PDA

View Full Version : How much of my English ancestry is Celtic Briton?



Pages : [1] 2

bradly88
06-16-2018, 04:49 PM
Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome. :)

rms2
06-16-2018, 04:55 PM
Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome. :)

Well, your y-dna haplogroup is believed to be a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, so if that line is English, it is more likely to be connected to the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings than to the Celtic Britons.

Otherwise, it's really impossible to tell from your Family Finder ethnic origins stats as given.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-16-2018, 05:30 PM
Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome. :)

I don't think these ancestry results are particularly reliable sometimes. My ancestry is entirely British and I get all sorts on different tests. FTDNA gives me 94% British Isles, 5% Asia Minor and 1% South America. The last two I believe are "British" similarities to certain modern regional populations. I get them (SW Asia/Native American) on other tests. Some tests give me Basque/Iberian.
If your ancestry is substantially English (or British), from the "People of the British Isles" and other studies it seems a fair proportion of your ancestry is likely to be from the pre- Anglo Saxon period. How much may depend on where your ancestry was distributed in the UK, with the South and East of England, as you would expect, having a greater Anglo Saxon influence. However, I think even in the South and East of England that is estimated at around one third Anglo Saxon( including possibly Norse) at most and in the West of the country it is significantly lower (10% rings a bell).
Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had.

rms2
06-16-2018, 05:40 PM
bradly88 -

Have you tried downloading your Family Finder raw data, creating a Gedmatch account (it's free), and running your Family Finder data through the various admixture tools there?

That might help.

Although the modern English certainly must include some Celtic Britons among their ancestors, POBI showed a distinct difference between England and Wales and Scotland: https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/peopleofthebritishisles/documents/media/mapcolor1100.pdf

rms2
06-16-2018, 05:54 PM
. . .
Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had.

I wouldn't downplay the importance of a male's y-dna line. After all, evidently the guy paid to have it tested; he probably cares.

Yes, it's just one line, yadda-yadda-yadda, but for most of us it's the line that conveys to us the surname we bear, and for many of us it is of paramount importance.

rms2
06-16-2018, 06:20 PM
BTW, one of the coolest things about downloading your Family Finder raw data is then you can check it for various interesting traits, like the red hair variants, lactase persistence, etc.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-16-2018, 07:39 PM
I wouldn't downplay the importance of a male's y-dna line. After all, evidently the guy paid to have it tested; he probably cares.

Yes, it's just one line, yadda-yadda-yadda, but for most of us it's the line that conveys to us the surname we bear, and for many of us it is of paramount importance.

Yes, it's very important to some people and what they focus on but in the context of our total ancestry and thousands of ancestors, not very significant in defining "who we are" - 2% of our DNA? He didn't ask about his Y line his asked about his ancestry breakdown.

rms2
06-17-2018, 01:56 AM
Yes, it's very important to some people and what they focus on but in the context of our total ancestry and thousands of ancestors, not very significant in defining "who we are" - 2% of our DNA? He didn't ask about his Y line his asked about his ancestry breakdown.

He also didn't downplay his own y-dna line, which he obviously spent money on to test. I think that means he cares about it.

His ethnic origins breakdown didn't provide enough information to answer his question. The only element of his public genetic profile that does to any extent at all is his y-dna haplogroup.

A man's y-dna is significant because it was passed to him by his father, who got it from his father, who got it from his father, and so on. It's a firm, readily traceable connection to one's male line.

Its importance extends well beyond the percentage of one's total dna that it represents. Whatever small percentage the dna of the y chromosome is, it is a sure inheritance, unlike autosomal dna, which goes through a recombinant crapshoot with each succeeding generation, is far more difficult to trace, and through which most of one's ancestors flit and are gone, their contribution washed out within the passage of a few generations.

Sorry if you didn't like the way I answered him, but the right answer certainly isn't "Y-dna doesn't matter much".

msmarjoribanks
06-17-2018, 02:00 AM
To somewhat echo what others have said, getting British Isles simply means you match what FTDNA has in their British Isles sample database that they use to identify testers. FTDNA combines English and Irish, Scottish and Welsh altogether as British Isles, as I understand it, and it doesn't seek to separate out ancient Briton vs. Viking vs. Anglo Saxon ancestry, and you'd assume there's a mix in their sample (along with the other Celtic groups which are also mixed).

Out of curiosity, how well does FTDNA match your paper trail, if you have enough of one to judge? It's not great for my sister or I, although I am glad I tested there for other reasons.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-17-2018, 07:36 AM
He also didn't downplay his own y-dna line, which he obviously spent money on to test. I think that means he cares about it.

His ethnic origins breakdown didn't provide enough information to answer his question. The only element of his public genetic profile that does to any extent at all is his y-dna haplogroup.

A man's y-dna is significant because it was passed to him by his father, who got it from his father, who got it from his father, and so on. It's a firm, readily traceable connection to one's male line.

Its importance extends well beyond the percentage of one's total dna that it represents. Whatever small percentage the dna of the y chromosome is, it is a sure inheritance, unlike autosomal dna, which goes through a recombinant crapshoot with each succeeding generation, is far more difficult to trace, and through which most of one's ancestors flit and are gone, their contribution washed out within the passage of a few generations.

Sorry if you didn't like the way I answered him, but the right answer certainly isn't "Y-dna doesn't matter much".

Although it's difficult to be specific for an individual, it's broadly possible to say that people of early English origins have more pre- Anglo Saxon ancestry than post - Anglo Saxon Ancestry, some more than others. To define the English as "Anglo Saxon" just isn't accurate. How much significance an individual gives to their Y line to define themselves is a personal choice and matter of individual opinion usually influenced by emotions. Possibly women don't exist at all because they don't have Y DNA.

Robert1
06-17-2018, 03:27 PM
bradly88, adding your Scandinavian, you may be about 80% British&Irish (FTDNA often reports British as Scandinavian, they do for me, about 15%). The Living DNA test is on sale for Father's Day for ~$79 and you might want to jump on that. They broke down my B&I ancestry by region/county quite well as it agrees fairly well with my known ancestry. Living DNA doesn't work for everyone but might be exactly what you're looking for.

rms2
06-17-2018, 03:34 PM
Although it's difficult to be specific for an individual, it's broadly possible to say that people of early English origins have more pre- Anglo Saxon ancestry than post - Anglo Saxon Ancestry, some more than others. To define the English as "Anglo Saxon" just isn't accurate. How much significance an individual gives to their Y line to define themselves is a personal choice and matter of individual opinion usually influenced by emotions. Possibly women don't exist at all because they don't have Y DNA.

That last sentence is just ridiculous in the extreme. Women have fathers, who were able to be their fathers because, to start with, they each have a y chromosome.

And I didn't say women don't exist. I said y-dna is important. One can think y-dna is important without wanting women to cease to exist or thinking women are insignificant. I have three daughters and two granddaughters whom I love dearly. I love my wife, my mother, my sister and all my other female relatives, as well.

Amazing how I can do all that and still think y-dna is important.

The original poster wrote the following in his initial post:



Any comment[s] are most welcome.


I noticed he lists his y-dna haplogroup as R-U106, so I gave him some information. I thought he should get some kind of an answer to his question, because his Family Finder ethnic origins information wasn't up to the task.

Note that I did not say, "The modern English are 100% early medieval Anglo-Saxon". I wouldn't say that, because, to begin with, it would be silly. The modern English are the modern English, and, like all modern people, they are a hodge-podge of many elements.

Here's what I told him about his y-dna haplogroup:



Well, your y-dna haplogroup is believed to be a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, so if that line is English, it is more likely to be connected to the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings than to the Celtic Britons.


That's perfectly true, and I suspect it's the part you didn't like, for whatever reason. But, good grief, telling a guy who says he is mostly English that if his U106 y-dna line is English it's probably Anglo-Saxon or Viking is a problem?

What's the next problem, telling someone that when the sun goes down it gets dark?

Maybe his y-dna line isn't English. Bradly88 lists his location as Pella, Iowa. There are a lot of descendants of Germans and Norwegians there. Maybe he is mostly English but his y-dna line is German or Norwegian; I don't know, and he didn't say.

Emphasizing one's autosomal dna over his y-dna is also a matter of personal choice and is usually influenced by the emotions, as well, especially if for some reason one isn't happy with his y-dna results.

And it isn't a matter of the relative amounts of dna involved. The brain comprises only about 2% of a person's body weight. The heart is less than 0.5% of a person's body weight. Clearly the importance of some things far exceeds what percentage of the mere physical whole they constitute.

Y-dna signifies something far greater than mere biology. It is not itself spiritual, but it represents a spiritual heritage, the unbroken connection to one's fathers.

JonikW
06-17-2018, 03:44 PM
I've never seen that last theme put better. That's certainly how I feel about my forefathers and my Y line. Thanks.

JonikW
06-17-2018, 04:04 PM
Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome. :)

I would assume bradly88's ancestry is largely British Celtic in any case given that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the modern English is likely to be considerably below 50 percent based on the DNA results to date. That Scandinavian does look high though and I don't know how typical that is for FTDNA. I agree that we can also identify with our Y line. I think I'm mostly of "Celtic" descent, but I'm interested to discover recently that my Y branch (Peak District, Derbyshire) matches a German at about 2,000 years ago to our TMRCA (rounding to the nearest thousand years as these are only estimates) and a Swede at 1,000 on an offshoot that we form together. More evidence may emerge, but I think that already tells me something about who my forefathers were and how they came to this land. That is something beyond price for me.

rms2
06-17-2018, 04:20 PM
I would assume bradly88's ancestry is largely British Celtic in any case given that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the modern English is likely to be considerably below 50 percent based on the DNA results to date. That Scandinavian does look high though and I don't know how typical that is for FTDNA . . .

While I agree with you in general, I would caution that it depends to a large extent on just where in England his English ancestors came from. The eastern coast of England, especially SE England, is likely to be largely Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking by descent. As one moves north and west, the percentage of Celtic ancestry probably increases.

Bradly88 does have a pretty high Scandinavian percentage, which could be meaningful.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 04:29 PM
While I agree with you in general, I would caution that it depends to a large extent on just where in England his English ancestors came from. The eastern coast of England, especially SE England, is likely to be largely Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking by descent. As one moves north and west, the percentage of Celtic ancestry probably increases.

Bradly88 does have a pretty high Scandinavian percentage, which could be meaningful.

I agree with this, but I will note even SE England is not entirely Anglo-Saxon, I believe the average is around 38% with significant variation around this.

There seems to be a Celtic gradient in England (keep in mind English populations seem to deviate in two directions -- a northern Celtic population more closely related to Scots/Irish that is on a gradient from Yorkshire to Scotland, and a southern Celtic population more closely related to Wales on a gradient from SE England to Cornwall.

So it seems to go like this based on the Insular Celtic paper.. it seems SE England has a Celtic component more similar to that of England from Cheshire southward, and to Wales:

Southern Celtic, as deviating from SE England ("Welsh like")
SE England (least) --> West Midlands --> Devon --> Welsh border regions (i.e. Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, etc) --> Cheshire --> Cornwall (most)

Northern Celtic, as deviating from Yorkshire ("Scottish like"):
Yorkshire (least) --> NE England --> Cumbria --> North Scotland --> South Scotland/Northern Ireland (most)

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007152.g002

rms2
06-17-2018, 04:36 PM
I agree with this, but I will note even SE England is not entirely Anglo-Saxon, I believe the average is around 38% with significant variation around this . . .

This is an honest question. Where are you getting that figure of 38%, and upon what is it based, actual ancient dna results or comparison to some modern continental population?

Also, I couldn't make that graphic any larger, not with any clarity, so it was more of Rorschach test for me than anything else.

sktibo
06-17-2018, 04:39 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Southeast England turned out to have most of its genetic influence from the continent post Bronze Age, either from the Roman occupation, Medieval French and Low Countries migrants, or both.


This is an honest question. Where are you getting that figure of 38%, and upon what is it based, actual ancient dna results or comparison to some modern continental population?


This is off the top of my head, but 38% is one of the more generous estimates for A/S contributions to the region. Some are closer to 20%.

Edit: The POBI estimate is between 10-40%:

"Based on these two contributions, the best estimates for the proportion of presumed Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the large eastern, central and southern England cluster (red squares) are a maximum of 40% and could be as little as 10%."
https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/population-genetics

Based on the few East Anglian results we see here I doubt that the SE English are incredibly consistent in this.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 04:39 PM
This is an honest question. Where are you getting that figure of 38%, and upon what is it based, actual ancient dna results or comparison to some modern continental population?

Also, I couldn't make that graphic any larger, not with any clarity, so it was more of Rorschach test for me than anything else.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3407267/The-English-one-Anglo-Saxon-Study-reveals-time-immigrants-mixed-British-population.html

This refers to a study.

Basically I think it makes sense that SE England is roughly 30-40% Anglo-Saxon, and then this decreases as you go west and north. Though this likely does not account for Danish Viking admixture which would be added to that for eastern England.

rms2
06-17-2018, 04:44 PM
. . .

This is off the top of my head, but 38% is one of the more generous estimates for A/S contributions to the region. Some are closer to 20%.

Off the top of my head, I would say 20% is a trifle low for eastern England but probably about right farther west and north.

IMHO, POBI is nice, but I want to see what happens when more actual Late Roman Period/Early Medieval Anglo-Saxon results are published and what happens when we get some actual Danish-Viking-in-England dna.

There has been a lot of autosomal dna water under the bridge since the 5th-11th centuries.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 04:51 PM
Based on the few East Anglian results we see here I doubt that the SE English are incredibly consistent in this.

I have several kits from SE England but not East Anglia. Some of them are closer to Ireland/western Scotland, others to Germany/Denmark. The least Germanic one I have is from Essex.

sktibo
06-17-2018, 04:53 PM
Off the top of my head, I would say 20% is a trifle low for eastern England but probably about right farther west and north.

I edited my post - 10% is actually the lowest estimate. I'm not sure it is too low - I'm also not sure that the estimates closer to 40% are incorrect. The autosomal results I have seen for Norfolk and his mother (East Anglian) suggest continental migration as a possibility for the largest source of ancestry rather than Anglo Saxons or Danes. Of course a "hard Germanic" element is not missing there, it just isn't as prominent as one might expect. I think there's bound to be a solid variance in the SE English peoples today - they seem to be very mixed, which I suppose makes sense as they're the closest to mainland Europe.


I have several kits from SE England but not East Anglia. Some of them are closer to Ireland/western Scotland, others to Germany/Denmark. The least Germanic one I have is from Essex.

Very interesting, so that does line up with there being quite a variance then.

rms2
06-17-2018, 04:56 PM
I have several kits from SE England but not East Anglia. Some of them are closer to Ireland/western Scotland, others to Germany/Denmark. The least Germanic one I have is from Essex.

And England has experienced a lot immigration from Ireland, Scotland and Wales over the years.

It might be difficult to find a modern English family without ancestors in those places. Hard to attribute that to ancient Britons who were living in SE England.

MitchellSince1893
06-17-2018, 04:59 PM
Just to add my own two cents to the y-dna vs autsomal discussion. I believe "you can have your cake and eat it too". I take into consideration both as autosomallly I place squarely in between Anglo-Saxon samples (I'm the black + symbol)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/cc/b1/71ccb10f78edc70bf2018a38699a0ef0.png

And based on the recent discovery of U152>L2 in a Hallstaat grave, my y-dna line is probably of Continental Celtic origin. As to when my paternal showed up in England is still unknown, but I catch myself identifying with Celtic Britons as it relates to my y-dna line.

Your y-dna and mtDNA lines have something going for them that other lines don't. They let you trace a particular line back further than what can be done via autosomal testing. Whether that is of interest is an individual's choice.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 05:07 PM
The other thing to consider is some of the Celts in England could have been related to Belgic tribes more closely than to Gaels. Since Belgium is right where Celts and Germanics lived side by side, there could have been a smaller difference than expected.

Finn
06-17-2018, 05:39 PM
How do you estimate the Britonic and A-S component?

I guess the NPCA of Davidski with the A-S and Britons is a good one.....

My father and I plot very close to the A-S:

https://www.mupload.nl/img/4de9vpir8.png

We are the blue crosses. Especially my father and I plot closer tot the early A-S and more on the Germanic side than Vestri, Timberwolf...

But no wonder because my parents ancestry, and especially that of my father, has an coastal North Dutch ancestry (full of A-S, Nordic influx).

To take for example countries in general (like in the research mentioned in the daily mail) is very tricky..

Take for example my mothers admixture results:


This are my mothers results in K15 and K13, partly A-S result with North Dutch and Danish, but also SE England, Ireland, West Scotland!!! >>>Sikeliot!

1 Orcadian @ 5.061007
2 North_Dutch @ 5.364118
3 Danish @ 5.711246
4 Southeast_English @ 5.874795
5 Irish @ 6.246573
6 Norwegian @ 6.383976
7 Southwest_English @ 6.519495

1 North_Dutch @ 4.903157
2 Southwest_English @ 5.610389
3 Danish @ 5.651878
4 Southeast_English @ 6.074092
5 Irish @ 6.319037
6 West_Scottish @ 6.375203
7 Norwegian @ 6.405447
8 Orcadian @ 7.137194
9 North_German @ 7.495936
10 West_Norwegian @ 7.791859
8 North_German @ 6.652251
9 West_Scottish @ 6.945525
10 Swedish @ 7.253519

So would you take my mother as a proxy for A-S than the result would not be not ok because she has also a big other kind of component, close to SE-England, Ireland, West-Scotland !!!

JonikW
06-17-2018, 05:42 PM
Off the top of my head, I would say 20% is a trifle low for eastern England but probably about right farther west and north.

IMHO, POBI is nice, but I want to see what happens when more actual Late Roman Period/Early Medieval Anglo-Saxon results are published and what happens when we get some actual Danish-Viking-in-England dna.

There has been a lot of autosomal dna water under the bridge since the 5th-11th centuries.

I agree. I'm particularly keen to see if we get the Repton results from the Great Heathen Army that were said to be in the works now that I know more about my Y line. Repton is just down the road from where my line came from. We haven't had as much aDNA as I'd hoped recently.

JMcB
06-17-2018, 06:02 PM
This is an honest question. Where are you getting that figure of 38%, and upon what is it based, actual ancient dna results or comparison to some modern continental population?

Also, I couldn't make that graphic any larger, not with any clarity, so it was more of Rorschach test for me than anything else.

I believe that 38% number comes from this study:

Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history

Stephan Schiffels, Wolfgang Haak, Pirita Paajanen, Bastien Llamas, Elizabeth Popescu, Louise Loe, Rachel Clarke, Alice Lyons, Richard Mortimer, Duncan Sayer, Chris Tyler-Smith, Alan Cooper & Richard Durbin

Abstract

British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations after 400 CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences from 10 individuals excavated close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from the late Iron Age to the middle Anglo-Saxon period. By analysing shared rare variants with hundreds of modern samples from Britain and Europe, we estimate that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which infers population history and identifies fine-scale genetic ancestry from rare variants. Using rarecoal we find that the Anglo-Saxon samples are closely related to modern Dutch and Danish populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-17-2018, 06:03 PM
This is an honest question. Where are you getting that figure of 38%, and upon what is it based, actual ancient dna results or comparison to some modern continental population?

Also, I couldn't make that graphic any larger, not with any clarity, so it was more of Rorschach test for me than anything else.

"Ancient genomes reveal that the English are one third Anglo-Saxon"

"By sequencing the DNA from ten skeletons from the late Iron Age and the Anglo-Saxon period, we obtained the first complete ancient genomes from Great Britain. Comparing these ancient genomes with sequences of hundreds of modern European genomes, we estimate that 38 per cent of the ancestors of the English (East of England) were Anglo-Saxons. This is the first direct estimate of the impact of immigration into Britain from the 5th to 7th Centuries AD and the traces left in modern England." Dr Stephan Schiffels, first author from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridgeshire and the Max Plank Institute in Germany.

https://www.sanger.ac.uk/news/view/ancient-genomes-reveal-english-are-one-third-anglo-saxon

"Why the idea that the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin is a myth"

The analysis of DNA of four individuals from the Oakington Anglo-Saxon cemetery identified that one of them was a match with the Iron Age genome, two were closest to modern Dutch genomes, and one was a hybrid of the two. Each of these burials was culturally Anglo-Saxon because they were buried in the same way, in the same cemetery. In fact, the richest assemblage of Anglo-Saxon artefacts came from the individual with the match for Iron Age genetic ancestry, and so was not a migrant at all........

It shows that these ancient people did not distinguish biological heritage from cultural association. In other words, someone who lived and died in the fifth or sixth century Anglo-Saxon village of Oakington could have been biologically related to an earlier inhabitant of England, a recent migrant from continental Europe or a descendent of either or both – they were all treated the same in death....

The results from our recent study were published in Nature Communications and included evidence from an Anglo-Saxon site I excavated in Oakington, Cambridgeshire. In total ten skeletons where investigated. These included seven early medieval graves dating to between the fifth and eighth century – four from Oakington and three from Hinxton – and three earlier Iron Age graves from Cambridgeshire, dating to between the second century BC and the first century AD, to provide the genome of the antecedent inhabitants of Briton....

Anglo-Saxon ancestry is a modern English myth – the English are not descended from one group of people, but from many and that persists in our culture and in our genes."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-idea-english-common-anglo-saxon-myth.html#jCp

I would bet there may be a fair proportion of Norse/Viking or Norman in that estimated "Anglo Saxon" percentage in the South and East of England.

Finn
06-17-2018, 06:08 PM
Those 38% looks to high especially when they take the Dutch (and Danish) as a proxy.....

Because many Dutch have high SE England, Irish and West-Scottish results in the admixtures.

So when they are taken as proxy for A-S than the A-S component gets to high because they include the "SE England, Irish, West Scottish" component.....;)

MitchellSince1893
06-17-2018, 06:14 PM
Looking at an old thread 20-40% of Eastern England is Anglo-Saxon. Obviously less as you go West.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history&p=96601&viewfull=1#post96601

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 06:26 PM
Looking at an old thread 20-40% of Eastern England is Anglo-Saxon. Obviously less as you go West.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history&p=96601&viewfull=1#post96601

Some of that 20-40% might erroneously include Danish Viking admixture, since it is difficult to differentiate the two. This is one of the reasons a newer study found "Anglo-Saxon" admixture but concluded almost no Danish Viking.

Finn
06-17-2018, 06:27 PM
I'm not a 'technical' expert but if I'm well than in the research that Jmc8 quoted they 'filtered' the AS component by comparing it with iron age, early anglo saxon dutch and danes....than I can imagine that 38% would be justified.....

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 06:29 PM
I would argue that once you get up to Yorkshire, the continental Germanic input declines. Yorkshire forms a different cluster in the Insular Celtic paper than SE England, and north of that, they're even more differentiated.

JonikW
06-17-2018, 06:35 PM
I would argue that once you get up to Yorkshire, the continental Germanic input declines. Yorkshire forms a different cluster in the Insular Celtic paper than SE England, and north of that, they're even more differentiated.

Interesting because I'd have expected Yorkshire to be among the highest given the Humber route into England and the AS cemeteries there. Plus the Danelaw settlement later.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 06:42 PM
Interesting because I'd have expected Yorkshire to be among the highest given the Humber route into England and the AS cemeteries there. Plus the Danelaw settlement later.

Yorkshire was one of the clusters deviating from the SE England cluster.

Finn
06-17-2018, 06:49 PM
Yorkshire was one of the clusters deviating from the SE England cluster.

Do you have further information about that research.....

The AS stream to England and Friesland was Saxon, Chauci, Angles (ok all NW Germany) but also Jutes and Norwegians.... So how could they distinguish this from the Viking one?

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 06:53 PM
Do you have further information about that research.....

The AS stream to England and Friesland was Saxon, Chauci, Angles (ok all NW Germany) but also Jutes and Norwegians.... So how could they distinguish this from the Viking one?

See my post with the map from the Insular Celtic paper. Yorkshire is a separate cluster from SE England, and shifts toward NE England/Scotland. West Yorkshire was one of the areas that remained Celtic-speaking for longer, though not as long as Cumbria.

As for your second question, I don't think Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking can be completely distinguished.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 06:59 PM
I think distinctive Danish Viking ancestry if it exists would be high in Lincolnshire.

JonikW
06-17-2018, 07:18 PM
I think distinctive Danish Viking ancestry if it exists would be high in Lincolnshire.

Yes, and potentially many places within Mercia.

JMcB
06-17-2018, 07:20 PM
Some of that 20-40% might erroneously include Danish Viking admixture, since it is difficult to differentiate the two. This is one of the reasons a newer study found "Anglo-Saxon" admixture but concluded almost no Danish Viking.

Not everyone agreed with the conclusions of the POBI study in that regard. Curiously, they admitted in their own supplemental materials that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, they came to their conclusion.

Be that as it may, for anyone’s possible interest:


The ‘People of the British Isles’ project and Viking settlement in England

Jane Kershaw1 & Ellen C. Røyrvik2,∗

Introduction

The recently concluded ‘People of the British Isles’ project (hereafter PoBI) combined large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis to generate a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail; the results were presented by Leslie and colleagues in 2015. Comparing clusters of genetic variation within Britain with DNA samples from Continental Europe, the study elucidated past immigration events via the identification and dating of historic admixture episodes (the interbreeding of two or more different population groups). Among its results, the study found “no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles”, therefore positing “a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings”, with ‘Danish Vikings’ defined in the study, and thus in this article, as peoples migrating from Denmark to eastern England in the late ninth and early tenth centuries (Leslie et al. 2015: 313). Here, we consider the details of certain assumptions that were made in the study, and offer an alternative interpretation to the above conclusion. We also comment on the substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence for a large-scale Danish Viking presence in England.

