the Mesolithic population progressed from the west after a 300-year-long settlement break, and moved gradually towards the east. The lack of good flint raw materials in the Polish early Mesolithic has been interpreted thus that the new arriving people were not acquainted yet with the best local sources of flint, proving their external origin” [Wikipedia, Swiderian culture].

  9. Carlos,
    I am Z2/Y-18324 (S-22165) with a slow-mutating marker at DYS388 (my value is “10”). I have a number of test kit “matches”, including in the U.K. as well as in Norway and Sweden. Because of the slow-mutating marker, Dr. Iain Mcdonald has estimated that I share a common male ancestor with the Scandinavian kits 1,000+ years ago. If my information can be of value to your very interesting project, please do get in touch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.