It may be misleading, since they compared modern DNA with dead vikings, rather than the survivors who are more likely to have descendants. :^)
When I had my DNA done, not surprisingly, I had a Scandinavian share in the 20s I think. The Vikings were settled in on the British Isles.
There's a discussion of the transformation of Ireland by Viking settlers, discerned in the changing of surnames. By the time Boru fell at Clontarf, both armies were partly or mostly Scandinavian in ancestry.
In eastern England was the Danelaw, in northern England Northumbria, and the Lord of the Isles was a series of Scandinavian kings of parts of what we now call Scotland.
And what is now NW Germany (at least) was partly or wholly Scandinavian in the Viking Age.
My Mom’s side came from the area east of York. I’ve traced them back to 1600. Maybe there’s some Viking blood in that line, but I think they originated in Saxony.
My Dad’s side came from western Germany along the Rhine River north of Cologne, but my Opa married a Baltic girl from the Danzig area.
Ancestry says I’ve got 8% “Austria, Belarus, Czechia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.” DNA and 6% “Sweden & Denmark.” It is correct with “Germanic Europe” and “England and NW Europe” at 68% combined.
Huge swaths of Russia have Viking antecedents.
“The Vikings were settled in on the British Isles.”
Tell me where I’m making a mistake:
Normandy was named after the Normans (North Men in English) who had settled there. The North Men were probably Vikings.
The Normans invaded England. Thus, Viking blood in England as well as Scotland. That explains my Viking blood given my Norman invader heritage.
That’s the assumption I have been making since getting a DNA analysis.