[...]

Conclusion

We suggest in this article that, contrary to the conclusions of Leslie et al. (2015), Danish Vikings probably contributed appreciably to the lowland British population. The GER3 signal, interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon genetic signal by Leslie et al. (2015) is likely to also include a Danish Viking signal, given that both populations originated from largely the same geographic location. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that the admixture proportion from GER3 is influenced, perhaps heavily, by Danish Vikings would also help to explain the unexpectedly late date for said signal. In light of the convincing linguistic and archaeological evidence, we would urge a re-interpretation of the genetic analysis to allow for significant levels of Scandinavian migration to, and settlement in, England.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/54E19CAFF9AC2BEB39EAEC826BEDBC63/S0003598X16001939a.pdf/people_of_the_british_isles_project_and_viking_set tlement_in_england.pdf

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 07:25 PM
Not everyone agreed with the conclusions of the POBI study in that regard. They admitted in their own supplemental materials that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, they came to their conclusion.

Then that 20-40% might be the combination of Anglo-Saxon and Viking.

JonikW
06-17-2018, 07:51 PM
Not everyone agreed with the conclusions of the POBI study in that regard. Curiously, they admitted in their own supplemental materials that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, they came to their conclusion.

Be that as it may, for anyone’s possible interest:


The ‘People of the British Isles’ project and Viking settlement in England

Jane Kershaw1 & Ellen C. Røyrvik2,∗

Introduction

The recently concluded ‘People of the British Isles’ project (hereafter PoBI) combined large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis to generate a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail; the results were presented by Leslie and colleagues in 2015. Comparing clusters of genetic variation within Britain with DNA samples from Continental Europe, the study elucidated past immigration events via the identification and dating of historic admixture episodes (the interbreeding of two or more different population groups). Among its results, the study found “no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles”, therefore positing “a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings”, with ‘Danish Vikings’ defined in the study, and thus in this article, as peoples migrating from Denmark to eastern England in the late ninth and early tenth centuries (Leslie et al. 2015: 313). Here, we consider the details of certain assumptions that were made in the study, and offer an alternative interpretation to the above conclusion. We also comment on the substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence for a large-scale Danish Viking presence in England.

[...]

Conclusion

We suggest in this article that, contrary to the conclusions of Leslie et al. (2015), Danish Vikings probably contributed appreciably to the lowland British population. The GER3 signal, interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon genetic signal by Leslie et al. (2015) is likely to also include a Danish Viking signal, given that both populations originated from largely the same geographic location. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that the admixture proportion from GER3 is influenced, perhaps heavily, by Danish Vikings would also help to explain the unexpectedly late date for said signal. In light of the convincing linguistic and archaeological evidence, we would urge a re-interpretation of the genetic analysis to allow for significant levels of Scandinavian migration to, and settlement in, England.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/54E19CAFF9AC2BEB39EAEC826BEDBC63/S0003598X16001939a.pdf/people_of_the_british_isles_project_and_viking_set tlement_in_england.pdf

I really think it's impossible to differentiate. Just look, for example, at the TMRCA of I1 lines. And that's far from the only haplogroup shared by AS and Norse populations. I'd assumed my Y line was Anglo-Saxon until my Swedish match with such a recent TMRCA came in. I wouldn't be surprised if some people in my family came in from Friesland in the 5th century and others a few centuries later via the Danish lands.

Finn
06-17-2018, 08:12 PM
Jonik buth the Frisian one from the fifth century was most probably also derived from ten A-S/Nordic influx....
So no difference if he had gone straight ahead or with a pit stop in Friesland ;)

Finn
06-17-2018, 08:22 PM
Kent an Friesland were clearly related though in migration time, see (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=kent+en+friesland+nicolay&source=bl&ots=N92Jr6vmqB&sig=1C1DEVxv4WLd1Rl4vW3fx-OnBRc&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNxsDIwdvbAhWDZ1AKHfnlClUQ6AEwCXoECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=kent%20en%20friesland%20nicolay&f=false)

06-17-2018, 08:41 PM
Not everyone agreed with the conclusions of the POBI study in that regard. Curiously, they admitted in their own supplemental materials that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, they came to their conclusion.

Be that as it may, for anyone’s possible interest:


The ‘People of the British Isles’ project and Viking settlement in England

Jane Kershaw1 & Ellen C. Røyrvik2,∗

Introduction

The recently concluded ‘People of the British Isles’ project (hereafter PoBI) combined large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis to generate a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail; the results were presented by Leslie and colleagues in 2015. Comparing clusters of genetic variation within Britain with DNA samples from Continental Europe, the study elucidated past immigration events via the identification and dating of historic admixture episodes (the interbreeding of two or more different population groups). Among its results, the study found “no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles”, therefore positing “a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings”, with ‘Danish Vikings’ defined in the study, and thus in this article, as peoples migrating from Denmark to eastern England in the late ninth and early tenth centuries (Leslie et al. 2015: 313). Here, we consider the details of certain assumptions that were made in the study, and offer an alternative interpretation to the above conclusion. We also comment on the substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence for a large-scale Danish Viking presence in England.

[...]

Conclusion

We suggest in this article that, contrary to the conclusions of Leslie et al. (2015), Danish Vikings probably contributed appreciably to the lowland British population. The GER3 signal, interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon genetic signal by Leslie et al. (2015) is likely to also include a Danish Viking signal, given that both populations originated from largely the same geographic location. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that the admixture proportion from GER3 is influenced, perhaps heavily, by Danish Vikings would also help to explain the unexpectedly late date for said signal. In light of the convincing linguistic and archaeological evidence, we would urge a re-interpretation of the genetic analysis to allow for significant levels of Scandinavian migration to, and settlement in, England.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/54E19CAFF9AC2BEB39EAEC826BEDBC63/S0003598X16001939a.pdf/people_of_the_british_isles_project_and_viking_set tlement_in_england.pdf

I tend to agree with this conclusion, it’s been argued in previous threads that’s the Danes and AS were indistinguishable, and Eastern England had a double whammy of firstly AS then Danes to make up its Germanic structure. I imagine a cline from Dorset to Edinburgh, where on the east side is predominantly Germanic, and the West is Insular Celtic. Of course there is no black and white, only shades of grey, not sure we can get much closer to the truth than that.

Sikeliot
06-17-2018, 08:48 PM
I tend to agree with this conclusion, it’s been argued in previous threads that’s the Danes and AS were indistinguishable, and Eastern England had a double whammy of firstly AS then Danes to make up its Germanic structure. I imagine a cline from Dorset to Edinburgh, where on the east side is predominantly Germanic, and the West is Insular Celtic. Of course there is no black and white, only shades of grey, not sure we can get much closer to the truth than that.

I think we can say nowhere in England is predominantly continental Germanic, but what the Insular Celtic paper did demonstrate is that there seem to have been two Celtic base populations in England, one more like Welsh and one more like Scots, and that they contributed in varying amounts to all English clusters but mostly those in the west and north.

Of course, no part of the British Isles seems to have absolutely *no* Germanic input, and if there is, it'd most likely be either North Wales or the southwest corner of Ireland, as the paper showed that even much of Ireland, especially the east coast has absorbed such mixture, whether indirectly from Germanic-admixed English regions or from Vikings.

rms2
06-17-2018, 10:39 PM
"Ancient genomes reveal that the English are one third Anglo-Saxon"
. . .

"Why the idea that the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin is a myth"


If that was directed at me, you might try re-reading my posts. I never said "the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin". I told the original poster the following about his R1b-U106 y-dna haplogroup:



Well, your y-dna haplogroup is believed to be a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, so if that line is English, it is more likely to be connected to the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings than to the Celtic Britons.


And what I wrote is perfectly true, as the recent spate of U106 results among actual Migration Period Germanic tribesmen supports.

I also told the original poster the following in regard to whether or not the rest of his ancestry is Celtic Briton:



Otherwise, it's really impossible to tell from your Family Finder ethnic origins stats as given.


Which is also perfectly true.

So, you see, I gave him some perfectly true information about his y-dna haplogroup and remained non-committal about his FTDNA Family Finder ethnic origins results.

What I did NOT say was something like this: "By Woden's beard, man, you're an Anglo-Saxon!"

Nope, never did.

On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon is a pretty substantial part of the English genetic heritage.

I am wondering about this line: "Why the idea that the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin is a myth".

Who would expect a modern people to be autosomally 100% anything from the early Medieval Period? And why does not being 100% Anglo-Saxon mean the English (many if not most of them at least) don't share a common Anglo-Saxon origin? At least some of their ancestral lines are Anglo-Saxon in origin. They don't count?

MitchellSince1893
06-17-2018, 10:43 PM
Not everyone agreed with the conclusions of the POBI study in that regard. Curiously, they admitted in their own supplemental materials that it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, they came to their conclusion.

Be that as it may, for anyone’s possible interest:


The ‘People of the British Isles’ project and Viking settlement in England

Jane Kershaw1 & Ellen C. Røyrvik2,∗

Introduction

The recently concluded ‘People of the British Isles’ project (hereafter PoBI) combined large-scale, local DNA sampling with innovative data analysis to generate a survey of the genetic structure of Britain in unprecedented detail; the results were presented by Leslie and colleagues in 2015. Comparing clusters of genetic variation within Britain with DNA samples from Continental Europe, the study elucidated past immigration events via the identification and dating of historic admixture episodes (the interbreeding of two or more different population groups). Among its results, the study found “no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles”, therefore positing “a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings”, with ‘Danish Vikings’ defined in the study, and thus in this article, as peoples migrating from Denmark to eastern England in the late ninth and early tenth centuries (Leslie et al. 2015: 313). Here, we consider the details of certain assumptions that were made in the study, and offer an alternative interpretation to the above conclusion. We also comment on the substantial archaeological and linguistic evidence for a large-scale Danish Viking presence in England.

[...]

Conclusion

We suggest in this article that, contrary to the conclusions of Leslie et al. (2015), Danish Vikings probably contributed appreciably to the lowland British population. The GER3 signal, interpreted as an Anglo-Saxon genetic signal by Leslie et al. (2015) is likely to also include a Danish Viking signal, given that both populations originated from largely the same geographic location. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that the admixture proportion from GER3 is influenced, perhaps heavily, by Danish Vikings would also help to explain the unexpectedly late date for said signal. In light of the convincing linguistic and archaeological evidence, we would urge a re-interpretation of the genetic analysis to allow for significant levels of Scandinavian migration to, and settlement in, England.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/54E19CAFF9AC2BEB39EAEC826BEDBC63/S0003598X16001939a.pdf/people_of_the_british_isles_project_and_viking_set tlement_in_england.pdf

That is an interesting study with lots of good info


The [POBI] study posits evidence for the Anglo-Saxon invasions, citing an admixture event for the lowland British cluster, where the largest contribution to one parental proxy was provided
by north-western Germany (Continental cluster GER3, at 35% of the event; see Figure 1c). This was estimated to have occurred around 38 generations ago, which, using a generation
time of 28 years, a principled average from Fenner (2005), corresponds to the year AD 858 (95% confidence interval: AD 802–914)

A Saxon admixture date within the range of AD 802–914 post-dates, however, the onset of Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain in the middle of the fifth century by some 350–450 years. Even allowing for ongoing immigration and a very gradual admixture process reflected in limited rates of intermarriage between migrant and local groups (Thomas et al. 2006), it is unlikely that ethnic distinctions would have remained so prominent over four centuries. For comparison, the same method was used to discover a three-way admixture event in the history of modern Maya, between Native American, West African and European groups, dated to AD 1670—150 years after the start of the Spanish conquest of Mexico (Hellenthal et al. 2014). In particular, a model of ethnic isolation is inconsistent with the cultural influence asserted by Anglo-Saxon groups over much of the native population of lowland Britain, as they affected changes in dress, language and burial rites (Loveluck & Laing 2011). Indeed, there is little evidence for distinctions between Britons and Anglo-Saxons as late as the ninth century, with archaeological, skeletal and textual data all pointing to the seventh century as the time when ethnic differences began to break down (Thomas et al. 2006). We must therefore expect the Anglo-Saxon/Briton mixing to be virtually complete before the AD 802–914 date range

I found that part in bold interesting as it indicates the beginning of the English people as opposed to Britons and Anglo-Saxons.

sktibo
06-17-2018, 10:47 PM
IMO the best resource on the topic of Anglo-Saxon vs. Celtic British DNA in modern Insular populations is the K2 graph from the Insular Celtic Paper.

24089

It's not a definite answer or anything but what I like about this is that it shows that the Iron Age British samples aren't entirely different from the Anglo Saxons, nor the Saxons from the Britons. It does show that of the modern British population averages that the South East English grouping is the most similar but there is quite a large difference nonetheless.

rms2
06-17-2018, 11:19 PM
The study by David Reich and his team that prompted this article (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587) ought to be interesting.

My money is on the third possibility, but time will tell.



The third possibility is that scholars have simply underestimated the genetic impact of the Roman occupation, which lasted in Britain from AD 43 until 410. Roman settlers from the Italian peninsula would have traced a large proportion of their ancestry to Neolithic farmers like those that inhabited Britain before the arrival of the Beaker people.

JerryS.
06-17-2018, 11:45 PM
I don't know my haplogroups, but on my father's father's side the origins are from Shropshire and Kent. this I presume would account for possible Welsh ancestry and maybe Anglo-Saxon. my mother's mother's side is Scottish and English but unknown as to what part. I figure with Scottish and English close to the Welsh border there is some Celtic/Gaelic stuff in there somewhere.

JerryS.
06-17-2018, 11:48 PM
Kent an Friesland were clearly related though in migration time, see (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=kent+en+friesland+nicolay&source=bl&ots=N92Jr6vmqB&sig=1C1DEVxv4WLd1Rl4vW3fx-OnBRc&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNxsDIwdvbAhWDZ1AKHfnlClUQ6AEwCXoECAgQA Q#v=onepage&q=kent%20en%20friesland%20nicolay&f=false)

with MDLP K23b I get Frisian as the primary population with the mixed mode population groups (regular oracle). I figured this was because its a happy medium from northern Germany and the U.K.

regular GEDmatch:

1 82.4% Frisian ( ) + 17.6% Greek_Thessaloniki ( ) @ 1.89
2 82.1% Frisian ( ) + 17.9% Albanian_Tirana ( ) @ 1.89
3 79.7% Frisian ( ) + 20.3% Kosovar ( ) @ 1.93
4 82% Frisian ( ) + 18% Greek_Thessaly ( ) @ 1.94
5 85.9% Frisian ( ) + 14.1% Italian_South ( ) @ 1.99
6 85.5% Frisian ( ) + 14.5% Greek_Athens ( ) @ 1.99
7 83.8% Frisian ( ) + 16.2% Central_Greek ( ) @ 2
8 84.9% Frisian ( ) + 15.1% Sicilian_Center ( ) @ 2.04
9 79.2% Frisian ( ) + 20.8% Bulgarian ( ) @ 2.05
10 88.5% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 11.5% Georgian_Tbilisi ( ) @ 2.05
11 83.4% Frisian ( ) + 16.6% Ashkenazi ( ) @ 2.08
12 79.3% Frisian ( ) + 20.7% Greek_Northwest ( ) @ 2.08
13 88.8% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 11.2% Georgian_Laz ( ) @ 2.08
14 85.4% Frisian ( ) + 14.6% Greek ( ) @ 2.09
15 93.2% Belgian ( ) + 6.8% Georgian_Laz ( ) @ 2.1
16 84.5% Frisian ( ) + 15.5% Romanian_Jew ( ) @ 2.1
17 84.3% Frisian ( ) + 15.7% Gagauz ( ) @ 2.11
18 82.1% Frisian ( ) + 17.9% Greek_Peloponnesos ( ) @ 2.14
19 93% Belgian ( ) + 7% Georgian_Imereti ( ) @ 2.15
20 84.3% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 15.7% Circassian ( ) @ 2.16




Genesis GEDmatch:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 81.2% Serb_Serbia ( ) + 18.8% Sardinian ( ) @ 3.32
2 50.3% Italian_Bergamo ( ) + 49.7% Serb_Serbia ( ) @ 3.63
3 52.6% Albanian_Tirana ( ) + 47.4% English_Kent_GBR ( ) @ 3.93
4 59.1% Kosovar ( ) + 40.9% English_Kent_GBR ( ) @ 3.93
5 54.3% Albanian_Tirana ( ) + 45.7% French ( ) @ 3.95
6 57.6% Italian_Bergamo ( ) + 42.4% Croat ( ) @ 4.04
7 61% Italian_Bergamo ( ) + 39% Croat_BH ( ) @ 4.08
8 61.2% Kosovar ( ) + 38.8% English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) @ 4.13
9 57.7% Italian_Bergamo ( ) + 42.3% Serb_BH ( ) @ 4.13
10 63% Kosovar ( ) + 37% British ( ) @ 4.16
11 54.7% Albanian_Tirana ( ) + 45.3% English_Cornwall_GBR ( ) @ 4.18
12 59.5% Italian_Bergamo ( ) + 40.5% Bosnian ( ) @ 4.18
13 54.5% Greek_Thessaly ( ) + 45.5% French ( ) @ 4.19
14 53.9% Kosovar ( ) + 46.1% Belgian ( ) @ 4.21
15 50.5% French ( ) + 49.5% Central_Greek ( ) @ 4.22
16 60.9% Kosovar ( ) + 39.1% French ( ) @ 4.22
17 56.6% Albanian_Tirana ( ) + 43.4% British ( ) @ 4.23
18 52.7% Greek_Thessaloniki ( ) + 47.3% French ( ) @ 4.29
19 63.6% Serb_Serbia ( ) + 36.4% Spanish_Baleares_IBS ( ) @ 4.29
20 78.7% Italian_Piedmont ( ) + 21.3% Russian-Upper-Volga ( ) @ 4.3

the truth is somewhere in the middle. LOL

Sikeliot
06-18-2018, 12:03 AM
I don't know my haplogroups, but on my father's father's side the origins are from Shropshire and Kent. this I presume would account for possible Welsh ancestry and maybe Anglo-Saxon. my mother's mother's side is Scottish and English but unknown as to what part. I figure with Scottish and English close to the Welsh border there is some Celtic/Gaelic stuff in there somewhere.

If you see the chart from the Insular Celtic paper I posted in this thread, Shropshire would be in the "Welsh Borders" cluster and is drifting toward, though not as isolated as, Cornwall as compared to the SE England cluster. So yes, there is greater Celtic ancestry there.

rms2
06-18-2018, 12:42 AM
I believe that 38% number comes from this study:

Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history

Stephan Schiffels, Wolfgang Haak, Pirita Paajanen, Bastien Llamas, Elizabeth Popescu, Louise Loe, Rachel Clarke, Alice Lyons, Richard Mortimer, Duncan Sayer, Chris Tyler-Smith, Alan Cooper & Richard Durbin

Abstract

British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations after 400 CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences from 10 individuals excavated close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from the late Iron Age to the middle Anglo-Saxon period. By analysing shared rare variants with hundreds of modern samples from Britain and Europe, we estimate that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which infers population history and identifies fine-scale genetic ancestry from rare variants. Using rarecoal we find that the Anglo-Saxon samples are closely related to modern Dutch and Danish populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

We discussed that paper about three years ago, and I haven't revisited it since then, which is why I had forgotten that stat.

Another thing I had forgotten was that its Anglo-Saxon samples were all females.

Razib Khan commented on the possible significance of that here (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/).



There is still much that needs to be worked out on this topic. There’s only so much you can say from these handful of individuals. But even with these finite samples much was extracted. The authors observe that one of their Anglo-Saxon era individuals, buried in an Anglo-Saxon fashion, clustered perfectly with the British Iron Age individuals. Additionally, this individual was outfitted in a manner which suggested they were very high status within Anglo-Saxon society. But the authors did not connect this with the fact that all their Anglo-Saxon individuals were female. Hypergamy is entirely typical in human societies, and it is plausible that large numbers of migrating German men arrived on British shores without a wife and family in tow. In the years after the Norman invasion it was not uncommon for noble Saxon houses to give their daughters to an invader. And so the Anglo-Norman aristocracy arose as a synthesis between distinct paternal and maternal lineages. A similar scenario likely played out during the invasions of the Dark Ages.


Things might have been different and certainly a lot more interesting had they gotten a few Anglo-Saxon male samples.

The one female Anglo-Saxon who clustered with the "Iron Age" samples (i.e., the Britons) probably did so because she was a Briton herself.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-18-2018, 07:00 AM
Then that 20-40% might be the combination of Anglo-Saxon and Viking.

Which could include some Norman-related groups in some regions like the Welsh marches.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-18-2018, 07:13 AM
If that was directed at me, you might try re-reading my posts. I never said "the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin". I told the original poster the following about his R1b-U106 y-dna haplogroup:



And what I wrote is perfectly true, as the recent spate of U106 results among actual Migration Period Germanic tribesmen supports.

I also told the original poster the following in regard to whether or not the rest of his ancestry is Celtic Briton:



Which is also perfectly true.

So, you see, I gave him some perfectly true information about his y-dna haplogroup and remained non-committal about his FTDNA Family Finder ethnic origins results.

What I did NOT say was something like this: "By Woden's beard, man, you're an Anglo-Saxon!"

Nope, never did.

On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon is a pretty substantial part of the English genetic heritage.

I am wondering about this line: "Why the idea that the English have a common Anglo-Saxon origin is a myth".

Who would expect a modern people to be autosomally 100% anything from the early Medieval Period? And why does not being 100% Anglo-Saxon mean the English (many if not most of them at least) don't share a common Anglo-Saxon origin? At least some of their ancestral lines are Anglo-Saxon in origin. They don't count?

If you disagree with the statement take it up with the author. The original poster's question is whether his English ancestry was more Celtic than not and the answer to that question seems to be that the ancestry of the English is more pre-Anglo Saxon (Celtic and earlier) than post Anglo-Saxon. No one has denied a significant Anglo Saxon influence in England.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-18-2018, 07:21 AM
We discussed that paper about three years ago, and I haven't revisited it since then, which is why I had forgotten that stat.

Another thing I had forgotten was that its Anglo-Saxon samples were all females.

Razib Khan commented on the possible significance of that here (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/).



Things might have been different and certainly a lot more interesting had they gotten a few Anglo-Saxon male samples.

The one female Anglo-Saxon who clustered with the "Iron Age" samples (i.e., the Britons) probably did so because she was a Briton herself.

So the solution is filter out all the female ancestors when considering the current genetic make- up of the English people?

rms2
06-18-2018, 08:28 AM
So the solution is filter out all the female ancestors when considering the current genetic make- up of the English people?

Did I say that?

Does it make sense to you to filter out all the males?

The Anglo-Saxon invasion was probably largely male driven, as Razib Khan pointed out. No doubt many of them took native British women as wives.

Testing only females cannot possibly give an accurate picture of the Anglo-Saxon genome.

Finn
06-18-2018, 09:12 AM
The Anglo-Saxons did fuse in the end with the Britons.

But seen the social structure of the A-S the 'Earls' and 'Karls' did prefere woman of their own social class. They were very rigid with it. Britons were at first not seen as equal (lower Wehrgeld etc). So it's most probably that they took a wife oversea (homeland or from other invaded area's).

Doesn't rule out that from the beginning there were some side effects of slavery: A-S/Britonic childeren......

rms2
06-18-2018, 10:54 AM
If you disagree with the statement take it up with the author.

No need to do that. That study is three years old. I expressed my opinion of it here. That's enough.

It's pretty clear the English are in fact Anglo-Saxon in origin, but only in part. Like most if not all modern peoples, they're a mix of a number of elements. I never said otherwise.



The original poster's question is whether his English ancestry was more Celtic than not and the answer to that question seems to be that the ancestry of the English is more pre-Anglo Saxon (Celtic and earlier) than post Anglo-Saxon. No one has denied a significant Anglo Saxon influence in England.

I never said otherwise. I certainly never said the English are 100% Anglo-Saxon, nor would I.

But I think your problem with me has little do with that and more to do with the fact that I committed the cardinal sin of telling bradly88 that his U106 probably represents Germanic ancestry, at least on that one line.

That seems to be a sore spot.

rms2
06-18-2018, 11:02 AM
The Anglo-Saxons did fuse in the end with the Britons.

But seen the social structure of the A-S the 'Earls' and 'Karls' did prefere woman of their own social class. They were very rigid with it. Britons were at first not seen as equal (lower Wehrgeld etc). So it's most probably that they took a wife oversea (homeland or from other invaded area's).

Doesn't rule out that from the beginning there were some side effects of slavery: A-S/Britonic childeren......

Did you read what Razib Khan wrote?

Of course the Anglo-Saxons fused with the Britons in the end, probably in part due to the fact that many of the Anglo-Saxons came over without women of their own.

But in the southeast those were Romano-Britons, and, as Reich noted, they had by that time somehow acquired more Neolithic farmer dna than their Celtic forebears had in the Bronze Age. It will be interesting to see what Reich's new study has to say about that.

A number of the y-dna haplogroups in Britain, especially in England, appear to be Germanic in origin, although it's hard to tease apart the Anglo-Saxon element from the Danish Viking. Examples that spring to mind are R1b-U106, I-M253, R1b-L238, R1b-DF19, and R1b-DF99. I apologize if I left a haplogroup out that was probably associated with ancient Germans.

Finn
06-18-2018, 11:11 AM
Did you read what Razib Khan wrote?

Of course the Anglo-Saxons fused with the Britons in the end, probably in part due to the fact that many of the Anglo-Saxons came over without women of their own.

But in the southeast those were Romano-Britons, and, as Reich noted, they had by that time somehow acquired more Neolithic farmer dna than their Celtic forebears had in the Bronze Age. It will be interesting to see what Reich's new study has to say about that.

A number of the y-dna haplogroups in Britain, especially in England, appear to be Germanic in origin, although it's hard to tease apart the Anglo-Saxon element from the Danish Viking. Examples that spring to mind are R1b-U106, I-M253, R1b-L238, R1b-DF19, and R1b-DF99. I apologize if I left a haplogroup out that was probably associated with ancient Germans.

Yes, but I guess he did not took the consequences of the social structure fully in account .... In the early period 'an official' wife of Britonic ancestory would have meant social degradation for an A-S Earl or Karl.....

rms2
06-18-2018, 11:21 AM
Yes, but I guess he did not took the consequences of the social structure fully in account .... In the early period 'an official' wife of Britonic ancestory would have meant social degradation for an A-S Earl or Karl.....

I don't believe that.

For example, Cerdic of Wessex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex), an Anglo-Saxon king who ruled from 519-534, is thought to have been of British origin.

I very seriously doubt there was any stigma at all attached to taking a British wife.

Where do you find evidence that invading Germanic tribesmen were ever squeamish about taking up with foreign women?

Finn
06-18-2018, 11:33 AM
I guess it's not a matter of believe....

I think that Khan should have looked to the Indian caste system. In the beginning the Britons were 'outcasts'.


In the Anglo-Saxon case, the
best evidence may be found in the rates of wergild in
seventh century laws.Wergild is the ‘blood money’ payable
to the family of any victim of killing in order to prevent a
blood feud; this is graded according to the social and
ethnic status of the victim. The late seventh century laws
of King Ine ofWessex, which differentiate between natives
and Saxons, stipulate wergild for the latter which is
between two and five times the money payable for a
‘Welshman’ (nativeBriton) of comparable status (Whitelock
1979). The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of
Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have
been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979);
their wergild is consistently lower than that payable for a
free man, which is between 1.25 and 2.5 times that of the
blood money for a læt (Whitelock 1979). Similar wergild
differences between immigrants and natives are found
elsewhere in early medieval Europe, for example in the
Frankish kingdom (Ward-Perkins 2005).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/pdf/rspb20063627.pdf

See also the recent research about Iceland. And the outruling effect of the social system. The genes of the Norwegians prevailed in the end.
I know this is not 100% comparable with England.

But the fact that Britons at first were kind of 'outcasts' (see the Wergeld rules etc) is a fact. You can of course dispute about the effect of this all....
And as said the slavery had some side effect not mentioned in the A-S rules....

Sikeliot
06-18-2018, 11:38 AM
I would assume the vast majority of maternal ancestors of the English are native, because there should not have been a large number of Anglo-Saxon or Viking women among those who arrived by sea.

rms2
06-18-2018, 11:40 AM
Finn,

That's evidence to you that the Anglo-Saxons did not marry British women?

That's ridiculous.

Please show me actual evidence that Anglo-Saxons refused to take wives from among the native Britons.

Weregild laws affecting peasants in British villages, and mostly having to do with males, are not evidence that the Anglo-Saxons would not marry British women.

Finn
06-18-2018, 11:41 AM
See Beowulf for example Sikeliot especially the Earls (and also the Karls) had a network all over the North Sea Coasts.....

Finn
06-18-2018, 11:44 AM
It prevent marriage indeed, would not rule out that it took place.....

But in practice this mostly meant social degradation thats for sure! They were really rigid and harsh.

The early middle ages is really different from the meritocratic society we have (in the West) nowadays!

rms2
06-18-2018, 11:58 AM
It prevent marriage indeed, would not rule out that it took place.....

No, Finn. You cannot claim weregild laws prevented Anglo-Saxons from taking British wives. Those laws do not address that subject.



But in practice this mostly meant social degradation thats for sure! They were really rigid and harsh.

The early middle ages is really different from the meritocratic society we have (in the West) nowadays!

The conquered Romano-Britons were certainly not considered the equals of the Anglo-Saxons, but that does not mean the Anglo-Saxons would not take wives from among them or that the children of such unions were considered anything less than full Anglo-Saxons.

If the Anglo-Saxons had brought their own women on a large scale, the percentage of Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the modern English would probably be a lot higher than it is.

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 11:58 AM
I would assume bradly88's ancestry is largely British Celtic in any case given that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the modern English is likely to be considerably below 50 percent based on the DNA results to date. That Scandinavian does look high though and I don't know how typical that is for FTDNA. I agree that we can also identify with our Y line. I think I'm mostly of "Celtic" descent, but I'm interested to discover recently that my Y branch (Peak District, Derbyshire) matches a German at about 2,000 years ago to our TMRCA (rounding to the nearest thousand years as these are only estimates) and a Swede at 1,000 on an offshoot that we form together. More evidence may emerge, but I think that already tells me something about who my forefathers were and how they came to this land. That is something beyond price for me.

I am way behind in this thread and should probably read to the end, but.... ;-)

English being reported as Scandinavian is really common. My sister gets 43% Scandinavian. We are a little Swedish (about 12.5%), but the rest of that is from English.

Also, re potential Viking and specific lines -- and kind of similar to your Y -- my dad's mtDNA line goes back to Suffolk in the 1500s, but is a perfect match with some people in northern Germany and Norway, as well as Scotland, which makes me wonder whether there might be some kind of Scandinavian source (but who knows, lots of possibilities, especially with mtDNA. (His Y line is L21, but a more continental subgroup, so dunno, and my own mtDNA is lost in old timey western Virginia or Kentucky).

My understanding is that it's also going to be basically impossible to sort out Danish (which is what we usually mean with "Viking" and England, I think, and is a broader input) from Anglo-Saxon.

Finn
06-18-2018, 12:21 PM
No, Finn. You cannot claim weregild laws prevented Anglo-Saxons from taking British wives. Those laws do not address that subject.



The conquered Romano-Britons were certainly not considered the equals of the Anglo-Saxons, but that does not mean the Anglo-Saxons would not take wives from among them or that the children of such unions were considered anything less than full Anglo-Saxons.

If the Anglo-Saxons had brought their own women on a large scale, the percentage of Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the modern English would probably be a lot higher than it is.

Did you saw this from the quote above?

The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of
Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have
been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979)


No Earl or Karl wants to associate themselves with laeti.

And I can make it even harsher, Jenny Jochens, stated in her essay Race and Ethnicity in the Old Norse world (1999) that Celts were associated with thralls (=laeti) equals swarthy....and that was seen as ugly....(= social outcast)

Very discriminatoir....

This certainly had it's effect rms2......

(and with my modern thoughts I am deeply ashamed of my ancestors in this respect...but my personal thoughts are not relevant when it comes to a description of the early middle age society)

RVBLAKE
06-18-2018, 12:32 PM
To somewhat echo what others have said, getting British Isles simply means you match what FTDNA has in their British Isles sample database that they use to identify testers. FTDNA combines English and Irish, Scottish and Welsh altogether as British Isles, as I understand it, and it doesn't seek to separate out ancient Briton vs. Viking vs. Anglo Saxon ancestry, and you'd assume there's a mix in their sample (along with the other Celtic groups which are also mixed).

Out of curiosity, how well does FTDNA match your paper trail, if you have enough of one to judge? It's not great for my sister or I, although I am glad I tested there for other reasons.

In my case, I am 50% English, through both lines - father's paternal line from SE England and mother's paternal from East Anglia, with documented genealogy. FTDNA gives me 62% W/Central European and 36% Scandinavian. No more English, I guess.

Paul333
06-18-2018, 12:34 PM
There is evidence of both Danes and Norse bringing wives etc, even on raids. In 1066, some female Norse were excavated whilst construction of a new pumping station near Landing lane, Riccal, Yorkshire. the supposed base of the Norse Viking army under the Norse King Harald who was killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge. When these bodies were investigated, including Isotope analysis, there were found to be Norse/Norwegen, and some were female. I cannot recall the dates details etc.

They also recently confirmed and found female's among the mostly Danish Viking great Army, that landed around 865 AD and settled/overwintered at Torksey, Lincolnshire, and later Repton where a lot of burials were excavated, and some proved to be females that came with the great army. This evidence suggests females were brought with the imigrations during Anglo Saxon times,even during raids, and it is possible the earlier Anglo Saxon migrations followed the same customs, more so when they were settled, so in my opinion I would not underestimate the impact of the Anglo Saxon period migrations, as there will be many differing haplogroups from Europe that are being missassociated with this period.

Govan
06-18-2018, 12:37 PM
@Finn ; You are likely right , but Anglosaxons were already mixed after those centuries , the distinction was very much cultural and language-based. By the way , in England there was never a sexual\social pressure for blond hair , the decent amount of blonds in the English is higher than Ireland andFrance, but looks like biological random inheritance , as red hair , unlike the cultural\sexual pressure on blondness that have been breeded for in Germanic societies like Iceland.

rms2
06-18-2018, 12:59 PM
Did you saw this from the quote above?

The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of
Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have
been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979)


No Earl or Karl wants to associate themselves with laeti.

And I can make it even harsher, Jenny Jochens, stated in her essay Race and Ethnicity in the Old Norse world (1999) that Celts were associated with thralls (=laeti) equals swarthy....and that was seen as ugly....(= social outcast)

Very discriminatoir....

This certainly had it's effect rms2......

(and with my modern thoughts I am deeply ashamed of my ancestors in this respect...but my personal thoughts are not relevant when it comes to a description of the early middle age society)

None of that suggests the Anglo-Saxons did not take wives from among the Britons.

The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is ridiculous.

We're going to have to disagree on this. I wouldn't say the Anglo-Saxons brought none of their own women, but I do think many of the younger males came unaccompanied, especially in the early days, and took wives from among the native women.

Govan
06-18-2018, 01:14 PM
svard means dark haired in old Norse, lol. Lots of Black , Blake, Brown in England got their names from hair colors.

Govan
06-18-2018, 01:29 PM
It could depends of Saxons , or Angles too. The Saxons had large bands of warriors of Jutes , 'Frisians' , Wagrians , while the Angles are said to have left their land empty behind , thus bringing their women, and indeed part of Holstein-Meclenbourfg is deserted and become a battlefield between Saxons and Pommerian Slavs for centuries.

Finn
06-18-2018, 01:29 PM
svard means dark haired in old Norse, lol. Lots of Black , Blake, Brown in England got their names from hair colors.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14451-New-Study-on-Iceland&p=407751&viewfull=1#post407751

and

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14451-New-Study-on-Iceland&p=407615&viewfull=1#post407615

rms2
06-18-2018, 01:40 PM
svard means dark haired in old Norse, lol. Lots of Black , Blake, Brown in England got their names from hair colors.

Yes, yes, a cognate of swart, swarthy, schwarz, usw.

I doubt the Britons were all that swarthy, although the Romano-Britons in what is now SE England may have been darker on average than the Anglo-Saxons.

As I recall from reading the sagas, many of their references to swarthy thralls had to do with Finns, although none of us thinks of Finns now as swarthy or short, bent and troll-like, the way they are sometimes depicted in the sagas.

A lot of that is based on the old story told in the Rigsmal about how the god Rig wandered the earth and fathered the progenitors of the three classes of mankind: Thrall the serf, Karl the freeman, and Jarl the nobleman. Thrall was dark and ugly, Karl was red haired and ruddy complected, and Jarl was tall and blond.

Obviously that was a myth meant in part to justify the social structure of Germanic society as being of divine origin and should not be taken literally to mean that all thralls were dark and ugly, any more than it means that all freemen had red hair or that all noblemen were tall and blond. Otherwise King Halfdan the Black must have been a thrall.

Finn
06-18-2018, 01:47 PM
None of that suggests the Anglo-Saxons did not take wives from among the Britons.


Not literaly, but as the the social distinction was great between the Laeti and the Earls and Karls this had a preventing effect....
And I mentioned already: slavery and the slaveholders leads to childeren (so indeed in practice interaction)
Of course during the middle ages this all watered.....


The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is ridiculous.


It certainly is...but we are talking of the early A-S attitude and convictions (not our own).


We're going to have to disagree on this. I wouldn't say the Anglo-Saxons brought none of their own women, but I do think many of the younger males came unaccompanied, especially in the early days, and took wives from among the native women

Do you think a earl or karl had a laeti woman as a first, official woman? What about the social rules....? I guess you can't make a shift here to the early middle ages....so different of our own.

(although different in my own region it was until the midst of the twentieth century (!!) that a marriage between a cotter and a yeoman farmer was absolutely not done, although nowhere written down....)

rms2
06-18-2018, 02:08 PM
Not literaly, but as the the social distinction was great between the Laeti and the Earls and Karls this had a preventing effect....

No it obviously did not.



Laeti /ˈlɛtaɪ/, the plural form of laetus /ˈliːtəs/, was a term used in the late Roman Empire to denote communities of barbari ("barbarians") i.e. foreigners, or people from outside the Empire, permitted to settle on, and granted land in, imperial territory on condition that they provide recruits for the Roman military ...



And I mentioned already: slavery and the slaveholders leads to childeren (so indeed in practice interaction)
Of course during the middle ages this all watered.....

I don't know what you're talking about, so that makes two of us.

If a freeborn Anglo-Saxon took a British wife, their children would not be slaves.




It certainly is...but we are talking of the early A-S attitude and convictions (not our own).

Really? You think the Anglo-Saxons found all British women swarthy and ugly?

That is silly beyond words.



Do you think a earl or karl had a laeti woman as a first, official woman? What about the social rules....? I guess you can't make a shift here to the early middle ages....so different of our own.

(although different in my own region it was until the midst of the twentieth century (!!) that a marriage between a cotter and a yeoman farmer was absolutely not done, although nowhere written down....)

Anglo-Saxons must have taken British women as wives; otherwise, the percentage of Anglo-Saxon in the modern English would be much higher than it is.

I doubt young, unmarried, unaccompanied Anglo-Saxon males were as class conscious as you seem to think, and there were Romano-British women from upper class families.

Finn
06-18-2018, 02:17 PM
Really? You think the Anglo-Saxons found all British women swarthy and ugly?

That is silly beyond words.




I want an immediate excuse from you for that!

I did not, repeat not, state that!

I made a distinction between the connvictions of the early middle ages and our own (and I spoke about deeply ashamed about my ancestors).

So read it well and don't quote me wrong, this would really be a severe kind of trolling rms2!!!!!!

rms2
06-18-2018, 02:23 PM
I want an immediate excuse from you for that!

I did not, repeat not, state that!

I made a distinction between the connvictions of the early middle ages and our own (and I spoke about deeply ashamed about my ancestors).

So read it well and don't quote me wrong, this would really be a severe kind of trolling rms2!!!!!!


Here is the context:


The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is ridiculous.

Finn's response:


It certainly is...but we are talking of the early A-S attitude and convictions (not our own).

So, evidently you think it was among early Anglo-Saxon attitudes and convictions to think all British women were swarthy and ugly.

And that is silly beyond words.

Finn
06-18-2018, 02:34 PM
Here is the context:



Finn's response:



So, evidently you think it was among early Anglo-Saxon attitudes and convictions to think all British women were swarthy and ugly.

And that is silly beyond words.

No, I describded it as there were prejudices among the A-S!


So, evidently you think it was among early Anglo-Saxon attitudes and convictions to think all British women were swarthy and ugly.


I never used those words and I will never use those words.

Now you entering a zone in which you could easily bash me false....be aware of that AND don't put words in my mouth!!!

That is very false and trolling rms2: cut that crap!

etrusco
06-18-2018, 03:04 PM
@all

maybe you are projecting in the past vision and concepts that came to have a meaning only in modern times. Back then there was no particular "race" mentality. So called germanic tribes were not racially constructed. Among them there were surely "germanized celts" too and even "renegade" romans. Germanic is a linguistic term....there's no germanic race at all. German is a name that comes from the romans. "germanic" peoples define themselves as Frank, longobards, Saxons with no allegiance whatsoever between them For an AS a roman or a celt was as much as an enemy as a Viking.....Among Lombards that invaded Italy there were Saxons and other tribes....all mixed up.
Then we had the cruel wars between Franks and Saxons and between Franks and Longobards and between AS and Norse........only with the conversion to christianity and the influence of the Church those tribes began to "settle down" to have written law codes and transformed their so called ethnicity in the embryo of future nation states as we know from the early middle age on.... christianity became the "identity" for all europeans being them "germanic" celtic or whoever.
only with the renaissance ( and also with the protestant reformation) there was a return of the study of the pre-christian past and all the ethnic stuff came up just to be exploited for political and religious reasons....

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 03:09 PM
None of that suggests the Anglo-Saxons did not take wives from among the Britons.

The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is ridiculous.

We're going to have to disagree on this. I wouldn't say the Anglo-Saxons brought none of their own women, but I do think many of the younger males came unaccompanied, especially in the early days, and took wives from among the native women.

Agree with this.

The success of likely Germanic Y DNA, absent more of a population replacement than seems to have occurred, would suggest that there was a lot of intermarriage, specifically of Anglo-Saxon or Danish men and native British women.

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 03:17 PM
No, I describded it as there were prejudices among the A-S!



I never used those words and I will never use those words.

Now you entering a zone in which you could easily bash me false....be aware of that AND don't put words in my mouth!!!

That is very false and trolling rms2: cut that crap!

He's not saying you personally think that; he's interpreting you as saying that all early medieval AS's thought that, and that does seem to be what you are thinking.

If not, I think you will have to explain more clearly, as it's not coming across.

I don't think it says anything bad about you if you think that's how the AS's thought (or that anyone has to apologize for their ancestors), but I do think the idea that they would have found the native women so unattractive they wouldn't have sex with them (or do you just mean marry them) seems unlikely and so needs more evidence than has been presented. The evidence seems to me to support intermarriage, although more AS/Danish men, British women than the reverse (which makes sense in terms of power dynamics).

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-18-2018, 03:30 PM
No need to do that. That study is three years old. I expressed my opinion of it here. That's enough.

It's pretty clear the English are in fact Anglo-Saxon in origin, but only in part. Like most if not all modern peoples, they're a mix of a number of elements. I never said otherwise.



I never said otherwise. I certainly never said the English are 100% Anglo-Saxon, nor would I.

But I think your problem with me has little do with that and more to do with the fact that I committed the cardinal sin of telling bradly88 that his U106 probably represents Germanic ancestry, at least on that one line.

That seems to be a sore spot.

If you are suggesting I have a personal problem with being U106, I have little doubt my own U 106 is not of celtic origin. I'm not obsessed with being "celtic". My Y line like all our ancestry, is what it is. You really shouldn't use personal attacks in your responses.

JerryS.
06-18-2018, 03:33 PM
geez, does anyone else find some of the latest posts funny? the Romans ruled over England, the Vikings did as they pleased, the Germans (Angles and Saxons) had their way as well..... is there anyone that thinks their English is Pure Britton?

Finn
06-18-2018, 03:33 PM
He's not saying you personally think that; he's interpreting you as saying that all early medieval AS's thought that, and that does seem to be what you are thinking.

If not, I think you will have to explain more clearly, as it's not coming across.

I don't think it says anything bad about you if you think that's how the AS's thought (or that anyone has to apologize for their ancestors), but I do think the idea that they would have found the native women so unattractive they wouldn't have sex with them (or do you just mean marry them) seems unlikely and so needs more evidence than has been presented. The evidence seems to me to support intermarriage, although more AS/Danish men, British women than the reverse (which makes sense in terms of power dynamics).

Thanks
The point is that He makes an interpretation. And than attacks this interpretation. That’s not ok.

Webb
06-18-2018, 03:50 PM
To the OP: This is an example of a admixture result on Gedmatch

To everyone else: DF27 is very clearly the original British Celt. I am just joking, but not really.


MDLP K11 2xOracle and OracleX4

Admix Results (sorted):


# Population Percent
1 Neolithic 35.34
2 WHG 34.07
3 EHG 24.21
4 Iran-Mesolithic 2.71
5 Basal 2.01


Finished reading population data. 161 populations found.
11 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 British_Celtic @ 5.061934
2 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 6.123294
3 Alberstedt_LN @ 6.179497
4 British_IronAge @ 7.713449
5 Halberstadt_LBA @ 8.201625
6 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 10.080239
7 Nordic_MN_B @ 10.739168
8 British_AngloSaxon @ 11.118766
9 Nordic_BA @ 11.518285
10 Nordic_LN @ 11.581242
11 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 11.677324
12 Unetice_EBA @ 13.070729
13 Hungary_BA @ 13.518340
14 Bell_Beaker @ 13.745956
15 Nordic_BattleAxe @ 13.922053
16 Nordic_IA @ 14.053493
17 Nordic_LBA @ 14.645658
18 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 15.118168
19 Maros_BA @ 15.446683
20 Irish_BA @ 15.584770

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_BattleAxe +50% Vatya_MBA @ 2.853542


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN +25% Corded_Ware_Germany +25% Hungary_CA @ 1.353040


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Unetice_EBA @ 1.087728
2 Nordic_BattleAxe + BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + Hungary_CA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.190110
3 British_IronAge + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Unetice_EBA @ 1.232482
4 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + Corded_Ware_Germany + Halberstadt_LBA + Hungary_CA @ 1.236316
5 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_LN @ 1.236842
6 Alberstedt_LN + Corded_Ware_Estonia + Hungary_CA + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.250234
7 Bell_Beaker + Corded_Ware_Estonia + Hungary_CA + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.264655
8 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_IA @ 1.264997
9 Anatolia_Neolithic + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Poltavka_MBA_outlier + Sintashta_MBA @ 1.275530
10 Halberstadt_LBA + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_IA @ 1.277158
11 Halberstadt_LBA + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_LN @ 1.296307
12 British_Celtic + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Unetice_EBA @ 1.304671
13 Alberstedt_LN + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Unetice_EBA @ 1.330698
14 British_IronAge + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_LN @ 1.342058
15 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + Corded_Ware_Germany + Hungary_CA @ 1.353040
16 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Corded_Ware_Estonia + Hungary_CA + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.370066
17 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN + Hungary_CA + Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 1.380792
18 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Corded_Ware_Estonia + Corded_Ware_Germany + Hungary_CA @ 1.380878
19 Bell_Beaker_Germany + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Nordic_LBA @ 1.380879
20 Hungary_BA + Hungary_CA + Karsdorf_LN + Srubnaya_LBA @ 1.380948

Finn
06-18-2018, 04:42 PM
He's not saying you personally think that; he's interpreting you as saying that all early medieval AS's thought that, and that does seem to be what you are thinking.

If not, I think you will have to explain more clearly, as it's not coming across.

I don't think it says anything bad about you if you think that's how the AS's thought (or that anyone has to apologize for their ancestors), but I do think the idea that they would have found the native women so unattractive they wouldn't have sex with them (or do you just mean marry them) seems unlikely and so needs more evidence than has been presented. The evidence seems to me to support intermarriage, although more AS/Danish men, British women than the reverse (which makes sense in terms of power dynamics).

The point is that early AS social structure prevent such marriages. That was really rigid, caste like. This prevented marriages between earls, karls and the slaves/thralls. You can’t simply deny that.....or this view of the social structure of the early AS is wrong.

And this social system did go together with primitive kind of prejudices about the appearances like dark and ugly etc. not racialism like in the modern times.

Did this all prevent sexual intercourse of course not. I once read that some karls had 20 a 30 thralls man and woman....

But marriage was something different, marriages were arranged.....

rms2
06-18-2018, 05:28 PM
If you are suggesting I have a personal problem with being U106, I have little doubt my own U 106 is not of celtic origin. I'm not obsessed with being "celtic". My Y line like all our ancestry, is what it is. You really shouldn't use personal attacks in your responses.

I did not use any personal attacks. You really should not read such things into posts that do not contain them merely because you don't like my point of view.

rms2
06-18-2018, 05:30 PM
The point is that early AS social structure prevent such marriages . . .

That's a bald assertion. You state it as if it is a fact when it is merely your opinion.

I disagree and think it's pretty obvious that Anglo-Saxon men took wives from among the native Britons. That's my opinion.

rms2
06-18-2018, 05:32 PM
Thanks
The point is that He makes an interpretation. And than attacks this interpretation. That’s not ok.

It is perfectly okay to criticize your opinions. Hell, I disagree with you (as usual).

Finn
06-18-2018, 05:34 PM
See this paper:

https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/278578/verheul-marriagepropertyandpoweringermaniccultureandgerman icheroicpoetry.pdf?sequence=1


“[o]nly individuals who were ‘an equal match’ (jafnræði) could marry. The term refers to both social prestige and to wealth, although the sagas suggest that an excess of the latter could compensate for deficiency in the former” (Women in Old Norse Society 21).


In literature, perhaps one of the most important roles a woman could play is the one of the so-called freoðuwebbe or peace-weaver. In fact, it is the only female role for which marriage is absolutely vital. In relation to heroic poetry in general, the role of a peace-weaver may be defined as follows:
Heroic poetry in particular is much concerned with the vulnerability of the woman cast in the role of freoðuwebbe, ‘peace-weaver,’ where it is hoped that a peace-settlement between two hostile tribes or families may be made firmer by a marriage-bond. The emphasis is on the isolation of such an individual in a society where the protection of her own family has been replaced by the dislike and distrust of those in her new environment. (Fell 37)

Finn
06-18-2018, 05:40 PM
It is perfectly okay to criticize your opinions. Hell, I disagree with you (as usual).

Disagree is no problem.

But you spin the words of others, or make personal remarks not only in this postings but on more places. just as John concludes a few postings earlier.

One pattern is very clear: Rms2 is never to blame...
first watch your self in the mirror....

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 05:43 PM
The point is that early AS social structure prevent such marriages. That was really rigid, caste like. This prevented marriages between earls, karls and the slaves/thralls. You can’t simply deny that.....or this view of the social structure of the early AS is wrong.

And this social system did go together with primitive kind of prejudices about the appearances like dark and ugly etc. not racialism like in the modern times.

Did this all prevent sexual intercourse of course not. I once read that some karls had 20 a 30 thralls man and woman....

But marriage was something different, marriages were arranged.....

(1) For the purposes of this discussion, what difference does it make if they married? When you keep going on about beliefs about "dark and ugly," it sounds as if you are saying they didn't have sex, which we agree is not true. Maybe that's the source of the confusion? I know it was causing me to think you were trying to say they didn't have sex.

(2) I don't think it's enough to rely generally on "AS social structure" for a claim that AS and Britons did not marry. We need more specific evidence, as it's not clear to me that no marriages would always follow (or be the same at all times and places), especially with an imbalance of AS men to women.

Finn
06-18-2018, 05:46 PM
@Rms2 and as usual your opinions are not stated, or based on good sources, in this topic non of those, only some gross remarks without depth, apricity level...also in tone and attitude...

Finn
06-18-2018, 05:49 PM
(1) For the purposes of this discussion, what difference does it make if they married? When you keep going on about beliefs about "dark and ugly," it sounds as if you are saying they didn't have sex, which we agree is not true. Maybe that's the source of the confusion? I know it was causing me to think you were trying to say they didn't have sex.

(2) I don't think it's enough to rely generally on "AS social structure" for a claim that AS and Britons did not marry. We need more specific evidence, as it's not clear to me that no marriages would always follow (or be the same at all times and places), especially with an imbalance of AS men to women.

See the paper I posted msmajoribanks it’s a very clear paper about this subject, I quoted some remarks that give the core arguments for what we are talking about....

Finn
06-18-2018, 06:00 PM
(1) For the purposes of this discussion, what difference does it make if they married? When you keep going on about beliefs about "dark and ugly," it sounds as if you are saying they didn't have sex, which we agree is not true. Maybe that's the source of the confusion? I know it was causing me to think you were trying to say they didn't have sex.

(2) I don't think it's enough to rely generally on "AS social structure" for a claim that AS and Britons did not marry. We need more specific evidence, as it's not clear to me that no marriages would always follow (or be the same at all times and places), especially with an imbalance of AS men to women.

Combine the statements of the paper with the position of the Britonic women.
Marriages from AS with Britonics could not be on equal terms because Britonics did not belong to the class of earls and Karls.
Needless to say that they didn't play a part in peace keeping between families, they didn’t play a part in the AS world.
Intercourse in the AS household could still be the case, Britonic woman were slaves in the AS earl or karl households.
This is shortly but I hope very clear....

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 06:10 PM
Okay, I went back to see why the discussion of the marriage pattern of high-status men even came up, and it was due to this (I will sum up):

This paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408) said that the contemporary East English population gets 38% of its ancestry from AS migrations. The evidence is based on rare variants shared with 10 samples from Iron Age (2, both male) through the early and middle AS period (8, all female, 5th to 9th c). The latter 8 were assumed to be AS.

With respect to the samples themselves, "striking differences [exist] in the sharing patterns of the samples, illustrated by the ratio of the number of rare alleles shared with Dutch individuals to the number shared with Spanish individuals (Fig. 2a). The middle Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton (HS1, HS2 and HS3) share relatively more rare variants with modern Dutch than the Iron Age samples from Hinxton (HI1 and HI2) and Linton (L). The early Anglo-Saxon samples from Oakington are more diverse with O1 and O2 being closer to the middle Anglo-Saxon samples, O4 exhibiting the same pattern as the Iron Age samples, and O3 showing an intermediate level of allele sharing, suggesting mixed ancestry. The differences between the samples are highest in low-frequency alleles and decrease with increasing allele frequency. This is consistent with mutations of lower frequency on average being younger, reflecting more recent distinct ancestry, compared with higher frequency mutations reflecting older shared ancestry."

Then they compared the various samples with 30 samples from the modern population.

Interestingly the study itself concluded:

"In the cemetery at Oakington we see evidence even in the early Anglo-Saxon period for a genetically mixed but culturally Anglo-Saxon community24,25, in contrast to claims for strong segregation between newcomers and indigenous peoples7. The genomes of two sequenced individuals (O1 and O2) are consistent with them being of recent immigrant origin, from a source population close to modern Dutch, one was genetically similar to native Iron Age samples (O4), and the fourth was consistent with being an admixed individual (O3), indicating interbreeding. Despite this, their graves were conspicuously similar, with all four individuals buried in flexed position, and with similar grave furnishing. Interestingly the wealthiest grave, with a large cruciform brooch, belonged to the individual of native British ancestry (O4), and the individual without grave goods was one of the two genetically ‘foreign’ ones (O2), an observation consistent with isotope analysis at West Heslerton which suggests that new immigrants were frequently poorer26,27."

Also:

"Given the mixing apparent ∼500 CE, and that the modern population is not more than 40% of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, it is perhaps surprising that the middle Anglo-Saxon individuals from the more dispersed field cemetery in Hinxton look more genetically consistent with unmixed immigrant ancestry. One possibility is that this reflects continued immigration until at least the Middle Saxon period. The unmixed Hinxton group, versus the mixing of the Oakington population, shows that early medieval migration took a variety of forms and that these migrants integrated with the incumbent population in different ways. Full-genome sequences, and new methods such as rarecoal, now allow us to use slight distinctions in genetic ancestry to study such recent events. Further ancient genomes, and methodological improvements to incorporate explicit migration and mixing, will enable us to resolve them in more detail."

Anyway, apparently Razib Khan questioned the conclusions of the study, saying (among other things): "The authors observe that one of their Anglo-Saxon era individuals, buried in an Anglo-Saxon fashion, clustered perfectly with the British Iron Age individuals. Additionally, this individual was outfitted in a manner which suggested they were very high status within Anglo-Saxon society. But the authors did not connect this with the fact that all their Anglo-Saxon individuals were female..." To the extent he is suggesting that the authors of the study did not consider possible mixing and intermarriage, I think he's actually wrong.

But it seems that the study instead backs up the idea that (1) there was interbreeding (of course) and intermarriage, even among those of high status, and (2) that it may have differed over time.

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 06:14 PM
See the paper I posted msmajoribanks it’s a very clear paper about this subject, I quoted some remarks that give the core arguments for what we are talking about....

It's not sufficient. It's a discussion about literature from a later period and ignores the fact that things may have been different at different times and places and also than an ideal expressed in literature (that doesn't deal directly with the topic) may not be what actually happened. More direct evidence is needed.

What about the fact that the samples and paper seem to suggest that intermarriage did happen, even among higher status people?

JerryS.
06-18-2018, 06:27 PM
folks, I am trying to take some of the sting out of this banter here.

can we all agree that English (Briton) and German share overlapping DNA?
can we agree that the reason was the German groups coming to England and not vice versa?
can we agree that the degree of overlapping DNA varies and is based on what part of England you (ancestors) are from?
can we agree that the German groups that came to England were primarily men warriors, not family groups looking to resettle?
would it not be accurate to believe that German men took English women as they saw fit to satisfy their wants and needs?
can we agree that the amount of Celtic in a Briton is generally based on how closely they were geographically to Ireland/Wales, and Scotland?

am I over simplifying this?

Finn
06-18-2018, 06:29 PM
It's not sufficient. It's a discussion about literature from a later period and ignores the fact that things may have been different at different times and places and also than an ideal expressed in literature (that doesn't deal directly with the topic) may not be what actually happened. More direct evidence is needed.

What about the fact that the samples and paper seem to suggest that intermarriage did happen, even among higher status people?

The thing is that we only know the end result, 38% (supposed this is correct).
How much AS went to England is still very unclear.
So we know that intermingling took place but not exactly when.....a range from 1600 years.....

We have information that the wergeld was lower for Britons and Welsh and that's not a little thing it's crucial for the social status in those days.

And we have information like this:

The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of
Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have
been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979)


This is not be neglected or simply swiped away...

In every Indo-European and certainly in the German culture there was a strict division between three classes. And as we have seen marriage was between equals of class. And for purpose of peace keeping between families.

Big question when Britons were at first not equals how could there be marriages on a big scale between AS and Britonics?


They don't lived in a individual society like ours, all was 'community' based, no pasaran....

Of course that doesn't rule some exceptions and may be there were some truces between the AS and Britonic nobility....who knows.

But seen the society structure what would be your answer on the 'big question'?

Thanks in advance...

Finn
06-18-2018, 06:43 PM
folks, I am trying to take some of the sting out of this banter here.

can we all agree that English (Briton) and German share overlapping DNA?
can we agree that the reason was the German groups coming to England and not vice versa?
can we agree that the degree of overlapping DNA varies and is based on what part of England you (ancestors) are from?
can we agree that the German groups that came to England were primarily men warriors, not family groups looking to resettle?
would it not be accurate to believe that German men took English women as they saw fit to satisfy their wants and needs?
can we agree that the amount of Celtic in a Briton is generally based on how closely they were geographically to Ireland/Wales, and Scotland?

am I over simplifying this?


nope!! :)

Than forgive me my shortcut answers too.

can we all agree that English (Briton) and German share overlapping DNA?
Yes to some extent (some Bell Beaker and Bronze Age influences) but there are recognizable differences (in haplotypes etc) see the Northern PCA of Eurogenes.

can we agree that the reason was the German groups coming to England and not vice versa?
Yep.

can we agree that the degree of overlapping DNA varies and is based on what part of England you (ancestors) are from?
Yes to some extent, but in 1600 years there was some interregional intermingling though, but basically they still are able to see some different patterns...

can we agree that the German groups that came to England were primarily men warriors, not family groups looking to resettle?
not a settled discussion, if they were men warriors this doesn't meant they were some kind of desperado's.....they were bounded in their society's. The North Sea was their highway ;) to home and abroad! ;)

would it not be accurate to believe that German men took English women as they saw fit to satisfy their wants and needs?
marriage had it's function (maintain the social status, peacekeeping).
but slavery was a fact I guess this has lead to sexual (ab) use....

can we agree that the amount of Celtic in a Briton is generally based on how closely they were geographically to Ireland/Wales, and Scotland?
To some extent: yes.

JerryS.
06-18-2018, 07:03 PM
nope!! :)

Than forgive me my shortcut answers too.

can we all agree that English (Briton) and German share overlapping DNA?
Yes to some extent (some Bell Beaker and Bronze Age influences) but there are recognizable differences (in haplotypes etc) see the Northern PCA of Eurogenes.

can we agree that the reason was the German groups coming to England and not vice versa?
Yep.

can we agree that the degree of overlapping DNA varies and is based on what part of England you (ancestors) are from?
Yes to some extent, but in 1600 years there was some interregional intermingling though, but basically they still are able some different patterns...

can we agree that the German groups that came to England were primarily men warriors, not family groups looking to resettle?
not a settled discussion, if they were men warriors this doesn't meant they were some kind of desperado's.....they were bounded in their society's. The North Sea was their highway ;) to home and abroad! ;)

would it not be accurate to believe that German men took English women as they saw fit to satisfy their wants and needs?
marriage had it's function (maintain the social status, peacekeeping).
but slavery was a fact I guess this has lead to sexual (ab) use....

can we agree that the amount of Celtic in a Briton is generally based on how closely they were geographically to Ireland/Wales, and Scotland?
To some extent: yes.

thank you for your parlance in all of this, my layman verbiage is slowly changing . I agree (as if it was needed) that the North Sea was the highway for NW. Europeans. on some calculator models admixture heritage (regular oracle) I am listed as primary with Scandinavian groups many times. I understand that some models are slanted that way but it adds credence to what I know about my English, North German, and Scottish heritage (all of which share a North Sea coast. while the mix of these groups for me was mid-late 1800s, I sometimes wonder if it was then, that my admixture was formed, or was it formed as a result of long ago mixing of the groups.

JMcB
06-18-2018, 08:21 PM
While reading this interesting discussion, I’m reminded of a paper that’s a little bit dated at this point, but still contains some useful information.

For your possible interest:


Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis
By HEINRICH HÄRKE

https://www.academia.edu/1178275/Anglo-Saxon_immigration_and_ethnogenesis._Medieval_Archa eology_55_2011._1-28



CONCLUSIONS
The making of the Anglo-Saxons, and eventually the early English, appears to be the outcome of ethnogenetic processes in which the assimilation and acculturation of the native British population played a key role. This much appears obvious and, indeed, necessary, once it is accepted that most of the biological and cultural evidence points to a minority immigration on the scale of 10 to 20% of the native population. The immigration itself was not a single ‘invasion’, but rather a series of intrusions and immigrations over a considerable period, differing from region to region, and changing over time even within regions. The total immigrant population may have numbered somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 over about a century, but the geographical variations in numbers, and in social and ethnic composition, should have led to a variety of settlement processes, with consequences for the ethnogenetic process or processes.

Two key elements may be distinguished in this process: the immigration that resulted in ethnically divided communities and regions, with limited mixing and inter- marriage between immigrants and natives (mainly 5th/6th centuries); and assimilation and acculturation that saw the gradual integration of the natives into the society of the culturally and socially dominant immigrants (mainly 7th/8th centuries, but occasionally starting considerably earlier; Fig 4). There may have been an earlier, pre-immigration phase in which much smaller numbers of federate troops and settlers from the Continent strove to establish or maintain an identity of their own in late Roman and sub-Roman Britain, but the details of that phase are hard to fathom because of lack of evidence.125

In the 5th/6th centuries, most Anglo-Saxon communities seem to have been com- posed of Germanic immigrants (and their descendants) and Britons in various proportions, but overall in roughly equal numbers. Members of both groups lived together in house- holds, although their status differed. Where Germanic immigrants arrived in complete kin groups, there appears to have been little intermarriage with Britons for some time. Intermarriage must have been extensive in cases of male warbands settling down, although this pattern seems to have been less frequent. More Britons lived outside Anglo-Saxon communities, in regional and local enclaves. The populations of some of these British enclaves soon underwent a process of acculturation, but many of them lacked culturally diagnostic artefacts. The social status of these enclaves cannot be inferred archaeologi- cally. In this early phase, the immigrants considered their ethnic and group identity important enough to express it in the burial rite.

The 7th/8th centuries witnessed the beginning of the end of a separate British identity, and the foundation of a common ‘English’ identity. It may not be a coincidence that this phase also saw the first elements of state formation in England.126 The emergence of the state might have led to the suppression of separate ethnic identities and the use of an ideology emphasising unity; alternatively it might have led to the expression of ethnic differences in new ways, eg by laws and landholding. The Christianisation of England in the 7th century is likely to have played an important role in this dual process of state formation and ethnogenesis that seems to have been largely completed by the late 9th century. The Laws of Alfred fail to mention Britons, even though they are mentioned several times in the earlier Laws of Ine that Alfred had appended to his own laws. Again, the emphasis on, or assumption of, a Christian English identity at a time when Alfred’s England was faced with the challenge of pagan Viking raiders and settlers was hardly a coincidence, and a common identity is indeed likely to have been the outcome of a common struggle. The settlement of Viking settlers in parts of England would, in turn, start a new process of distinction, acculturation and assimilation, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Historical analogies may be found for all phases and aspects of the above model. The ethnically divided post-immigration society of early Anglo-Saxon England where the natives had an inferior legal and social status even though they were in the majority, is closely mirrored in the conquest society created by the Normans in England after ad 1066. 127 And the whole process of ethnogenesis resulting from the immigration of a socially and militarily dominant minority has close parallels in the German Ostkolonisation of the high Middle Ages. This colonisation provides numerous scenarios whereby German lords and landowners brought substantial groups of German and Dutch settlers into areas with Slav or Baltic majority populations; and many of the latter, having lost their own leadership, became Germanised through well-documented legal, cultural, social and economic processes that created the ‘new tribes’ of eastern Germany: the Silesians, Pomeranians and Prussians. 128 ......

Paul333
06-18-2018, 08:39 PM
" The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is rediculous" & " It certianly is " suggests you have'nt been to Wales lately then.....LOL

JonikW
06-18-2018, 09:05 PM
" The idea that the Britons were all swarthy and ugly is rediculous" & " It certianly is " suggests you have'nt been to Wales lately then.....LOL

Hey, stop that now please! :) I and people of Welsh ancestry suffer enough sheep-shagging jokes already. Funny that those are the only anti-Celtic nation jokes that are still heard and acceptable in England (I mean they are only against the Welsh). I often wonder about that!:)

etrusco
06-18-2018, 09:15 PM
While reading this interesting discussion, I’m reminded of a paper that’s a little bit dated at this point, but still contains some useful information.

For your possible interest:


Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis
By HEINRICH HÄRKE

https://www.academia.edu/1178275/Anglo-Saxon_immigration_and_ethnogenesis._Medieval_Archa eology_55_2011._1-28

I think it is a pretty well done reconstruction of what happened back then. A first phase of confrontation where as I said before race did not play a great role. Probably a large chunk of germanic mercenaries that had enrolled in the roman army and lived in britain at the time sided with the britons while germanized celts were in AS ranks. The divide was not racial it was all a matter of taking the land- defending the land. Then the christianization process that helped forging the new nation. I am deeply convinced that what gave ultimately the AS the upper hand and helped them tilting the balance was that they embraced more willingly the new faith and hence were viewed by the ecclesiastical ranks to be more reliable. But that needs more accurate research.

etrusco
06-18-2018, 09:26 PM
I wonder why few historians have ever linked the coincidence of Britain being the only provinces of the empire which underwent a language shift with the fact that it was the only ( western) province where the large majority of the local population was not evangelized.

JonikW
06-18-2018, 09:41 PM
I wonder why few historians have ever linked the coincidence of Britain being the only provinces of the empire which underwent a language shift with the fact that it was the only ( western) province where the large majority of the local population was not evangelized.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but if you're saying Roman Britain was not evangelized I'm sceptical. There is more than enough Roman mosaic/fresco/metalwork evidence alone to suggest otherwise. Plus Christianity continued to thrive in the sub-Roman Welsh and Cornish lands that did not see the Anglo-Saxon influx. We know that from place names, carved stones, saints' lives etc.

etrusco
06-18-2018, 09:51 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong but if you're saying Roman Britain was not evangelized I'm sceptical. There is more than enough Roman mosaic/fresco/metalwork evidence alone to suggest otherwise. Plus Christianity continued to thrive in the sub-Roman Welsh and Cornish lands that did not see the Anglo-Saxon influx. We know that from place names, carved stones, saints' lives etc.

Sorry, I forgot to type the crucial adjective " it was not heavily evangelized". I was speaking in a relative sense comparing the situation in Britain with that of Gaul and Spain. I 'm just suggesting more research in that regard.....maybe I'm plain wrong and there's no correlation between the two facts.

msmarjoribanks
06-18-2018, 09:53 PM
The thing is that we only know the end result, 38% (supposed this is correct).

38% is one of the things being debated. The problem is being able to separate out "AS" given that it's going to look a lot like Danish, in the first place, and also that we don't know how different it was from the immediately-pre-AS-invasions population of the time in that there would be pre-existing back and forth and migration from similar areas.

One way of checking that is to look at pre-AS population (and the study we've been discussing went back to 100 BCE, which leaves out a lot that happened between then and, say, the 6th C), compared it with presumed AS's from a range of time period (who looked mixed already/not entirely AS, and in at least one case looked very similar to the Iron Age samples), and then compare that with the modern population, but the problem is that there's a lot of things that happened between those periods that could be relevant, including pre-6th C migrations/mixing of populations. So I am not convinced about the 38% (without having a strong opinion on what it would be or really caring at all -- I just find it interesting).


How much AS went to England is still very unclear.

Yeah, and that's one of the issues, since of course what the Y-DNA seems to suggest (unless there was substantial intermarriage and displacement of the Briton men sexually or pre-AS migration that mattered) is a much greater population movement than seems to have occurred during the AS invasion period.


So we know that intermingling took place but not exactly when.....a range from 1600 years.....

Yes.


We have information that the wergeld was lower for Britons and Welsh and that's not a little thing it's crucial for the social status in those days.

Again, I don't think you can simply assume from this what was actually going on in Briton at a specific time. It's some evidence, not sufficient.

More significantly, it's not actually important to most of what we are discussing. Specifically, it seems only to be important to the conclusions of the study if they assumed that the AS samples they used were 100% AS and not mixed with native Britons, which I don't think they did. If that is significant to their conclusions, though, the absolute safest way to do the study would be to use men and see if it makes a difference.

Another useful study would seem to be to compare male and female samples from such sites, if you can find both. It would also be really helpful to get the mtDNA from those samples and the Y-DNA from the men and, if possible, to compare with British samples. All of these things would not only help us further analyze the effect of the AS period on English DNA (in various different regions), but also help us answer this question about intermarriage.


And we have information like this: "The early seventh century laws of King Ethelbert of Kent mention a distinct social group, the læti, who have
been suggested to be native Britons (Whitelock 1979)"

Yes, but we don't know that this means that intermarriage would not have happened. Eventually the sampling will provide more information.

rms2
06-18-2018, 10:56 PM
@Rms2 and as usual your opinions are not stated, or based on good sources, in this topic non of those, only some gross remarks without depth, apricity level...also in tone and attitude...

My opinions are very clearly stated, and they are based on good sources, unlike yours, which are usually references to things that have little to do with the topic at hand.

Both msmarjoribanks and I have both pointed out the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was pretty obviously genetically a Briton, but, oh no, that cannot be, because the Jarls and Karls, with menacing snarls, were very strict and would never marry a lowly British woman! She would be too swarthy and ugly! (Which I already explained is just horse dung from the older story behind the Rigsmal.)

Razib Khan also pointed out the obvious evidence of intermarriage there. I cited and quoted from his article as msmarjoribanks did later.

But guess what? I don't really give a rat's rear end about the Anglo-Saxons.

This thread started out as a guy asking about his Family Finder results and whether or not they indicated he had Celtic Briton ancestry. I committed the sin of telling him that U106 is a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, which, although painfully obvious, almost always draws someone's ire, as it did in this case.

Now you've drifted over to this thread to argue interminably the silly notion that the Anglo-Saxons would not interbreed with the Britons, when obviously they did.

I am wondering when you will get to the likely point behind all this, i.e., that in your view U106 in England is really Celtic and was present there before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, which, with a similar but continental objective in mind, also explains your incessant ranting on another thread in this same subforum that the earliest Frisians spoke some kind of Celtic.

One could wish that you had a bit more interest in your own y-dna haplogroup.

At any rate, it's a waste of time arguing with you.

JonikW
06-18-2018, 11:09 PM
Just to lighten the mood for a second. "Jarls and Karls, with menacing snarls", the Dr Seuss story that sadly never was. He could have told the Celtic/Germanic story better than anyone.

JerryS.
06-18-2018, 11:25 PM
Just to lighten the mood for a second. "Jarls and Karls, with menacing snarls", the Dr Seuss story that sadly never was. He could have told the Celtic/Germanic story better than anyone.

:laugh: I thought I was the only one thinking that.

glentane
06-19-2018, 01:54 AM
One of the many cultural teases in Y Gododdin, often touted as an authentic high-mediaeval transcription of the earliest Welsh (i.e. post-Roman, common-brythonic/cumbric insular language) poem, is the apparently unremarkable presence of an at least partially Anglian gentleman fighting for the "Welsh" Edinburgh locals against some other, probably equally heterogenous warband, generally assumed to be invading germanics, but probably other (lowland) Brits from basically Leeds and Rotherham.


Although fighting on behalf of one kingdom, the army was not exclusively mustered from within Gododdin: this supports the theory that the army riding from Din Eidyn was an elite fighting force drawn from several allied kingdoms. Among those named are warriors from British Strathclyde and Elmet, the Welsh kingdoms in the south, and Picts from beyond ‘Bannog’ (Campsie Fells, Bannockburn) and ‘the sea of Iddew’ (Firth of Forth - Iddeu is understood to be Stirling Castle Rock). Ufrai – Lord of Eidyn – is the son of Golystan (a British rendering of the Anglo-Saxon name Wulfstan or Wolstan) suggesting an Anglo-Saxon presence within the British kingdom ... Though his father was no prince...

There is a constant hint of "irregularities" in the modern, nationalistic conception of People A vs. People B throughout the work.

Echoing the fable of Hengist's sons Octa and Ebissa being deputed to somewhere about the eastern seaward ends of the Roman frontiers in the north (I suspect in the general area of Bamburgh/Aberlady/Doon Hill/Dunbar/Yeavering Bell). Where they continued their ancestors' trade of being mercenary
foederati against mutinous natives and the hideous Pictish/Irish pagan savages. In full concert with the enduring (Christian) cymric locals, who'd seemingly always been romanophiles. Old Wulfstan there was highly regarded by the ruler(s) of Etin (probably at this time Salisbury Crags in Edinburgh's Queen's Park, "the Red Etin", rather than the Castle Rock/Maiden Castle. Better for cavalry deployment).

The very foundation myth of the Adventus Saxonum (AD 449) hinges about such upper-class bedroom shenanigans.

"Vortigern allowed Hengist to send for more of his countrymen to come over to fight for him. Messengers were sent to "Scythia", where "a number" of warriors were selected, and, with sixteen ships, the messengers returned. With the men came Hengist's beautiful daughter (Rowena/Rhonwen, again confusion over the language whether British or Saxon). Hengist prepared a feast, inviting Vortigern, Vortigern's officers, and Ceretic (which language? I see a theme here), his translator. Prior to the feast, Hengist enjoined his daughter to serve the guests plenty of wine and ale so that they would become drunk. At the feast Vortigern became enamored with her and promised Hengist whatever he liked in exchange for her betrothal. Hengist, having "consulted with the Elders who attended him of the Angle race," demanded Kent. Without the knowledge of the then-ruler of Kent, Vortigern agreed.

Hengist's daughter was given to Vortigern, who slept with her and deeply loved her. Hengist told him that he would now be both his father and adviser and that he would know no defeat with his counsel, "for the people of my country are strong, warlike, and robust." With Vortigern's approval, Hengist would send for his son and his brother to fight against the Scots and those who dwelt near the wall. Vortigern agreed and Ochta and Ebissa arrived with 40 ships, sailed around the land of the Picts, conquered "many regions," and assaulted the Orkney Islands. Hengist continued to send for more ships from his country, so that some islands where his people had previously dwelt are now free of inhabitants."


tl;dr they were at it like knives, both ways, ladies and gents alike, from the time the first overtly aggressive keels crunched into Thanet's beaches, and maybe before. Lineage and military manpower talks, ethnic solidarity walks. What the peasants thought of it all was irrelevant.

Saetro
06-19-2018, 01:56 AM
Here are my Family Tree DNA test results:

British Isles: 65%
Scandinavia: 18%
Southeast Europe: 9%
Iberia: 6%
Central Asia: 1%
West and Central Europe: 1%

Being of mostly English origin, would I of Celtic Briton origin? Any comment are most welcome. :)

Hi, Bradly88

Let's get back to what you asked for help with.
Do you have Celtic Britons among your ancestors? Almost certainly, but the proportion is hard to estimate.

Lots of people I know get this Iberian percentage.
They all have Cornish or Welsh or Irish ancestry.
It does not mean that you have Spanish ancestors.
It does mean that you share some DNA patterns with people who currently live in Spain.

From these numerous instances, it looks like some of your ancestors were Celtic Britons indeed.
Part of the DNA from them that has come down to you is in common with people who currently live in Iberia and part with people who are currently living in the British Isles.
Proportions of Iberian commonality vary among the people I know, but the proportion is somewhere between 1/5 and 1/3 - roughly of their Celtic.
So you probably have something between 20 and 30% roughly due to the Celtic groups mentioned above.

There may be even more of that 65% British Isles that is Celtic, but from Pictish Celts or from Celts who stayed in England when the invaders moved in.

So yes, some; don't know what proportion.

sktibo
06-19-2018, 05:12 AM
One concern I have about the article which estimates the English at 38% Anglo Saxon (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408#results) is that this seems to be encompassing all types of "Germanic" ancestry so it might not be representing only Anglo Saxon ancestry:

24120

While they estimate 32-38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry for East England, their estimates for Orkney are 40 and 45%. These numbers for Orkney would surely be quite far off for an Anglo-Saxon estimate but would look pretty darn good for a Norwegian estimate. Similarly with Scotland, I don't think that 20-31% is a reasonable Anglo-Saxon estimate, but for combined Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and whatever other Germanic sources I could be missing I think that is reasonable. The Welsh estimates look too high all around and I wonder what regions the samples they used for Wales were from. I think it is more likely these estimates are combined Germanic-like ancestry rather than just Anglo-Saxon. Davidski's analysis of Hinxton 2 (Not sure how this sample was labelled in the paper, but the numbering differs) states that "plotting the f3-statistics of Hinxton2, which actually looks like the genome of someone straight off the boat from the Jutland Peninsula, against those of Hinxtons 1 and 4, we see that the former shares most drift with the Danes." (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html). So I don't think it is unreasonable for me to make the claim that it is a bit too difficult to differentiate an Anglo-Saxon percentage from a Scandinavian percentage.

Finn
06-19-2018, 05:34 AM
38% is one of the things being debated. The problem is being able to separate out "AS" given that it's going to look a lot like Danish, in the first place, and also that we don't know how different it was from the immediately-pre-AS-invasions population of the time in that there would be pre-existing back and forth and migration from similar areas.

One way of checking that is to look at pre-AS population (and the study we've been discussing went back to 100 BCE, which leaves out a lot that happened between then and, say, the 6th C), compared it with presumed AS's from a range of time period (who looked mixed already/not entirely AS, and in at least one case looked very similar to the Iron Age samples), and then compare that with the modern population, but the problem is that there's a lot of things that happened between those periods that could be relevant, including pre-6th C migrations/mixing of populations. So I am not convinced about the 38% (without having a strong opinion on what it would be or really caring at all -- I just find it interesting).



Yeah, and that's one of the issues, since of course what the Y-DNA seems to suggest (unless there was substantial intermarriage and displacement of the Briton men sexually or pre-AS migration that mattered) is a much greater population movement than seems to have occurred during the AS invasion period.



Yes.



Again, I don't think you can simply assume from this what was actually going on in Briton at a specific time. It's some evidence, not sufficient.

More significantly, it's not actually important to most of what we are discussing. Specifically, it seems only to be important to the conclusions of the study if they assumed that the AS samples they used were 100% AS and not mixed with native Britons, which I don't think they did. If that is significant to their conclusions, though, the absolute safest way to do the study would be to use men and see if it makes a difference.

Another useful study would seem to be to compare male and female samples from such sites, if you can find both. It would also be really helpful to get the mtDNA from those samples and the Y-DNA from the men and, if possible, to compare with British samples. All of these things would not only help us further analyze the effect of the AS period on English DNA (in various different regions), but also help us answer this question about intermarriage.



Yes, but we don't know that this means that intermarriage would not have happened. Eventually the sampling will provide more information.

Thanks for the reply! Short of time have to catch a train.....What do you think of my question when the Britons were (may be until Norman times!) not equal to the AS how could it be possible that there was on large scale intermarriage?

For now only some interesting remarks done by John Hines (The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century) an absolute expert on this matter! Till later....

https://www.mupload.nl/img/b6q71f0k3.png
https://www.mupload.nl/img/iwsbg2.png

Bollox79
06-19-2018, 06:15 AM
I've never seen that last theme put better. That's certainly how I feel about my forefathers and my Y line. Thanks.

I know it's a bit off topic - but had to comment :-)!

Same here in that I had a s**t ton of respect for my father and his paternal line. He wouldn't have taken it as seriously as me, but then he was that older generation who cared really only for work and drinking beer (hah) after that work and his family wasn't the closest/loving so perhaps he had a bit of resentment. Anyway I lost him in an accident at work, so he is sorely missed! I valued his advice and views even if sometimes they didn't line up with mine! I love my Mother's side too (all those Gaelic Irish and Scots rebels!), but I tried to follow in my Old Man's footsteps!

I worked many hours with him in the moving business (my 2nd GGF George Webster Weaver started a dray line business/furniture moving company called Weaver and Son) and never have a met another man who was a tough and uncomplaining as he was. I have to tell some stories to put it in perspective!

He played American football from a very young age, worked in the family business during the summers and did two a day practices sometimes in for High School Football. Then he played football, wrestled, and played Lacrosse at Lehigh University AND worked for the family business when he was off school. He later, after college, suffered a fracture in his vertebrae in his neck which left him paralyzed on the left side while playing a prop in a rugby game. He underwent surgery where they took bone from his hip and fused it into his neck to help fix it. It did for the most part - he got his feeling back in the left side, but dragged his left foot sometimes when he walked - his shoe would always wear down on that side faster. He went from being about 5'11" or 6' and about 240 in his prime and after he had that accident and the surgery - he got sick from the pain meds and since he had a brace on he threw up and aspirated it. He got pneumonia from it and was stuck in the hospital bed for over a month with the surgery and sickness etc. He lost a lot of that hard won muscle he got from playing sports and working in the family business. Then he came back and worked 20+ years in the moving business driving old Mack trucks without power steering and all that jazz... and was still working even though retired and having surgeries to replace a hip (destroyed in the moving biz) and torn meniscus from a cheap bloke in a football game and years of labor. He was doing squats with me in the kitchen two weeks after that meniscus surgery like a mad man!

The point to all that is he was hard as a coffin nail and I literally never heard him complain (unlike a lot of the newer generations here in the States - I'm 38 and consider myself the older generation now)... he worked through sickness (moving furniture in the winter snow while throwing up behind his truck and keeping on with the job until it was done)... pain... everything to provide for my Mother and our family. Those many hours worked with him and listening to southern rock/bluegrass down the back roads of South Carolina... were priceless times for me!

That is my reason for identifying strongly with my Y-DNA ;-)! My Old Man was literally a blue collar hero aka warrior and went down on his feet (crushed by a forklift). He always told me he never wanted to go down feeble stuck in a death bed. Well he avoided that fate and died doing what he thought was right - working to support himself and Mom.

He had his faults like anyone does and was a bit of a loner (did not have a ton of friends - but he was OK with that)... but a tougher man I have yet to meet! His memory makes me work harder to be a better man!

(P.S. my Mother's father and his brother were also hard-asses - but the type of men to help old ladies across the street - WWII heroes - but that's another story! That generation had it's faults, but it was a good 'un!).

Cheers,
Charlie

Jessie
06-19-2018, 06:28 AM
Are we really sure what people of that time meant when they labelled certain groups dark? It might not always be to do with colouring. The Irish labelled the Vikings dark and light e.g. dubhgall and fionngall. I can't image the Viking groups had different colouring? Anyway I doubt Celts were particularly dark as they are just Bell Beaker descendents so I'm not sure if these texts can be taken too literally. Anglo-Saxons and Vikings had some dark hair as well. All these groups did mix with the natives anyway.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-19-2018, 06:48 AM
My opinions are very clearly stated, and they are based on good sources, unlike yours, which are usually references to things that have little to do with the topic at hand.

Both msmarjoribanks and I have both pointed out the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was pretty obviously genetically a Briton, but, oh no, that cannot be, because the Jarls and Karls, with menacing snarls, were very strict and would never marry a lowly British woman! She would be too swarthy and ugly! (Which I already explained is just horse dung from the older story behind the Rigsmal.)

Razib Khan also pointed out the obvious evidence of intermarriage there. I cited and quoted from his article as msmarjoribanks did later.

But guess what? I don't really give a rat's rear end about the Anglo-Saxons.

This thread started out as a guy asking about his Family Finder results and whether or not they indicated he had Celtic Briton ancestry. I committed the sin of telling him that U106 is a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, which, although painfully obvious, almost always draws someone's ire, as it did in this case.

Now you've drifted over to this thread to argue interminably the silly notion that the Anglo-Saxons would not interbreed with the Britons, when obviously they did.

I am wondering when you will get to the likely point behind all this, i.e., that in your view U106 in England is really Celtic and was present there before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, which, with a similar but continental objective in mind, also explains your incessant ranting on another thread in this same subforum that the earliest Frisians spoke some kind of Celtic.

One could wish that you had a bit more interest in your own y-dna haplogroup.

At any rate, it's a waste of time arguing with you.

If ire was drawn it was from you and towards me when I dared make the comment:-

"Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had."


As far as I can see this is a statement of obvious fact in the context of the original question "How much of my Ancestry is Celtic Briton". I made no reference to you or your comment on U106 because it is obviously factually accurate, if largely irrelevant to the thread topic. I also tried to actually answer his question.

Bollox79
06-19-2018, 06:53 AM
IMO the best resource on the topic of Anglo-Saxon vs. Celtic British DNA in modern Insular populations is the K2 graph from the Insular Celtic Paper.

24089

It's not a definite answer or anything but what I like about this is that it shows that the Iron Age British samples aren't entirely different from the Anglo Saxons, nor the Saxons from the Britons. It does show that of the modern British population averages that the South East English grouping is the most similar but there is quite a large difference nonetheless.

Hey Skitbo - are the samples labeled RM under the Ancient British tab the York Gladiators? Just curious as I'm assuming they would be used in that kind of study possibly - and wondering if 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 (the U106 guys) were the two on the left with similar amounts of the green and red component to the English and Orkney ones?

rms2
06-19-2018, 10:55 AM
If ire was drawn it was from you and towards me when I dared make the comment:-

"Your "Y" DNA is a very small percentage of who you are DNA - wise and in terms of the thousands of ancestors you would have had."


As far as I can see this is a statement of obvious fact in the context of the original question "How much of my Ancestry is Celtic Briton". I made no reference to you or your comment on U106 because it is obviously factually accurate, if largely irrelevant to the thread topic. I also tried to actually answer his question.

I couldn't help but notice your comment downplaying the importance of y-dna, making it entirely a matter of its proportion of total dna, followed right after what I wrote about bradly88's U106 y-dna haplogroup. Coincidence?

Comments like that, downplaying the importance of y-dna, usually posted by people who for some reason aren't too happy with their y-dna test results (you say that's not the case with you, so okay), are a pet peeve of mine. I have already more than once explained why I think your comment was totally unjustified and wrong.

If you still think y-dna is a relatively insignificant part of a man's dna, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

rms2
06-19-2018, 11:15 AM
One of the many cultural teases in Y Gododdin, often touted as an authentic high-mediaeval transcription of the earliest Welsh (i.e. post-Roman, common-brythonic/cumbric insular language) poem, is the apparently unremarkable presence of an at least partially Anglian gentleman fighting for the "Welsh" Edinburgh locals against some other, probably equally heterogenous warband, generally assumed to be invading germanics, but probably other (lowland) Brits from basically Leeds and Rotherham.



There is a constant hint of "irregularities" in the modern, nationalistic conception of People A vs. People B throughout the work.

Echoing the fable of Hengist's sons Octa and Ebissa being deputed to somewhere about the eastern seaward ends of the Roman frontiers in the north (I suspect in the general area of Bamburgh/Aberlady/Doon Hill/Dunbar/Yeavering Bell). Where they continued their ancestors' trade of being mercenary
foederati against mutinous natives and the hideous Pictish/Irish pagan savages. In full concert with the enduring (Christian) cymric locals, who'd seemingly always been romanophiles. Old Wulfstan there was highly regarded by the ruler(s) of Etin (probably at this time Salisbury Crags in Edinburgh's Queen's Park, "the Red Etin", rather than the Castle Rock/Maiden Castle. Better for cavalry deployment).

The very foundation myth of the Adventus Saxonum (AD 449) hinges about such upper-class bedroom shenanigans.

"Vortigern allowed Hengist to send for more of his countrymen to come over to fight for him. Messengers were sent to "Scythia", where "a number" of warriors were selected, and, with sixteen ships, the messengers returned. With the men came Hengist's beautiful daughter (Rowena/Rhonwen, again confusion over the language whether British or Saxon). Hengist prepared a feast, inviting Vortigern, Vortigern's officers, and Ceretic (which language? I see a theme here), his translator. Prior to the feast, Hengist enjoined his daughter to serve the guests plenty of wine and ale so that they would become drunk. At the feast Vortigern became enamored with her and promised Hengist whatever he liked in exchange for her betrothal. Hengist, having "consulted with the Elders who attended him of the Angle race," demanded Kent. Without the knowledge of the then-ruler of Kent, Vortigern agreed.

Hengist's daughter was given to Vortigern, who slept with her and deeply loved her. Hengist told him that he would now be both his father and adviser and that he would know no defeat with his counsel, "for the people of my country are strong, warlike, and robust." With Vortigern's approval, Hengist would send for his son and his brother to fight against the Scots and those who dwelt near the wall. Vortigern agreed and Ochta and Ebissa arrived with 40 ships, sailed around the land of the Picts, conquered "many regions," and assaulted the Orkney Islands. Hengist continued to send for more ships from his country, so that some islands where his people had previously dwelt are now free of inhabitants."


tl;dr they were at it like knives, both ways, ladies and gents alike, from the time the first overtly aggressive keels crunched into Thanet's beaches, and maybe before. Lineage and military manpower talks, ethnic solidarity walks. What the peasants thought of it all was irrelevant.

I was actually going to mention Rowena myself, but I figured someone would object that we were talking about Anglo-Saxon men marrying British women, not British men marrying Anglo-Saxon women, so I didn't, but it's a good point.

I have commented before about the old Indo-European principle of the posse comitatus, the band of warriors gathered around a chief who provided them with food, drink, weapons and equipment in exchange for service in battle. It wasn't based on race or nationality. For example, the old Germanic stories include tales of the posse gathered about Attila the Hun, and many of them were Germans. I suspect something similar went on in Britain and that young and able British warriors fought for Anglo-Saxon chiefs, while some Anglo-Saxon warriors fought for British chiefs. All that mess cited by Finn about the laeti had to do with serfs. Yes, most of them were downtrodden British farmers, but they probably weren't much better off under their former British overlords than they were under the Anglo-Saxons, and I doubt the Anglo-Saxons were any kinder toward their own Germanic serfs.

Cerdic of Wessex, as I mentioned before, who ruled from 519-534, is thought to have been of noble British origin.

rms2
06-19-2018, 11:37 AM
. . .

Lots of people I know get this Iberian percentage.
They all have Cornish or Welsh or Irish ancestry.
It does not mean that you have Spanish ancestors.
It does mean that you share some DNA patterns with people who currently live in Spain . . .

I am wondering what makes you think a certain percentage of Iberian or Iberian-like dna is a Celtic trait. This is honest curiosity, not from a desire to start a quarrel.

I am wondering because Olalde et al found no decipherable Iberian ancestry in non-Iberian Bell Beaker, and it was the Bell beaker contribution that formed the backbone of the British and Irish genome, which was in place before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

Bradly88 mentioned that his ancestry is mostly English. David Reich noted that by the Iron Age, possibly after the Romans, the people of SE Britain had experienced an increase in the old Iberian-like Neolithic farmer ancestry that had prevailed before the Bell Beaker people arrived, an increase not experienced in the rest of Britain or in Ireland.

That increase in Iberian-like Neolithic farmer dna persists in the English today. I noticed back when many of us were busy checking our ANE and steppe dna levels, the guys with English ancestry got slightly lower scores than those of us whose ancestors mostly came from the Celtic Fringe countries. The difference wasn't huge, but it was noticeable. The English guys were getting ANE scores of 12 or 13%, while the Scots, Irish, and Welsh were getting 16-17%.

That difference is apparently the basis for the study by David Reich and his team that prompted this article (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587).

My ancestry is largely Celtic Fringe, with some English, and I mostly score less than 1% Iberian.

Paul333
06-19-2018, 12:11 PM
The trouble with attempting to find out the modern make up of Englishmen/Britians etc, is the industrial revolution from 1750 onwards. Up untill this time people were basically tied to the land under what was a legacy of the fuedal system. Poor people even needed a note from the Lord to move to another area under the poor laws, so up to then most villages etc had the same families for generations, and it is this period that would of reflected the percentages to a degree, but this chance has long since dissapeared.

From the 1750s people began to move enmass into the industrial area,s and mills,away from the secluded country villages and lifestyles they were used to, and the whole of Britian and Ireland was effected, some even forced off the land to make way for sheep, fueling the profitable wool industries.

I live in the North East of England a heavilly industrialised area, and just about every family, has today some trace ancestry from either,or all, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland,( more since the famine of around 1845 onwards,) and even further afield.

It will prove nigh on impossible, in my opinion to work out the ethnicity of English/Celtic people today without some means of separating/identifying specific genes because of these movements. It is this very reason why Living DNA etc seek local Grandparents and earliest ancestor etc, but even this policy in my opinion may probably be too late, due to the mass movement spread generations ago, from the 1700s etc.

As we are finding the DNA of modern populations today are proving very difficult to pin point in some area's, as evidence and human DNA origins are often changing,as more results are studied, and England and Great Britain is a growing and vast jigsaw it seems, and a lot of the evidence needed is unobtainable, and long gone which means the jigsaw can never be completed.

Tracing two individual single genetic lines ie Y, and Mt, will not present too many difficulties back to pre-history at least, but this is a different kettle of fish, than Ethnicity/Autosomal.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-19-2018, 12:23 PM
I couldn't help but notice your comment downplaying the importance of y-dna, making it entirely a matter of its proportion of total dna, followed right after what I wrote about bradly88's U106 y-dna haplogroup. Coincidence?

Comments like that, downplaying the importance of y-dna, usually posted by people who for some reason aren't too happy with their y-dna test results (you say that's not the case with you, so okay), are a pet peeve of mine. I have already more than once explained why I think your comment was totally unjustified and wrong.

If you still think y-dna is a relatively insignificant part of a man's dna, well, you're entitled to your opinion.

I know the significance you place on your Y DNA. Fine, personal choice. The point I was making is that it is relatively insignificant in terms of providing a fuller answer to the OP's question regarding his total ancestry. I don't believe myself that male ancestral identity is completely defined by their Y DNA. Why bother do an autosomal test, why research your family tree? There is little logic in that but if that's how individuals want to look at it that's their right. You choose to make up motives for other peoples' opinions. I choose not to do the same because I feel it is inappropriate and disrespectful.

rms2
06-19-2018, 12:43 PM
I know the significance you place on your Y DNA. Fine, personal choice. The point I was making is that it is relatively insignificant in terms of providing a fuller answer to the OP's question regarding his total ancestry. I don't believe myself that male ancestral identity is completely defined by their Y DNA. Why bother do an autosomal test, why research your family tree? There is little logic in that but if that's how individuals want to look at it that's their right. You choose to make up motives for other peoples' opinions. I choose not to do the same because I feel it is inappropriate and disrespectful.

We've been round and round with this before. Autosomal dna is important, y-dna is important. I think you downplayed y-dna, and you were wrong to do so.

I didn't directly attribute a motive to you. I merely said I noticed that you chose to downplay y-dna immediately after my post telling bradly88 about his y-dna U106. That seemed more than mere coincidence to me, and it still does. That interpretation is based on my experiences in dna discussion forums since the spring of 2006. Nothing I have posted over the years has garnered me more animosity than the innocent observation that U106 appears to be connected to the Germanic peoples. That strikes me as sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious, but it inevitably upsets somebody. Take it anyway you want, but, given my experience with this issue, the way I interpreted your reaction - which followed a pattern I've seen time and time again - was totally justified.

Radboud
06-19-2018, 04:28 PM
Some of the posts in this thread remind me of this scene:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJZIBx1fpUU

Based on new evidence and studies, we can conclude that Anglo-Saxons were not a bunch of genocidal douchebags. They heavily mixed with the local population.

msmarjoribanks
06-19-2018, 05:15 PM
Thanks for the reply! Short of time have to catch a train.....What do you think of my question when the Britons were (may be until Norman times!) not equal to the AS how could it be possible that there was on large scale intermarriage?

Some of this I think should go to another thread, but I want to be clear on what your position is.

Are you saying only that upper class AS's wouldn't have officially married Britons?

I think there's some evidence that they did, and that customs may have varied/changed over time, but I don't think that's especially relevant to the thread (and we could talk about it elsewhere). I also would be open to the idea that it might have been rare, certainly at specific times -- it's not something I've looked into much yet. That they weren't equal doesn't to me preclude it without more, and one factor would be the availability (or lack thereof) of sufficient AS women of the relevant status.

But for the sake of this thread, I think the question is whether there was large-scale intermarriage/inter-breeding between AS men and Briton women during the AS period, and I think that clearly must be the case given the current results. We could disagree about this too, and discuss it in more detail, but I'm not actually sure what your position is on this. It's that I thought you were saying it did not happen that I jumped in originally (and then I realized the conversation was more limited to marriage and high status people).

msmarjoribanks
06-19-2018, 05:40 PM
We've been round and round with this before. Autosomal dna is important, y-dna is important. I think you downplayed y-dna, and you were wrong to do so.

I didn't directly attribute a motive to you. I merely said I noticed that you chose to downplay y-dna immediately after my post telling bradly88 about his y-dna U106. That seemed more than mere coincidence to me, and it still does. That interpretation is based on my experiences in dna discussion forums since the spring of 2006. Nothing I have posted over the years has garnered me more animosity than the innocent observation that U106 appears to be connected to the Germanic peoples. That strikes me as sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious, but it inevitably upsets somebody. Take it anyway you want, but, given my experience with this issue, the way I interpreted your reaction - which followed a pattern I've seen time and time again - was totally justified.

My opinion may be out of place here, but my interpretation was that this was just a misunderstanding. Perhaps one related to other discussions where people took issue with the observation about U106 and Germanic peoples (for the record I agree with you and think JohnHowellsTyrfro has said that he does too).

My interpretation of the original poster's question was that he was asking about percentages, and since lots of people don't really understand what Y-DNA (or mtDNA) relates to, JohnHowellsTyrfro was clarifying that having a Germanic (probably) Y-DNA wouldn't mean you weren't mostly Celtic Briton (in fact, setting aside more recent mixing, it's really common in England to be of mostly Celtic British ancestry but have a Germanic Y-DNA, which is one reason that it's pretty clear there was intermarriage during the AS period IMO).

I don't think that Y-DNA is a small percentage of total ancestry means it's not important -- I'm really interested in my dad's Y-DNA, after all. But if you are trying to find out if you are 75% Celtic British or some such, it's not helpful.

I'll add, although it's also out of place, that I think how much people identify with their Y-DNA probably depends on the extent to which it is consistent with other things that they identify with or, perhaps, how much they know about it. My interest in my line hasn't become much identification yet simply because it's not clear what identifying with it would even mean -- it's not associated with any surnames or more known ancestry. I can't even tell yet when it might have come to the British Isles.

Finn
06-19-2018, 05:41 PM
Some of this I think should go to another thread, but I want to be clear on what your position is.

Are you saying only that upper class AS's wouldn't have officially married Britons?

I think there's some evidence that they did, and that customs may have varied/changed over time, but I don't think that's especially relevant to the thread (and we could talk about it elsewhere). I also would be open to the idea that it might have been rare, certainly at specific times -- it's not something I've looked into much yet. That they weren't equal doesn't to me preclude it without more, and one factor would be the availability (or lack thereof) of sufficient AS women of the relevant status.

But for the sake of this thread, I think the question is whether there was large-scale intermarriage/inter-breeding between AS men and Briton women during the AS period, and I think that clearly must be the case given the current results. We could disagree about this too, and discuss it in more detail, but I'm not actually sure what your position is on this. It's that I thought you were saying it did not happen that I jumped in originally (and then I realized the conversation was more limited to marriage and high status people).


I already said yesterday there were most probably exceptions, truces between AS en Britonic nobility? But was this generic the case?

I don't see a reaction on my question. John Hines one of the biggest experts of the Anglos Saxons is very clear.... Even for a nuanced British scientist like he is!

His conclusion (recap):

https://www.mupload.nl/img/pe6y9j5xemyqa.png

How do you take his view in account?



I think the question is whether there was large-scale intermarriage/inter-breeding between AS men and Briton women during the AS period, and I think that clearly must be the case given the current results.

Even after Hines stated that there was slaughter, slavery and general lower status of the Britons (so not an equal marriage match)?

Could you clarify your opinion in this respect? Thanks in advance.....

Finn
06-19-2018, 05:59 PM
Some of the posts in this thread remind me of this scene:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJZIBx1fpUU

Based on new evidence and studies, we can conclude that Anglo-Saxons were not a bunch of genocidal douchebags. They heavily mixed with the local population.

In the end it did Radboud. But we don't know exactly when. It could also be around 1000, 1200, 1500 (or so) or later....Hines is very clear don't you think?

Finn
06-19-2018, 06:38 PM
My opinions are very clearly stated, and they are based on good sources, unlike yours, which are usually references to things that have little to do with the topic at hand.

Both msmarjoribanks and I have both pointed out the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was pretty obviously genetically a Briton, but, oh no, that cannot be, because the Jarls and Karls, with menacing snarls, were very strict and would never marry a lowly British woman! She would be too swarthy and ugly! (Which I already explained is just horse dung from the older story behind the Rigsmal.)

Razib Khan also pointed out the obvious evidence of intermarriage there. I cited and quoted from his article as msmarjoribanks did later.

But guess what? I don't really give a rat's rear end about the Anglo-Saxons.

This thread started out as a guy asking about his Family Finder results and whether or not they indicated he had Celtic Briton ancestry. I committed the sin of telling him that U106 is a major lineage among the Germanic peoples, which, although painfully obvious, almost always draws someone's ire, as it did in this case.

Now you've drifted over to this thread to argue interminably the silly notion that the Anglo-Saxons would not interbreed with the Britons, when obviously they did.

I am wondering when you will get to the likely point behind all this, i.e., that in your view U106 in England is really Celtic and was present there before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, which, with a similar but continental objective in mind, also explains your incessant ranting on another thread in this same subforum that the earliest Frisians spoke some kind of Celtic.

One could wish that you had a bit more interest in your own y-dna haplogroup.

At any rate, it's a waste of time arguing with you.



I know the significance you place on your Y DNA. Fine, personal choice. The point I was making is that it is relatively insignificant in terms of providing a fuller answer to the OP's question regarding his total ancestry. I don't believe myself that male ancestral identity is completely defined by their Y DNA. Why bother do an autosomal test, why research your family tree? There is little logic in that but if that's how individuals want to look at it that's their right. You choose to make up motives for other peoples' opinions. I choose not to do the same because I feel it is inappropriate and disrespectful.


We've been round and round with this before. Autosomal dna is important, y-dna is important. I think you downplayed y-dna, and you were wrong to do so.

I didn't directly attribute a motive to you. I merely said I noticed that you chose to downplay y-dna immediately after my post telling bradly88 about his y-dna U106. That seemed more than mere coincidence to me, and it still does. That interpretation is based on my experiences in dna discussion forums since the spring of 2006. Nothing I have posted over the years has garnered me more animosity than the innocent observation that U106 appears to be connected to the Germanic peoples. That strikes me as sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious, but it inevitably upsets somebody. Take it anyway you want, but, given my experience with this issue, the way I interpreted your reaction - which followed a pattern I've seen time and time again - was totally justified.



I agree with you John. It's a matter of personal choice. And it's not up to rms2 to make up motives for others....he obviously does. More than once ....

Kind of blindspot. Lack of introspection.

And in some way he reminds me of the football coach Louis van Gaal who stated: "Am I the one who is so smart, or are you so stupid?" :biggrin1:

spruithean
06-19-2018, 06:58 PM
I'm not one that thinks the genocidal Anglo-Saxons were ever a thing. Would there have been bloodshed? Yeah, that's obvious...

However it seems far more realistic for a mixing of Anglo-Saxons and Britons, adoption of culture, and conversion to Christianity to be a few factors in the rise of the Anglo-Saxon dominance.

There are a few examples of Anglo-Saxon kings having seemingly Celtic names or names believed to be of Celtic origin:

– Merewalh of the Magonsæte, name seems to mean "Celebrated Welshman" or "Famous Foreigner"

– Cerdic of Wessex, his name is apparently Celtic, his name seeming to be equivalent to Caraticos. His father is said to be Elesa who is sometimes identified as the Romano-Briton figure called Elasius, allegedly the leader of a region. Cerdic's own descendants had seemingly Celtic names also: Ceawlin, Cedda (from Cad, or Cat), and Cædwalla from Cadwallon.

Not to mention the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia in Northern England and parts of Southern Scotland. Bernicia was once a British kingdom of the name Bryneich. Bernicia's important Anglian settlements also seem to have British names, notably: Dunbar, Bamburgh from Din Guaire, Coldingham reported by Bede to be the town of Colud.

Bernicia and its ruling dynasty, the descendants of Æthelfrith seem to have had some degree of Celtic influence. Æthelfrith's children were exiled after his death (thanks to Edwin son of Ælla) it is known that Oswald and Oswiu spent their exile in Dál Riata where they adopted Celtic Christianity and learned Gaelic, Eanfrith, yet another son of Æthelfrith is believed to have married a Pictish princess, the issue of this marriage was Talorgan mac Enfret.

Oswiu also had relationships and children with the daughter of the King of Rheged and he had a son Aldfrith (Flann Fína mac Ossu) with the daughter of an Ó Néill chief.

msmarjoribanks
06-19-2018, 07:12 PM
I already said yesterday there were most probably exceptions, truces between AS en Britonic nobility? But was this generic the case?

Like I said before, I'm trying to figure out why you think this is relevant to the thread.

Are you trying to claim that there was not SUBSTANTIAL intermarriage and/or interbreeding between AS and British women during the AS period? If so, that is what I'd like to discuss, because that's what I think is most clearly not supported by the evidence and what is also relevant to this thread, as it goes to the percentage of Celtic British ancestry in English people today (although obviously there are tons of other factors).

Or are you simply saying that you don't think that actual marriage happened between British women and high status AS men other than rarely? I think some evidence that we've discussed in this thread is against that claim too, at least as a "this was always the case, everywhere and at all times," and that saying that at specific times Britons were legally inferior does not mean that it did not happen, but I don't have a current view on this other than I don't think adequate evidence has been presented for a strong statement either way. More significantly, though, I don't see how it's relevant to the thread in that even if high status AS men didn't deign to marry British women, that's not going to make much difference as to overall ancestry today. Most people aren't high status.

Once we figure out if this discussion even goes in this thread, and precisely the point that you think it supports, then I promise I will address the high status AS and marriage issue in more detail (either here, if you are claiming it means that there was not intermixing of AS and Britons during the AS period or elsewhere if it's just a point of historical interest otherwise -- I think that would go better in the one of the history threads?).

Finn
06-19-2018, 07:35 PM
Like I said before, I'm trying to figure out why you think this is relevant to the thread.

Are you trying to claim that there was not SUBSTANTIAL intermarriage and/or interbreeding between AS and British women during the AS period? If so, that is what I'd like to discuss, because that's what I think is most clearly not supported by the evidence and what is also relevant to this thread, as it goes to the percentage of Celtic British ancestry in English people today (although obviously there are tons of other factors).

Or are you simply saying that you don't think that actual marriage happened between British women and high status AS men other than rarely? I think some evidence that we've discussed in this thread is against that claim too, at least as a "this was always the case, everywhere and at all times," and that saying that at specific times Britons were legally inferior does not mean that it did not happen, but I don't have a current view on this other than I don't think adequate evidence has been presented for a strong statement either way. More significantly, though, I don't see how it's relevant to the thread in that even if high status AS men didn't deign to marry British women, that's not going to make much difference as to overall ancestry today. Most people aren't high status.

Once we figure out if this discussion even goes in this thread, and precisely the point that you think it supports, then I promise I will address the high status AS and marriage issue in more detail (either here, if you are claiming it means that there was not intermixing of AS and Britons during the AS period or elsewhere if it's just a point of historical interest otherwise -- I think that would go better in the one of the history threads?).


No at first not. Not en masse. The AS social structure prevented this, for more background see John Hines.

The more generic question how much of my English ancestry is Celtic Briton has lead to the question how this AS -Britonic (without this mixture no need for the question in the thread) originated....

As more often in discussions one thing leads to another. Because when did they mix? Did they mix from the beginning? Or.... Simply curiosity. Hunger for answers....wondering how....

Side paths lead sometimes to new insight or knowledge!

Before this I had not so much information about the early Anglo Saxon social structure now I have....nothing more nothing less.

(An for me personally this gives some information how things went in Friesland that has parallels with the English situation).

msmarjoribanks
06-19-2018, 09:17 PM
No at first not. Not en masse. The AS social structure prevented this, for more background see John Hines.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I will read John Hines on the topic.

I am skeptical about the claim that there was not intermixing between Celtic women and AS men, because as I understand it there is a far greater percentage of Germanic Y-DNA in the English population (varying based on specific location) than is accounted for by the number of AS's actually believed to have come during the AS period, but that the mtDNA today in England looks much more like that of the Iron Age. This suggests that there was a reproductive advantage of AS men, and that they -- rather than British men -- were reproducing in significant numbers with British women.

If that did not happen, you need to explain the results.

One option is greater migration during that period than believed and large-scale massacres of the British population, but there's not evidence of that, so it seems unlikely.

Another, I guess, is that there was this apartheid society you seem to favor, but that's not consistent with the DNA evidence in the Nature article we have been discussing, and it doesn't seem to explain the mtDNA continuity, even if it could explain the numbers (which assumes that the lower status population would reproduce/live to reproduce at a quite dramatically different level). I think this needs more evidence (DNA) before you can proclaim it's the explanation.

(Note, the Nature article strongly suggests that there may have been more mixing initially and then some efforts to stop it, and one issue I have with your claims is that you seem to assume it was always and everywhere the same, regardless of the specific situations, because AS will be AS. The other issue I have is that you seemed to be focusing on high status AS and marriage and extrapolating from that.)

Another is the idea that the extent of AS DNA in the British population is more due to lower level migration over time than a dramatic change in the early middle ages. I think this also will be something that DNA evidence will be of aid in determining.

Saetro
06-19-2018, 11:43 PM
The trouble with attempting to find out the modern make up of Englishmen/Britians etc, is the industrial revolution from 1750 onwards. Up untill this time people were basically tied to the land under what was a legacy of the fuedal system. Poor people even needed a note from the Lord to move to another area under the poor laws, so up to then most villages etc had the same families for generations, and it is this period that would of reflected the percentages to a degree, but this chance has long since dissapeared.

From the 1750s people began to move enmass into the industrial area,s and mills,away from the secluded country villages and lifestyles they were used to, and the whole of Britian and Ireland was effected, some even forced off the land to make way for sheep, fueling the profitable wool industries.

I live in the North East of England a heavilly industrialised area, and just about every family, has today some trace ancestry from either,or all, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland,( more since the famine of around 1845 onwards,) and even further afield.

It will prove nigh on impossible, in my opinion to work out the ethnicity of English/Celtic people today without some means of separating/identifying specific genes because of these movements. It is this very reason why Living DNA etc seek local Grandparents and earliest ancestor etc, but even this policy in my opinion may probably be too late, due to the mass movement spread generations ago, from the 1700s etc.

As we are finding the DNA of modern populations today are proving very difficult to pin point in some area's, as evidence and human DNA origins are often changing,as more results are studied, and England and Great Britain is a growing and vast jigsaw it seems, and a lot of the evidence needed is unobtainable, and long gone which means the jigsaw can never be completed.

Tracing two individual single genetic lines ie Y, and Mt, will not present too many difficulties back to pre-history at least, but this is a different kettle of fish, than Ethnicity/Autosomal.

Can I start by taking on the definition of a European visitor centuries ago that Britain consisted of 4 kingdoms: England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
It's an axiom, if you like - just for now.
You are quite right that there was lots of movement.
But SOME people stayed where they had been.
If the family owned a farm or had a well established business, then one son took over the business while others had to find some other way to make a living.
And the overwhelming movement of people was from Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales into the industrial towns of England.
And from rural everywhere to industrial towns and cities.
If this were not so - that some stayed behind - the patterns we see in POBI would not be there.

What do we know about Cornwall?
The history until the railway went in around 1850 is that there was not a lot of movement into and out of this county.*
A little up the top (NE) from and into Devon.
Many outwards to the colonies and quite a few Cornish who went to south Wales from 1750 on.
There are accounts around that time from locals and visitors who interviewed locals who all say this.
Furthermore, locals more recently say there was not much inflow into Cornwall until after 1945 and even 1960.
So finding people in Cornwall who represent those who were always there should not be too difficult.

*I can certainly support this with my research into many, many people from Penwith and Kerrier from 1600 to 1850.
There are always very small numbers against this - the odd seaman who came from Aberdeen or Bristol, the occasional seasonal worker from Ireland who came for the harvest, married a local and stayed; but these were pointed out at the time by locals as rare exceptions.
Exceptions like these prove the rule.

Dewsloth
06-19-2018, 11:54 PM
The trouble with attempting to find out the modern make up of Englishmen/Britians etc, is the industrial revolution from 1750 onwards. Up untill this time people were basically tied to the land under what was a legacy of the fuedal system. Poor people even needed a note from the Lord to move to another area under the poor laws, so up to then most villages etc had the same families for generations, and it is this period that would of reflected the percentages to a degree, but this chance has long since dissapeared.

From the 1750s people began to move enmass into the industrial area,s and mills,away from the secluded country villages and lifestyles they were used to, and the whole of Britian and Ireland was effected, some even forced off the land to make way for sheep, fueling the profitable wool industries.

I live in the North East of England a heavilly industrialised area, and just about every family, has today some trace ancestry from either,or all, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland,( more since the famine of around 1845 onwards,) and even further afield.

It will prove nigh on impossible, in my opinion to work out the ethnicity of English/Celtic people today without some means of separating/identifying specific genes because of these movements. It is this very reason why LivingDNA etc seek local Grandparents and earliest ancestor etc, but even this policy in my opinion may probably be too late, due to the mass movement spread generations ago, from the 1700s etc.

As we are finding the DNA of modern populations today are proving very difficult to pin point in some area's, as evidence and human DNA origins are often changing,as more results are studied, and England and Great Britain is a growing and vast jigsaw it seems, and a lot of the evidence needed is unobtainable, and long gone which means the jigsaw can never be completed.

Tracing two individual single genetic lines ie Y, and Mt, will not present too many difficulties back to pre-history at least, but this is a different kettle of fish, than Ethnicity/Autosomal.

Well, about 40% of Dad's ancestry is British, and all of them (some listed below in sig line) had already crossed the Atlantic by then.

The only problem is I don't know where in Great Britain some of them came from, although Living DNA did a really nice job of hitting all the British regions I did know about ... but they also completely missed the 40% of Dad's ancestry that comes from Germany. :\

Saetro
06-20-2018, 12:25 AM
I am wondering what makes you think a certain percentage of Iberian or Iberian-like dna is a Celtic trait. This is honest curiosity, not from a desire to start a quarrel.

I am wondering because Olalde et al found no decipherable Iberian ancestry in non-Iberian Bell Beaker, and it was the Bell beaker contribution that formed the backbone of the British and Irish genome, which was in place before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

Bradly88 mentioned that his ancestry is mostly English. David Reich noted that by the Iron Age, possibly after the Romans, the people of SE Britain had experienced an increase in the old Iberian-like Neolithic farmer ancestry that had prevailed before the Bell Beaker people arrived, an increase not experienced in the rest of Britain or in Ireland.

That increase in Iberian-like Neolithic farmer dna persists in the English today. I noticed back when many of us were busy checking our ANE and steppe dna levels, the guys with English ancestry got slightly lower scores than those of us whose ancestors mostly came from the Celtic Fringe countries. The difference wasn't huge, but it was noticeable. The English guys were getting ANE scores of 12 or 13%, while the Scots, Irish, and Welsh were getting 16-17%.

That difference is apparently the basis for the study by David Reich and his team that prompted this article (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587).

My ancestry is largely Celtic Fringe, with some English, and I mostly score less than 1% Iberian.

rms2, my starting position is one of observation.
Having a sizeable Cornish proportion of ancestry, I have discussions with others who are similar. They often have way more than me.
One after another asked "What's this Iberian in my ethnicity?"
I explained that the result showed COMMONALITY of some of their DNA with those who currently live in the Iberian peninsula.
This could come about from a common ancestral population somewhere else they both came from or maybe from some population movement from Iberia: modern day DNA alone could not definitively determine.
Overhearing this, people with 100% Irish said, "Hey, I have that too". And then some with mostly Welsh joined in the chorus.
So this is 1)observational 2)andecdotal 3)NOT statistical.
But it keeps happening, so it appears to me that there may be something there.

Maybe it is a small sub group who coincidentally have the same thing.
It is a human trait to want to see patterns, and I know I am able to see patterns where other people cannot, so maybe I sometimes see them where they do not actually occur.

I am very interested in seeing those Reich British genome results.
Maybe it will sort this out. I hope so.

Or it could just be a glitch from the ethnicity algorithms and reference panels.
Other strange apparent connections have disappeared as those have been updated over time.

Finn
06-20-2018, 06:53 AM
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I will read John Hines on the topic.

I am skeptical about the claim that there was not intermixing between Celtic women and AS men, because as I understand it there is a far greater percentage of Germanic Y-DNA in the English population (varying based on specific location) than is accounted for by the number of AS's actually believed to have come during the AS period, but that the mtDNA today in England looks much more like that of the Iron Age. This suggests that there was a reproductive advantage of AS men, and that they -- rather than British men -- were reproducing in significant numbers with British women.

If that did not happen, you need to explain the results.

One option is greater migration during that period than believed and large-scale massacres of the British population, but there's not evidence of that, so it seems unlikely.

Another, I guess, is that there was this apartheid society you seem to favor, but that's not consistent with the DNA evidence in the Nature article we have been discussing, and it doesn't seem to explain the mtDNA continuity, even if it could explain the numbers (which assumes that the lower status population would reproduce/live to reproduce at a quite dramatically different level). I think this needs more evidence (DNA) before you can proclaim it's the explanation.

(Note, the Nature article strongly suggests that there may have been more mixing initially and then some efforts to stop it, and one issue I have with your claims is that you seem to assume it was always and everywhere the same, regardless of the specific situations, because AS will be AS. The other issue I have is that you seemed to be focusing on high status AS and marriage and extrapolating from that.)

Another is the idea that the extent of AS DNA in the British population is more due to lower level migration over time than a dramatic change in the early middle ages. I think this also will be something that DNA evidence will be of aid in determining.

First of all in matters of intermixtures between groups you can’t pas the social system. As for big parts of the world even today it were arranged marriages. To maintain the social position and/or as a peacekeeping operation between families/clans.

I heard a recent podcast with Khan about this subject and they talked about chain migration. So initial migration leads to follow up. It’s quite clear they inititial didn’t loose contact with abroad (and with other invaded area's like Friesland).

When Hines is right the Britons were at first anything but equal. So not preferred as a marriage candidate.

That said how did intermixture took place. I think there were two options:
A. In the households of the earls and karls there were Britonic slave woman, this has lead to sexual intercourse.
B. There were some truces between Britonic and AS nobility, so brides were the peacekeepers in this respect.
It's reasonable to think that A occurred much more often than B and that B is the exception.

Problem with all the figures is: there was no Ellis Island so no names and numbers (no clear zero situation).

Over time the initial strictness, watered, changed...and the contacts with abroad were not so tight any longer (AS-exit ;) ......so a lot of intermixture is most probably more after 1000 AD than before.

Radboud
06-20-2018, 09:16 AM
In the end it did Radboud. But we don't know exactly when. It could also be around 1000, 1200, 1500 (or so) or later....Hines is very clear don't you think?

Well, we already have Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton and Oakington and some of them appear to be mixed. Strongly speaking, I remember that only Hinxton2 was a pure Anglo-Saxon.

Finn
06-20-2018, 10:16 AM
Well, we already have Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton and Oakington and some of them appear to be mixed. Strongly speaking, I remember that only Hinxton2 was a pure Anglo-Saxon.

That leads to which consequences? Intermingling was usual, regardless the social structure?

IMO intermingling took place see above, but restricted....(at first).

rms2
06-20-2018, 10:43 AM
I agree with you John. It's a matter of personal choice. And it's not up to rms2 to make up motives for others....he obviously does. More than once ....

Kind of blindspot. Lack of introspection.

And in some way he reminds me of the football coach Louis van Gaal who stated: "Am I the one who is so smart, or are you so stupid?" :biggrin1:

Perhaps you two could start a mutual admiration society.

I think your problem, Finn, is that your arguments are weak. So, naturally, you have to stop every third post or so to whine about me.

rms2
06-20-2018, 10:57 AM
Well, we already have Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton and Oakington and some of them appear to be mixed. Strongly speaking, I remember that only Hinxton2 was a pure Anglo-Saxon.

I think Finn is misinterpreting the A-S social structure and applying the rules about weregild too broadly, which had to do with British serfs, especially men, and said nothing whatsoever about intermarriage.

Both msmarjoribanks and I have pointed out that one of the eight Anglo-Saxons, and that one obviously upper class, was genetically a Briton. Clearly she was not excluded from the upper levels of Anglo-Saxon society.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately the Anglo-Saxons melded with the Romano-British natives. I tend to think Razib Khan is right, and that in the beginning the Anglo-Saxon invasion force consisted largely of unaccompanied males who sought mates among the native women, who probably were not at all "swarthy" or ugly.

I've mentioned a couple of times already that the "swarthy and ugly" idea comes from the old Germanic story behind the Rigsmal, in which the god Rig travels the earth, fathering the progenitors of the three classes of Germanic society: Thrall, who was strong, but dark and ugly, Karl, who had red hair and a ruddy complexion, and Jarl, who was tall and blond. That story was used to justify the Germanic social system as divine. It certainly cannot possibly mean that all thralls were strong, but dark and ugly, all free men and women had red hair and ruddy complexions, and all the nobility were tall and blond.

Finn
06-20-2018, 11:02 AM
Perhaps you two could start a mutual admiration society.

I think your problem, Finn, is that your arguments are weak. So, naturally, you have to stop every third post or so to whine about me.

Yeah....so true ;)

Finn
06-20-2018, 11:12 AM
I think Finn is misinterpreting the A-S social structure and applying the rules about weregild too broadly, which had to do with British serfs, especially men, and said nothing whatsoever about intermarriage.

Both msmarjoribanks and I have pointed out that one of the eight Anglo-Saxons, and that one obviously upper class, was genetically a Briton. Clearly she was not excluded from the upper levels of Anglo-Saxon society.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately the Anglo-Saxons melded with the Romano-British natives. I tend to think Razib Khan is right, and that in the beginning the Anglo-Saxon invasion force consisted largely of unaccompanied males who sought mates among the native women, who probably were not at all "swarthy" or ugly.

I've mentioned a couple of times already that the "swarthy and ugly" idea comes from the old Germanic story behind the Rigsmal, in which the god Rig travels the earth, fathering the progenitors of the three classes of Germanic society: Thrall, who was strong, but dark and ugly, Karl, who had red hair and a ruddy complexion, and Jarl, who was tall and blond. That story was used to justify the Germanic social system as divine. It certainly cannot possibly mean that all thralls were strong, but dark and ugly, all free men and women had red hair and ruddy complexions, and all the nobility were tall and blond.

The only thing you can imagine is to give a twist to my and others words and than make it laughable....kind of silly schoolkid method. So obvious.

But this mask the lack of knowledge on this point I guess.

John Hines with decennia experience of the early Anglo Saxons and their culture has made a very clear discription of the their social structure and the effect of it....

But no word about Hines from Rms2 about this. The only thing he can imagine is using a big mouth that masks a kind of emptiness.....

rms2
06-20-2018, 11:14 AM
It seems to me some of the evidence that the Anglo-Saxon invasion was largely male-vectored is the prevalence of what are apparently Germanic-connected y-dna haplogroups in Britain with a decidedly Anglo-Saxon distribution at frequencies that together far exceed the percentage of Anglo-Saxon autosomal dna in the population.

Two that spring to mind are R1b-U106 and I-M253 (old I1a), but others include DF19, DF99, and L238.

24145 24146

Taken all together, those y-dna haplogroups probably approach 50% of the total, at least in England. That exceeds the ~20-40% Anglo-Saxon autosomal dna in the modern English population.

Of course, as has been mentioned before, some of that is probably of Danish Viking origin.

Paul333
06-20-2018, 11:18 AM
Can I start by taking on the definition of a European visitor centuries ago that Britain consisted of 4 kingdoms: England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
It's an axiom, if you like - just for now.
You are quite right that there was lots of movement.
But SOME people stayed where they had been.
If the family owned a farm or had a well established business, then one son took over the business while others had to find some other way to make a living.
And the overwhelming movement of people was from Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales into the industrial towns of England.
And from rural everywhere to industrial towns and cities.
If this were not so - that some stayed behind - the patterns we see in POBI would not be there.

What do we know about Cornwall?
The history until the railway went in around 1850 is that there was not a lot of movement into and out of this county.*
A little up the top (NE) from and into Devon.
Many outwards to the colonies and quite a few Cornish who went to south Wales from 1750 on.
There are accounts around that time from locals and visitors who interviewed locals who all say this.
Furthermore, locals more recently say there was not much inflow into Cornwall until after 1945 and even 1960.
So finding people in Cornwall who represent those who were always there should not be too difficult.

*I can certainly support this with my research into many, many people from Penwith and Kerrier from 1600 to 1850.
There are always very small numbers against this - the odd seaman who came from Aberdeen or Bristol, the occasional seasonal worker from Ireland who came for the harvest, married a local and stayed; but these were pointed out at the time by locals as rare exceptions.
Exceptions like these prove the rule.

Regarding Cornwall, As you will know, this is an area that was famous for centuries for Tin mining, etc, even the Greeks are believed to have been trading with the Cornish Area's in pre-history. No doubt a lot of people remained,Farmers, landowners etc, but once the tin mines etc began to decline in the 1850s, and the railways reaching Cornwall during the same periods,large amounts of people left Cornwall, especially from tin mining families,etc, as their mining skills were very valuable especially to the coal industry, who with the advent of the steam engine, (pumping water etc ) could begin very deep mining throughout Great Britain.

One area that reflected, and confirmed this movement was the need for the census, and this is especially helpfull from 1841/1851 where place of birth etc were entered with more detail. These records do confirm these vast population movements throughout Great Britian and Ireland. Even in my own history research of these records, I have viewed many entries from Cornish Families, moving here to the North East,of England, and other area's from the 1851 census alone.

Finn
06-20-2018, 11:22 AM
but the worst thing is that Rms2 with his throlling kind of behavior interfers a good discussion. Because people are even going to think that the spin of Rms2 would reflect my words or intentions.

That’s beyond fairness but that’s how people like Rms2 for god knows how reason are tend to behave....

“Thanks” Rms2 congratulations.....

rms2
06-20-2018, 11:28 AM
The only thing you can imagine is to give a twist to my and others words and than make it laughable....kind of silly schoolkid method. So obvious.

But this mask the lack of knowledge on this point I guess.

John Hines with decennia experience of the early Anglo Saxons and their culture has made a very clear discription of the their social structure and the effect of it....

But no word about Hines from Rms2 about this. The only thing he can imagine is using a big mouth that masks a kind of emptiness.....

Finn,

You like to throw names around and pretend they support what you say, but you never cite anything from them that actually says what you are saying.

Please cite Hines and show, word-for-word, that he says that the Anglo-Saxon social structure prevented Anglo-Saxon males from taking British wives. I don't believe Hines says that, but here's your chance to prove me wrong.

Meanwhile, we have genetic evidence that the Anglo-Saxons did in fact take wives from among the native Romano-Britons.

Finn
06-20-2018, 11:41 AM
Finn,

You like to throw names around and pretend they support what you say, but you never cite anything from them that actually says what you are saying.

Please cite Hines and show, word-for-word, that he says that the Anglo-Saxon social structure prevented Anglo-Saxon males from taking British wives. I don't believe Hines says that, but here's your chance to prove me wrong.

Meanwhile, we have genetic evidence that the Anglo-Saxons did in fact take wives from among the native Romano-Britons.

You don't read well. And what you you read immediately leads to a kind into black and white opinion.

All what you stated about me I don't recognize....in words neither in intentions.

Underhanded behavior. So i'm very hesitating to start in this respect a discussion with you because I expect a reprise....

But ok I will give you a chance my dear Rms2!

Hines was very clear, this was his conclusion:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/0si5oy9.png

But actually you have to read the whole passage very good.
https://www.mupload.nl/img/zsoigqo.png
https://www.mupload.nl/img/veo2yiz.png

Succes!

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 11:43 AM
First of all in matters of intermixtures between groups you can’t pas the social system. As for big parts of the world even today it were arranged marriages. To maintain the social position and/or as a peacekeeping operation between families/clans.

I am not saying to ignore the social system. I'm saying you can't come to some conclusion on the social system being inflexibly one way (based on pretty weak evidence, as you were initially using, like Beowulf) and then say that it was like this in all places and all times -- over a period of hundreds of years -- without question. That's not good historical reasoning.

It's especially problematic in that there is so much we don't know, the sources are lacking, and at least some actual DNA evidence is to the contrary. And significantly, that evidence suggests there may have been more intermarriage in the early periods. I think one possibility is that early on it existed, later there was less, and then still later there was more again (especially as Britons became more culturally AS, adopted the language, so on).

I am interested in what Hines says about it, so will read that, but you seem to think that saying the AS did not consider the Britons equals definitively means there would not have been much interbreeding, and that's pretty obviously not true in plenty of human societies. We also don't know to what extent there was an AS male/female imbalance, but almost certainly there was one to some degree (especially in the early period -- hmm), and I don't think that there would have been no differences depending on social status either, as you now seem to be saying.

Anyway, the DNA from samples still has much more to reveal.


I heard a recent podcast with Khan about this subject and they talked about chain migration. So initial migration leads to follow up. It’s quite clear they inititial didn’t loose contact with abroad (and with other invaded area's like Friesland).

So is your premise that there was much more AS migration during the AS period than people believe based on the archaeology? I disagree with your belief that you can make these certain pronouncements, but am also just trying to understand what the claim is. Are you questioning the general idea that there is a higher percentage of Germanic Y-DNA than would be accounted for by the number of people who actually came? Or that in contrast the mtDNA is largely consistent with the earlier periods. I am trying to figure out what the underlying point is that this is in advance of in your mind.

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 11:54 AM
rms2, my starting position is one of observation.
Having a sizeable Cornish proportion of ancestry, I have discussions with others who are similar. They often have way more than me.
One after another asked "What's this Iberian in my ethnicity?"
I explained that the result showed COMMONALITY of some of their DNA with those who currently live in the Iberian peninsula.
This could come about from a common ancestral population somewhere else they both came from or maybe from some population movement from Iberia: modern day DNA alone could not definitively determine.
Overhearing this, people with 100% Irish said, "Hey, I have that too". And then some with mostly Welsh joined in the chorus.
So this is 1)observational 2)andecdotal 3)NOT statistical.
But it keeps happening, so it appears to me that there may be something there.

Maybe it is a small sub group who coincidentally have the same thing.
It is a human trait to want to see patterns, and I know I am able to see patterns where other people cannot, so maybe I sometimes see them where they do not actually occur.

Is the Iberian you are seeing in commercial tests like Ancestry or on K36?

Asking because the Iberian traces on commercial tests typically depend on what else your ancestry gets identified as, and may not mean you have more than others -- as I recently discussed on another thread, my sister gets a lot more than me on Ancestry, but we seem to have similar amounts on Gedmatch tests. I think the difference on Ancestry is that more of her English gets pegged as Scandinavian, which isn't consistent with having this Iberian mix, so it gets accounted for separately.

My dad gets pretty high Iberian on K36 (15.52), but he's about a quarter Welsh, with most of the rest English, so that doesn't help identify where it's from. (He also has a little French, although it's pretty far back, which could be relevant.) Someone posted the K36 spreadsheet recently, but I can never find it, so am not able to look at what their numbers are.

rms2
06-20-2018, 11:56 AM
You don't read well. And what you you read immediately leads to a kind into black and white opinion.

I read very well and possess an advanced degree, having graduated with honors.

I can see clearly that nowhere does Hines say that the A-S social structure prevented A-S men from marrying British women. He gives his opinion based on the paucity of Celtic loan words in English that the rate of intermarriage must have been low at first, citing Northumbria, however, as an exception.

But Hines does not actually say the A-S social structure prohibited or prevented A-S men from taking British wives. I think he is wrong in his opinion that the level of such unions was low. Since his is an older work, he probably was not aware that in tribal societies foreign brides tend not to be innovators but rather strict imitators of their husband's language and culture, so it isn't likely that British brides of A-S husbands would have introduced Celtic loan words into English anyway. And that is the only reason Hines cites for thinking there must not have been much intermarriage of British women and A-S men.



All what you stated about me I don't recognize....in words neither in intentions.

Underhanded behavior. So i'm very hesitating to start in this respect a discussion with you because I expect a reprise....

But ok I will give you a chance my dear Rms2! . . .

I think you need to quit whining and put up or shut up.




Succes!

Nope. Hines did not say what you are saying. See what I wrote above. In fact, he even directly contradicted you when it comes to Northumbria.

Finn
06-20-2018, 11:59 AM
I am not saying to ignore the social system. I'm saying you can't come to some conclusion on the social system being inflexibly one way (based on pretty weak evidence, as you were initially using, like Beowulf) and then say that it was like this in all places and all times -- over a period of hundreds of years -- without question. That's not good historical reasoning.

It's especially problematic in that there is so much we don't know, the sources are lacking, and at least some actual DNA evidence is to the contrary. And significantly, that evidence suggests there may have been more intermarriage in the early periods. I think one possibility is that early on it existed, later there was less, and then still later there was more again (especially as Britons became more culturally AS, adopted the language, so on).

I am interested in what Hines says about it, so will read that, but you seem to think that saying the AS did not consider the Britons equals definitively means there would not have been much interbreeding, and that's pretty obviously not true in plenty of human societies. We also don't know to what extent there was an AS male/female imbalance, but almost certainly there was one to some degree (especially in the early period -- hmm), and I don't think that there would have been no differences depending on social status either, as you now seem to be saying.

Anyway, the DNA from samples still has much more to reveal.



So is your premise that there was much more AS migration during the AS period than people believe based on the archaeology? I disagree with your belief that you can make these certain pronouncements, but am also just trying to understand what the claim is. Are you questioning the general idea that there is a higher percentage of Germanic Y-DNA than would be accounted for by the number of people who actually came? Or that in contrast the mtDNA is largely consistent with the earlier periods. I am trying to figure out what the underlying point is that this is in advance of in your mind.


but you seem to think that saying the AS did not consider the Britons equals definitively means there would not have been much interbreeding.


Were did I state that. I said it will prevent marriages (and equal words). I did not exclude, again I did not exclude intermingling. Point it were I stated that (and I don't want to see the word SEEM).

I did state that marriages were between social equals. And when they were obviously not seen as equals this prevents marriages. That's it. Please react on that not on supposed intentions the seems.

And I gave marked a an b the exceptions that in the first centuries did cause intermingling!

So either you don't read well or you don't want to read well...my goodness.

And request read those few lines of Hines ^^^ even not native speaker like me cost it a few minutes....than we speak again.

Finn
06-20-2018, 12:03 PM
I read very well and possess an advance degree, having graduated with honors.

I can see clearly that nowhere does Hines say that the A-S social structure prevented A-S men from marrying British women. He gives his opinion based on the paucity of Celtic loan words in English that the rate of intermarriage must have been low at first, citing Northumbria, however, as an exception.

But Hines does not actually say the A-S social structure prohibited or prevented A-S men from taking British wives. I think he is wrong in his opinion that the level of such unions was low. Since his is an older work, he probably was not aware that in tribal societies foreign brides tend not to be innovators but rather strict imitators of their husband's language and culture, so it isn't likely that British brides of A-S husbands would have introduced Celtic loan words into English anyway. And that is the only reason Hines cites for thinking there must not have been much intermarriage of British women and A-S men.



I think you need to quit whining and put up or shut up.




Nope. Hines did not say what you are saying. See what I wrote above. In fact, he even directly contradicted you when it comes to Northumbria.


ROFLOL

silly this was to be expected the only exception Hines mentions is taken out....the rest is followed up by a non statement...

I must say creative rms2, :thumb:

but fool another one not me!

rms2
06-20-2018, 12:13 PM
However, the small number of Celtic loan-words in the English language indicates a low level of intermarriage between the two groups (Loyn 1962:12-4), . . .

As Anthony points out in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, in tribal societies foreign brides tend to be hyper-correct imitators of their husbands' language and culture and not innovators, so Hines' reasoning on this score, while understandable, is just incorrect.


. . .
except possibly Northumbria where personal names suggest a larger number of mixed marriages (Whitelock 1962:18).

Pardon me, Finn, but I think Hines just shot you down in flames.

Finn
06-20-2018, 12:16 PM
I read very well and possess an advanced degree, having graduated with honors.

I can see clearly that nowhere does Hines say that the A-S social structure prevented A-S men from marrying British women. He gives his opinion based on the paucity of Celtic loan words in English that the rate of intermarriage must have been low at first, citing Northumbria, however, as an exception.

But Hines does not actually say the A-S social structure prohibited or prevented A-S men from taking British wives. I think he is wrong in his opinion that the level of such unions was low. Since his is an older work, he probably was not aware that in tribal societies foreign brides tend not to be innovators but rather strict imitators of their husband's language and culture, so it isn't likely that British brides of A-S husbands would have introduced Celtic loan words into English anyway. And that is the only reason Hines cites for thinking there must not have been much intermarriage of British women and A-S men.



I think you need to quit whining and put up or shut up.




Nope. Hines did not say what you are saying. See what I wrote above. In fact, he even directly contradicted you when it comes to Northumbria.

My amazing is growing with your postings...

Is this the real rms2?....:crazy::crazy:

are we getting a piece the resistance or is it done for today? :amen:

Finn
06-20-2018, 12:21 PM
As Anthony points out in his book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, in tribal societies foreign brides tend to be hyper-correct imitators of their husbands' language and culture and not innovators, so Hines' reasoning on this score, while understandable, is just incorrect.



Pardon me, Finn, but I think Hines just shot you down in flames.

For the honored close reader: you forget to highlight the first word........except hahahahaha

Makes it a little bit different hahahah

rms2
06-20-2018, 12:26 PM
For the honored close reader: you forget to highlight the first word........except hahahahaha

Makes it a little bit different hahahah

Northumbria was a pretty big exception, Finn.

24147

And, as I pointed out, Hines' reasoning was flawed for thinking the level of intermarriage in the rest of England was low.

MitchellSince1893
06-20-2018, 12:34 PM
I respectfully request the following.

Finn put rms2 on your ignore list.

rms2 put Finn on your ignore list.

rms2
06-20-2018, 12:36 PM
Request denied.

Finn doesn't bother me that much.

Finn
06-20-2018, 12:46 PM
I respectfully request the following.

Finn put rms2 on your ignore list.

rms2 put Finn on your ignore list.

I can see the reason behind your request Mitchell. I’m here to learn and to discuss in a direct but fair way. I try to ignore it as much as possible. With one exception when this leadsto spin or framing or such kind of things of my words and intentions I ‘m almost forced to react because I doesn’t reflect my words and intentions properly....so if you have a solution for that : welcome....

spruithean
06-20-2018, 12:48 PM
Does Hines not mention assimilation of Britons into Anglo-Saxon culture, which would in turn eventually lead to intermarriage?

Northumbria and parts of Mercia show some Celtic influence, even parts of early Wessex show similar influence.

The samples at Hinxton and Oakington are also quite telling.

rms2
06-20-2018, 12:57 PM
I can see the reason behind your request Mitchell. I’m here to learn and to discuss in a direct but fair way. I try to ignore it as much as possible. With one exception when this leadsto spin or framing or such kind of things of my words and intentions I ‘m almost forced to react because I doesn’t reflect my words and intentions properly....so if you have a solution for that : welcome....

I see things differently. I think in this he ought to have minded his own business.

I found his "respectful" request actually disrespectful and insulting.

Rather than stopping to complain about me every other post, you ought to simply state your case and support it with some evidence.

If, however, you wish to place me on ignore, that is your prerogative.

Finn
06-20-2018, 01:00 PM
Does Hines not mention assimilation of Britons into Anglo-Saxon culture, which would in turn eventually lead to intermarriage?

Northumbria and parts of Mercia show some Celtic influence, even parts of early Wessex show similar influence.

The samples at Hinxton and Oakington are also quite telling.

Indeed spruithean but he stresses that in the beginning it was on a cultural way not biological.
As said in those was a marriage an arrangement a deal for maintaining the social status. When the Britons had generally a ‘low status’ (Hines) what did they have to offer in terms of equality? And when this was not the case this could temper the will to engage. This would meant social decline....all not impossible !!! But I think for much AS families not preferable....

In this respect I’m glad I life today in the Netherlands spruithean

spruithean
06-20-2018, 01:03 PM
Indeed spruithean but he stresses that in the beginning it was on a cultural way not biological.
As said in those was a marriage an arrangement a deal for maintaining the social status. When the Britons had generally a ‘low status’ (Hines) what did they have to offer in terms of equality? And when this was not the case this could temper the will to engage. This would meant social decline....all not impossible !!! But I think for much AS families not preferable....

In this respect I’m glad I life today in the Netherlands spruithean

But it was a biological process once cultural assimilation had taken place, however I am aware this is not the argument.

Do you know where one can read Hines work in full?

Finn
06-20-2018, 01:12 PM
But it was a biological process once cultural assimilation had taken place, however I am aware this is not the argument.

Do you know where one can read Hines work in full?

Yes In the end, but I guess it took a while to emancipate....

This is the link (https://books.google.nl/books?id=UIURCQmNIpMC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=anglo+saxons+wergeld+welsh&source=bl&ots=MqxYLlsXH0&sig=6QK0ut_APymBIKHxYk0zPPd2p_M&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9jpn1hN7bAhWCZVAKHQWZDlYQ6AEwEnoECAAQA Q#v=onepage&q=anglo%20saxons%20wergeld%20welsh&f=true) but I hope it works it’s google.nl

rms2
06-20-2018, 01:18 PM
In the excerpt from Hines Finn posted, Hines to begin with does not deny there was intermarriage between Anglo-Saxon men and British women (he speaks simply of "intermarriage" rather than of who was marrying whom). In fact, he cites Northumbria as an exception to what he sees as the rule that there was a low level of such intermarriage. Hines cites as the sole reason for his belief the fact that there are few Celtic loan-words in English. That is true, but as I pointed out, in tribal societies foreign brides are such hyper-correct imitators of their husbands' language and culture that they wouldn't be likely to introduce words from their native tongues anyway, so Hines' reasoning in this case is fundamentally flawed. If so, then there is really no reason at all to think that Anglo-Saxon men weren't taking wives from among the native Romano-Britons.

Regarding Hines' Northumbrian exception, Northumbria was one of the largest of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Hines says that personal names suggest it was an exception to what he sees as the rule that intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons was relatively infrequent. That must mean that Hines felt that intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons in Northumbria was a relatively common occurrence.

As I mentioned before, the Anglo-Saxon King Cerdic of Wessex is believed by a number of scholars to have been at least partly British himself. I don't like to cite Wikipedia, but the following is from its article Cerdic of Wessex:



Curiously, the name Cerdic is thought by most scholars to be Brittonic – a form of the name Ceretic – rather than Germanic in origin.[7] The name derives, ultimately, from the British name *Caraticos.[8][9][10][11] This may indicate that Cerdic was a native Briton, and that his dynasty became Anglicised over time.[12][13] This view is supported by the potentially non-Germanic names of some of his descendants including Ceawlin, Cedda and Caedwalla.[11][14]

Finn
06-20-2018, 01:23 PM
I see things differently. I think in this he ought to have minded his own business.

I found his "respectful" request actually disrespectful and insulting.

Rather than stopping to complain about me every other post, you ought to simply state your case and support it with some evidence.

If, however, you wish to place me on ignore, that is your prerogative.

I understand it very well the other members are not waiting for this kind of chit chat.

I intend to ignore you as much as possible. But if you spin my words I’m forced to intervene I won’t let that happen.

But hopefully I don’t need to do it often.... But I guess as you don’t recoginze my point and you see the way you act fully justified I see dark clouds....

ADW_1981
06-20-2018, 01:29 PM
Did I say that?

Does it make sense to you to filter out all the males?

The Anglo-Saxon invasion was probably largely male driven, as Razib Khan pointed out. No doubt many of them took native British women as wives.

Testing only females cannot possibly give an accurate picture of the Anglo-Saxon genome.

I think you're probably right. The massive representation of I1 in Britain, especially the eastern parts is a testament to that.

rms2
06-20-2018, 01:29 PM
I understand it very well the other members are not waiting for this kind of chit chat.

I intend to ignore you as much as possible. But if you spin my words I’m forced to intervene I won’t let that happen.

But hopefully I don’t need to do it often.... But I guess as you don’t recoginze my point and you see the way you act fully justified I see dark clouds....

I reply to substantive posts with argument and evidence.

Lately you feel the need to stop periodically, address me personally, and complain about what you regard as "spinning" or my "underhanded" method, or whatever, which I regard as an admission that you cannot adequately support your point of view.

Ignore me as much as it makes you happy to do so, but don't expect me to stop expressing my opinions.

So, please stop addressing me personally to whine and complain, and stop complaining about me to others here. Just state your case and try to support it with some evidence.

Geez.

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 01:31 PM
Seem seem seem

NO seem seem seem

NO is that clear? Were did I state that. I said it will prevent marriages (and equal words). I did not exclude, again I did not exclude intermingling. Point it were I stated that (and I don't want to see the word SEEM).

I did state that marriages were between social equals. And when they were obviously not seen as equals this prevents marriages. That's it. Please react on that not on supposed intentions the seems.

And I gave marked a an b the exceptions that in the first centuries did cause intermingling!

So either you don't read well or you don't want to read well...my goodness.

And request read those few lines of Hines ^^^ even not native speaker like me cost it a few minutes....than we speak again.

This is why I keep asking you what you are saying, as you seem to me to be changing your argument from post to post.

And yes I say "seem" because I would like you to clarify. If you aren't communicating well, all I can do is ask for clarification and tell you what I think you are saying.

Reading ONE PAGE of Hines is not going to resolve this discussion. I need to see the whole argument, the sources, the discussion of counterarguments, and compare with what I know of counterarguments. You cannot cite one page of a book in a historical discussion where there is so much that is not known and say that you've somehow definitively resolved it. Surely you understand that's ridiculous.

As rms2 already said, the only evidence given in the quoted Hines for low intermarriage -- most places, not all, showing social structure was not an impermeable barrier to it -- is the language and absence of Celtic borrow words, but the language is a broader problem as it's surprising that AS would have won out given the numbers. I would want to read other people on the language issue to see what the counter-arguments are, but at least on first blush it doesn't strike me as particularly definitive, especially in light of DNA evidence to the contrary.

As for the rest:

(1) I don't think it has been established that not seeing people as social equals prevents intermarriage, especially when social status was more complicated -- as the Hines bit even demonstrates -- than AS=high, Briton=low. Also, the DNA evidence from samples shows that in some periods, at least, there seems to have been intermingling between high status AS and Britons.

(2) You started with the claim that HIGH LEVEL AS would not MARRY Britons, which has next to nothing to do with the question of whether Britons and AS interbred more broadly (not all AS were high status, obviously; not all sex occurs in marriage, also). Then when I specifically asked you if your claim were limited to this (which is not a question I care much about) OR whether you were claiming no intermixing for hundreds of years (as that seems to me inconsistent with the DNA evidence), you said you thought there was very little mixing. But every time someone points to evidence FOR mixing you complain that you never said there was NONE. I get that you did not say there was NONE, but even if it was very, very rare -- as I think you've said you are claiming several times now -- then it would not make sense with the DNA evidence IMO. That's the point.

Paul333
06-20-2018, 01:53 PM
The simple answer to the question, 'How much of my English Ancestry is Celtic British, and the Answer is, today no body knows, or can tell you. What is likely is that no Englishman today, could say with certainty the majority of his Ancestry is English, or Celtic British, it is not possible to know yet.

If you are refering to the English of the Anglo Saxon settlement periods, ie AD400-1066, it is still an ongoing mixing process today, within Britiain, that first began with the first arrival of Possibly Hengest and Horsa,into the Celtic Lands of Britain, as believed. English was only accepted as a national Identity by King Athelstan 927-939. who was the first to unite the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons as England,and thereby the English. No doubt there was a great deal of assimilation during those 500+years, and it has never stopped, the borders have mostly been open since then.

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:01 PM
This is why I keep asking you what you are saying, as you seem to me to be changing your argument from post to post.

And yes I say "seem" because I would like you to clarify. If you aren't communicating well, all I can do is ask for clarification and tell you what I think you are saying.

Reading ONE PAGE of Hines is not going to resolve this discussion. I need to see the whole argument, the sources, the discussion of counterarguments, and compare with what I know of counterarguments. You cannot cite one page of a book in a historical discussion where there is so much that is not known and say that you've somehow definitively resolved it. Surely you understand that's ridiculous.

As rms2 already said, the only evidence given in the quoted Hines for low intermarriage -- most places, not all, showing social structure was not an impermeable barrier to it -- is the language and absence of Celtic borrow words, but the language is a broader problem as it's surprising that AS would have won out given the numbers. I would want to read other people on the language issue to see what the counter-arguments are, but at least on first blush it doesn't strike me as particularly definitive, especially in light of DNA evidence to the contrary.

As for the rest:

(1) I don't think it has been established that not seeing people as social equals prevents intermarriage, especially when social status was more complicated -- as the Hines bit even demonstrates -- than AS=high, Briton=low. Also, the DNA evidence from samples shows that in some periods, at least, there seems to have been intermingling between high status AS and Britons.

(2) You started with the claim that HIGH LEVEL AS would not MARRY Britons, which has next to nothing to do with the question of whether Britons and AS interbred more broadly (not all AS were high status, obviously; not all sex occurs in marriage, also). Then when I specifically asked you if your claim were limited to this (which is not a question I care much about) OR whether you were claiming no intermixing for hundreds of years (as that seems to me inconsistent with the DNA evidence), you said you thought there was very little mixing. But every time someone points to evidence FOR mixing you complain that you never said there was NONE. I get that you did not say there was NONE, but even if it was very, very rare -- as I think you've said you are claiming several times now -- then it would not make sense with the DNA evidence IMO. That's the point.

Than let me put it directly. I have send you a paper of the role of woman in German society. Wrap up: marriage was to maintain the sociall status and was because of peacekeeping betwee clans and family.

John Hines made clear that Britons had at first a low status (besides initial slaughter and slavery).

Why would it on average been attractive for an AS family or clan to marry with a Briton? Because they had less to offer in terms of social status. I assume this tempers the will of much AS to marry a Briton in the very early Middle Ages.

What is wrong with this reasoning! Is the simple question, but I don’t get an answer (talking about communication).

When you make clear that Britons had no lower status and had much to offer in terms of social status I’m the first one to admit I was TOTALLY wrong!!!

rms2
06-20-2018, 02:03 PM
The simple answer to the question, 'How much of my English Ancestry is Celtic British, and the Answer is, today no body knows, or can tell you. What is likely is that no Englishman today, could say with certainty the majority of his Ancestry is English, or Celtic British, it is not possible to know yet.

That is a fair statement.

Hopefully studies like the one by Reich and his team mentioned in this article (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587) will help.

I'm looking forward to that one. It should be really interesting. The more ancient dna, the better.

rms2
06-20-2018, 02:05 PM
To no one in particular,

I can tell you what a good looking native woman of low social status has to offer a young man on his own in a foreign land without a woman of his own.

But you can probably figure that one out for yourself.

ADW_1981
06-20-2018, 02:08 PM
I think the typical Anglo-Saxon look definitely lives on in England or those of English descent. Then again it may be a hybrid look between the Celtic Britons and the Anglo-Saxons.
In my view...
Some footballers come to mind : Becks, Harry Kane
Canadian actors: Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling...etc

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:10 PM
To no one in particular,

I can tell you what a good looking native woman of low social status has to offer a young man on his own in a foreign land without a woman of his own.

But you can probably figure that one out for yourself.

Yes grab them by....as this is your presidential modus and weorth these days...

But totally wrong you don’t grasp the point this is not US 2018 but England 500....total different setting.

They did grab with slave woman, but marriage was bound in much societal rules.....

rms2
06-20-2018, 02:15 PM
Yes grab them by....as this is your presidential modus and weorth these days...

I've been to Amsterdam. A Dutchman striking a morally superior tone is kind of laughable.



But totally wrong you don’t grasp the point this is not US 2018 but England 500....total different setting.

They did grab with slave woman, but marriage was bound in much societal rules.....

You keep repeating that, but you cannot prove it. One of the sources you claim supports you even indicates intermarriage was common in the very large Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and the genetic evidence shows us a Briton woman at the highest level of Anglo-Saxon society.

Then there is the scholarly opinion that Cerdic, an early king of Wessex, was himself of British origin.

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:24 PM
I've been to Amsterdam. A Dutchman striking a morally superior tone is kind of laughable.



You keep repeating that, but you cannot prove it. One of the sources you claim supports you even indicates intermarriage was common in the very large Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and the genetic evidence shows us a Briton woman at the highest level of Anglo-Saxon society.

Then there is the scholarly opinion that Cerdic, an early king of Wessex, was himself of British origin.

Where have you been in Amsterdam!?? ;) Yeah the average Amsterdammer is sick and tired of those English and US lads that think it’s Sodom and Gomara...and misbehave themselves in the inner city.

Look at Hines for slavery and on Iceland there was even a revolt of Irish slaves.These poor man and woman had a bad life....with much of (ab) use...there is literature enough that underlines this.

ADW_1981
06-20-2018, 02:25 PM
I recall a common blonde hair mutation was found in one of the Yamnayan L23+ guys (as well as a I2-M223 if I recall), and more recently a Hungarian Bell beaker (L23+) male had a common red hair mutation. If I'm not mistaken on of the U152+ 'Romano-British' gladiators also had blonde hair. Lighter hair may have increased from Germanic migrations, but there is no indication that it was absent in the Celtic speaking ones of the time. Brown/Black hair is more common than blonde or red hair everywhere in Europe, with the possible (and that's a big maybe) exception in NE Europe.

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:32 PM
Slavery in Ireland;
https://journal.fi/scf/article/download/7439/5788

rms2
06-20-2018, 02:37 PM
Where have you been in Amsterdam!?? ;) Yeah the average Amsterdammer is sick and tired of those English and US lads that think it’s Sodom and Gomara...and misbehave themselves in the inner city.

Well, I was there with my wife, so I didn't do the Sodom and Gomorrah routine, but I got a good glimpse of Amsterdam.



Look at Hines for slavery and on Iceland there was even a revolt of Irish slaves.These poor man and woman had a bad life....with much of (ab) use...there is literature enough that underlines this.

You don't seem to be looking at the actual evidence for Anglo-Saxon England. First, the genetic evidence, and, next, the evidence you yourself cited from Hines. He said Northumbria was the exception to what he regarded as the rule of infrequent intermarriage. If it was the exception, that means intermarriage was common there.

And, as I pointed out, more than once, Hines' sole reason for thinking intermarriage was infrequent outside Northumbria was because of the scarcity of Celtic loan-words in English. That's not a good reason, since in tribal societies foreign brides aren't likely to use their native tongues anyway. They keep their heads down and become as much like their husbands' people as they can.

BTW, what Hines says about the English language is what I have always heard about it, as well. Doesn't that contradict what you claim Schrijver says about English, i.e., that it was strongly influenced by Celtic?

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:43 PM
Well, I was there with my wife, so I didn't do the Sodom and Gomorrah routine, but I got a good glimpse of Amsterdam.



You don't seem to be looking at the actual evidence for Anglo-Saxon England. First, the genetic evidence, and, next, the evidence you yourself cited from Hines. He said Northumbria was the exception to what he regarded as the rule of infrequent intermarriage. If it was the exception, that means intermarriage was common there.

And, as I pointed out, more than once, Hines' sole reason for thinking intermarriage was infrequent outside Northumbria was because of the scarcity of Celtic loan-words in English. That's not a good reason, since in tribal societies foreign brides aren't likely to use their native tongues anyway. They keep their heads down and become as much like their husbands' people as they can.

BTW, what Hines says about the English language is what I have always heard about it, as well. Doesn't that contradict what you claim Schrijver says about English, i.e., that it was strongly influenced by Celtic?

Of course and guided to the red light district, fully regulated nowadays hahah even suitable for brave husbands hahahhah

No I ignore nothing nuts reasoning. Bogus in your terminology.

Did Northumbria save you by the bell? Rms2 last straw....

rms2
06-20-2018, 02:50 PM
Well, Hines was the one who essentially said intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons in Northumbria was relatively common.

And I pointed out why his sole reason for thinking it was uncommon elsewhere was misplaced.

Then there's the other evidence, cited again and again: the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was genetically a Briton; the fact that Anglo-Saxon autosomal dna in England is less frequent than it should be, given the frequency of putatively Anglo-Saxon y-dna haplogroups and the fact that English is Germanic and descended from Old English; and the scholarly opinion that King Cerdic of Wessex was himself a Briton.

Seems to me the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the mixing bowl.

Finn
06-20-2018, 02:58 PM
Well, Hines was the one who essentially said intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons in Northumbria was relatively common.

And I pointed out why his sole reason for thinking it was uncommon elsewhere was misplaced.

Then there's the other evidence, cited again and again: the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was genetically a Briton; the fact that Anglo-Saxon autosomal dna in England is less frequent than it should be, given the frequency of putatively Anglo-Saxon y-dna haplogroups and the fact that English is Germanic and descended from Old English; and the scholarly opinion that King Cerdic of Wessex was himself a Briton.

Seems to me the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the mixing bowl.

HInes used the word possible but ok. And the rest of the Hines is contrair. But you only high light what is suiting you.

As I said truces between AS and Brythonic nobility leads to what you describe.

Just one example.....I guess exception to the rule.

Just one example like the one example of R1b U106 of the Celts in Oostwoud Frisia 1800 BC. Oh oh I mentioned R1b U106 and Celts schiessen sie los herr Rms2 hahahhah

rms2
06-20-2018, 03:10 PM
HInes used the word possible but ok. And the rest is of the Hines is contrair. But you only high light what is suiting you.

Well, no, it isn't contrary, because Hines supposes intermarriage outside Northumbria was infrequent based on one thing: the lack of Celtic loan-words in English. But that reason is a weak reed, because, as I pointed out, in tribal societies foreign brides don't introduce words from their native tongues. They keep their heads down and try to blend in.

So, if Hines' one reason is unjustified, then there is no reason that intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons was not common. Besides, even Hines does not say intermarriage did not occur. He merely guesses it was relatively infrequent outside Northumbria.



As I said truces between AS and N Brythonic nobility leads to what you describe.

Just one example.....I guess exception to the rule.

Well, as Radboud pointed out, only one of those eight females appeared to be wholly Germanic, and one out of the eight appeared to be entirely a Briton.



Just one example like the one example of R1b U106 of the Celts in Oostwoud Frisia 1800 BC. Oh oh I mentioned R1b U106 and Celts schiessen sie los herr Rms2 hahahhah

If that one from Oostwoud belonged to Elp, which seems likely, then he was hardly a Celt. Elp was a culture of the North Sea littoral that extended up into Denmark. If anything, it may have had a hand in the genesis of Proto-Germanic.

etrusco
06-20-2018, 03:17 PM
This is more interesting and exciting than watching the world cup.....and I really mean it!

Finn
06-20-2018, 03:21 PM
Well, no, it isn't contrary, because Hines supposes intermarriage outside Northumbria was infrequent based on one thing: the lack of Celtic loan-words in English. But that reason is a weak reed, because, as I pointed out, in tribal societies foreign brides don't introduce words from their native tongues. They keep their heads down and try to blend in.

No Hines says that there was no intermingling at first see his conclusion about biological vs. cultural....


[QUOTE]So, if Hines' one reason is unjustified, then there is no reason that intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons was not common.

There is a clear reason marriage is between equals, Britons were not equal to AS. So what you state is totally wrong. Lack of historic knowledge.



Besides, even Hines does not say intermarriage did not occur. He merely guesses it was relatively infrequent outside Northumbria.

He said that Northumbria is possible the exception. So the rest doesn’t follow this. Read better Rms2.


Well, as Radboud pointed out, only one of those eight females appeared to be wholly Germanic, and one out of the eight appeared to be entirely a Briton.


No that’s not true I have done k36 and the results we’re indeed different but not one of the eight was only Germanic and the Hinxtons were of different periods... I come back on this.



If that one from Oostwoud belonged to Elp, which seems likely, then he was hardly a Celt. Elp was a culture of the North Sea littoral that extended up into Denmark. If anything, it may have had a hand in the genesis of Proto-Germanic


Hahah never thought that R1b u106 was pure Celtic (thats's your assumption about me). Some hints you don't grasp...

JMcB
06-20-2018, 03:21 PM
Well, Hines was the one who essentially said intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons in Northumbria was relatively common.

And I pointed out why his sole reason for thinking it was uncommon elsewhere was misplaced.

Then there's the other evidence, cited again and again: the upper class Anglo-Saxon woman who was genetically a Briton; the fact that Anglo-Saxon autosomal dna in England is less frequent than it should be, given the frequency of putatively Anglo-Saxon y-dna haplogroups and the fact that English is Germanic and descended from Old English; and the scholarly opinion that King Cerdic of Wessex was himself a Briton.

Seems to me the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the mixing bowl.

It probably should be pointed out the even Hines uses the qualifying term:at least initially, when making his case. So according to him, the rule does not apply in Northumbria and it probably only applies initially, in the other areas.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/0si5oy9.png

rms2
06-20-2018, 03:31 PM
It probably should be pointed out the even Hines uses the qualifying term:at least initially, when making his case.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/0si5oy9.png

Right, and Finn himself has admitted that eventually the Britons and Anglo-Saxons melded together.

The first A-S invaders were all unaccompanied males, so I doubt they waited very long before availing themselves of the local females.

Finn
06-20-2018, 03:50 PM
not admit....I said it right from the beginning. insinuating statement.

No there was chain migration, even Khan stated that in a pod cast.

Finn
06-20-2018, 04:09 PM
Right, and Finn himself has admitted that eventually the Britons and Anglo-Saxons melded together.

The first A-S invaders were all unaccompanied males, so I doubt they waited very long before availing themselves of the local females.

Nice podcast about Anglo-Saxon migration with Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, Patrick Wyman....about chain migration!

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

Finn
06-20-2018, 04:44 PM
Hinxtons according to Davidski, Eurogenes

Iron age
Hinxton 1, Briton about 0 AD


Hinxton1 is most similar to present-day Orcadians, Irish, western Scots, Icelanders and western Norwegians, more or less in that order. However, it's fairly distinct from the modern inhabitants of England, or at least those in my datasets, who mostly come from Kent and Cornwall.


Hinxton 4. Briton about 0 AD
t
his is one of the two Iron Age sequences from the collection, and probably belongs to a Briton of Celtic stock. Note, for instance, its high affinity to the present-day Irish, relatively low North Sea score in the Eurogenes K15, and pronounced western shift on the second Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot below.



Early middle ages

Hinxton 2 Anglo-Saxon about 700 AD

Hinxton2 shares most genetic drift with present-day Danes and Norwegians.


Hinxton 3 Anglo Saxon about 700 AD

Hinxton3 could easily pass for a present-day Briton from the eastern coast of England or Scotland, albeit with a stronger than usual pull towards Scandinavia. Indeed, the f3-statistics show that it shares most genetic drift with the British and Icelanders from Eurogenes and Human Origins, respectively.

Hinxton 5 Anglo-Saxon about 700 AD

Despite its relatively low North Sea score in the Eurogenes K15, and pronounced western shift on the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots, this genome appears mostly Germanic. In my opinion, the shared drift stats and also oracle results are quite convincing in this regard. If this were a modern sample it could probably pass for 3/4 north Dutch and 1/4 Irish

Hinxton 2 is indeed the most clear A_S, but Hinxton 3 and 5 could easily pass for North Dutch! H3 is as Britonic as my mother from Drenthe/North Dutch ;) So isn't all quite clear.....I don't rule out some Britonic influence but the evidence is not overwhelming!


H3
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Orcadian @ 9.127441
2 West_Norwegian @ 11.658904
3 West_Scottish @ 11.995344
4 North_Dutch @ 12.863199
5 Irish @ 13.158059
6 Danish @ 13.290552
7 Icelandic @ 13.357376
8 Southeast_English @ 13.513114
9 Norwegian @ 13.890123
10 Southwest_English @ 14.249584
11 Swedish @ 15.848876
12 North_German @ 16.658036
13 West_German @ 17.735425
14 South_Dutch @ 19.273254
15 North_Swedish @ 19.454336
16 French @ 22.542522
17 East_German @ 26.272764
18 Southwest_Finnish @ 27.431009
19 Finnish @ 30.223162
20 Spanish_Galicia @ 30.806345
215 iterations.

H5
Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_Dutch @ 6.663682
2 Irish @ 6.700557
3 Icelandic @ 7.295135
4 Danish @ 7.419753
5 West_Scottish @ 7.48539
6 Southeast_English @ 7.624928
7 North_German @ 7.709945
8 Southwest_English @ 8.194094
9 Norwegian @ 9.24185
10 Swedish @ 9.273832

My mother:
1 North_Dutch @ 4.903157
2 Southwest_English @ 5.610389
3 Danish @ 5.651878
4 Southeast_English @ 6.074092
5 Irish @ 6.319037
6 West_Scottish @ 6.375203
7 Norwegian @ 6.405447
8 Orcadian @ 7.137194
9 North_German @ 7.495936
10 West_Norwegian @ 7.791859
11 Swedish @ 7.885054
12 South_Dutch @ 9.488432
13 West_German @ 9.921816
14 North_Swedish @ 10.907240
15 East_German @ 13.881845
16 French @ 14.127350
17 Southwest_Finnish @ 16.368237
18 Hungarian @ 19.632891
19 Finnish @ 19.917551
20 Austrian @ 19.939240
11 Orcadian @ 9.573313
12 West_Norwegian @ 10.427046
13 South_Dutch @ 10.909271
14 West_German @ 12.362433
15 North_Swedish @ 12.462327
16 East_German @ 14.3693
17 French @ 15.573393
18 Southwest_Finnish @ 16.175116
19 Loschbour @ 18.466751
20 La_Brana-1 @ 19.145821
215 iterations.

Finn
06-20-2018, 04:45 PM
doublure

MitchellSince1893
06-20-2018, 04:45 PM
Request denied.

Finn doesn't bother me that much.

That is unfortunate. I was hoping you would. I'm sure I'm not alone in growing weary of constant back and forth between you two over the last few months. I will update my list then.

Finn
06-20-2018, 05:04 PM
@Mitchell I surely admit I have my part in it, it's a kind of circle.
What triggers me is that when people spin my words or false assume things....and kinds of disrespectful behavior....and when I make remarks about this it's simply ignored. Or self justified.
Then I get kind of stubborn. And keep on reacting (something with red flag on a bull). Because these things are clearly not moderated.
But as said I see you point about the endless chit chat fitty.

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 07:20 PM
Than let me put it directly. I have send you a paper of the role of woman in German society. Wrap up: marriage was to maintain the sociall status and was because of peacekeeping betwee clans and family.

No, you sent me one page from Hines and a discussion of Germanic literature of a later period, and as I keep saying you have to be specific about date and place because things vary over time.

Beyond that, if we are talking about non high-level people, it's clear that there is a range of status for both AS and Britons and not all AS are going to be way above all Britons. The Hines page you sent even said that.

In addition, if we are talking about specific situations where (1) women are scarce; (2) the young man may not have a family structure in place, he may be off trying to increase his social status or make some money, after all; or (3) it's beneficial to make alliances with the Britons, I can certainly see why it would not matter if in general Britons were considered of low or high status. This is why it makes some sense to me that at least some DNA evidence indicates that there may have been more intermarriage in the early part of the AS period than in the middle part (when there may have been legal strictures in place making it harder too).

Also, we know from plenty of other situations that a belief in unequal status does not prevent intermarriage and certainly NOT interbreeding.

You yourself keep saying that sure they might have had sex with slave girls. I don't think it was likely to be so limited, but surely you see that that too would have led to babies.


John Hines made clear that Britons had at first a low status (besides initial slaughter and slavery).

I don't think anyone is arguing against this as a broad general claim (and Hines himself admits that it did not prevent intermarriage in Northumbria).

It's not a sufficient argument to say they could not have interbred -- which, as you may recall, was my first point to you way, way back (I think it was only yesterday, but it seems longer).


Why would it on average been attractive for an AS family or clan to marry with a Briton? Because they had less to offer in terms of social status. I assume this tempers the will of much AS to marry a Briton in the very early Middle Ages.

People generally like to have sex and to marry, and not everyone had lots of options. And sometimes attraction matters, even back in the day. That's not a new thing.


What is wrong with this reasoning! Is the simple question, but I don’t get an answer (talking about communication).

Like I said originally, if the evidence supported NO interbreeding and we were trying to figure out why (which is what Hines seems to think based on language), then the social status thing might explain why not (especially if combined with sufficient marriagable women).

But in the absence of such evidence or in the fact of evidence to the contrary, or with contradictory evidence, I don't even understand why you would think that we should assume that there couldn't have been interbreeding because Britons were of a lower social status. That's not how humans are normally, over a huge range of societies. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's obviously not adequate evidence.

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 07:21 PM
Nice podcast about Anglo-Saxon migration with Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, Patrick Wyman....about chain migration!

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

This is way off-topic, but I'm puzzled by your obsession with the term "chain migration." What's your point?

Saetro
06-20-2018, 07:30 PM
Is the Iberian you are seeing in commercial tests like Ancestry or on K36?

Asking because the Iberian traces on commercial tests typically depend on what else your ancestry gets identified as, and may not mean you have more than others -- as I recently discussed on another thread, my sister gets a lot more than me on Ancestry, but we seem to have similar amounts on Gedmatch tests. I think the difference on Ancestry is that more of her English gets pegged as Scandinavian, which isn't consistent with having this Iberian mix, so it gets accounted for separately.

My dad gets pretty high Iberian on K36 (15.52), but he's about a quarter Welsh, with most of the rest English, so that doesn't help identify where it's from. (He also has a little French, although it's pretty far back, which could be relevant.) Someone posted the K36 spreadsheet recently, but I can never find it, so am not able to look at what their numbers are.

The people who have mentioned their sources (most of them) say their Iberian was noted at AncestryDNA or FTDNA.
Some years ago, FTDNA included Sicily (and maybe southern Italy) in this as "Southern European" and so most people just thought there was a small part of something unexplainable or very far back.
Then that sector changed to "Iberian" and people thought about it differently.

And I am not confusing it with those who are followers of Cunliffe and a movement up the Atlantic coast.
The people I know who like those ideas, strangely enough, mainly have YDNA that is associated with Scandinavian or Germanic entry of their all-male line to Britain.
No, my observation is just from people who talk to me about their autosomal results from AncestryDNA and FTDNA.
Maybe it is just a small cluster and coincidental among the whole.

glentane
06-20-2018, 07:49 PM
Are we really sure what people of that time meant when they labelled certain groups dark? It might not always be to do with colouring. The Irish labelled the Vikings dark and light e.g. dubhgall and fionngall. I can't image the Viking groups had different colouring?

Jessie, my hunch is that the Black Foreigner/White Foreigner distinction is by analogy with board games of the time, where the counters/pieces/pegs were stained either red or black for one side and the other left natural bone/ivory colour.
The very late Norse Lewis chessmen were probably red-dyed vs. ivory white, Whitby jet ( therefore black) gaming pieces turned up in viking York. I imagine Insular tafl-type games were similarly distinguished. Red seems to have been popular, and may explain the late mediaeval bye-names of some prominent kingmakers and killers like "the Red Comyn" and "the Black Douglas", to avoid confusion with their presumably more even-tempered and Christian-acting ("White") brothers, and nothing to do with their hair colour.
You could even do "war department map-room"-style tabletop demonstrations of the movements of the various hostiles around one's threatened kingdom, with enough spare sets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywietPiN4w

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 07:50 PM
The people who have mentioned their sources (most of them) say their Iberian was noted at AncestryDNA or FTDNA.
Some years ago, FTDNA included Sicily (and maybe southern Italy) in this as "Southern European" and so most people just thought there was a small part of something unexplainable or very far back.
Then that sector changed to "Iberian" and people thought about it differently.

And I am not confusing it with those who are followers of Cunliffe and a movement up the Atlantic coast.
The people I know who like those ideas, strangely enough, mainly have YDNA that is associated with Scandinavian or Germanic entry of their all-male line to Britain.
No, my observation is just from people who talk to me about their autosomal results from AncestryDNA and FTDNA.
Maybe it is just a small cluster and coincidental among the whole.

My guess is that the Iberian at Ancestry might change with the update. I just noticed that the Iberian number at Ancestry doesn't reflect a set amount of ancestry, but also how much you have in excess of what would be expected with your other results, which is going to depend on the other results.

I wasn't assuming you were following Cunliffe's Atlantic migration theory or anything, just curious, partly because my dad and sister and I tend to get the Iberian too.

Dewsloth
06-20-2018, 08:14 PM
The people who have mentioned their sources (most of them) say their Iberian was noted at AncestryDNA or FTDNA.
Some years ago, FTDNA included Sicily (and maybe southern Italy) in this as "Southern European" and so most people just thought there was a small part of something unexplainable or very far back.
Then that sector changed to "Iberian" and people thought about it differently.

And I am not confusing it with those who are followers of Cunliffe and a movement up the Atlantic coast.
The people I know who like those ideas, strangely enough, mainly have YDNA that is associated with Scandinavian or Germanic entry of their all-male line to Britain.
No, my observation is just from people who talk to me about their autosomal results from AncestryDNA and FTDNA.
Maybe it is just a small cluster and coincidental among the whole.


My guess is that the Iberian at Ancestry might change with the update. I just noticed that the Iberian number at Ancestry doesn't reflect a set amount of ancestry, but also how much you have in excess of what would be expected with your other results, which is going to depend on the other results.

I wasn't assuming you were following Cunliffe's Atlantic migration theory or anything, just curious, partly because my dad and sister and I tend to get the Iberian too.

My dad gets zero Iberian at FTDNA (and we have zero on paper back 400 years), but Ancestry gives him 6%.

Ancestry does show these remarks in their breakdown of these other components:

Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Europe West region
From a collection of 416 people
Region% of natives that have this region
Iberian Peninsula 23%

Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Ireland/Scotland/Wales region
From a collection of 154 people
Region% of natives that have this region
Iberian Peninsula 8%

Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Great Britain region
From a collection of 195 people
Region% of natives that have this region
Iberian Peninsula 24%

Other regions commonly seen in people native to the Europe South region
From a collection of 205 people
Region% of natives that have this region
Iberian Peninsula 25%

Other regions commonly seen in people native to the European Jewish region
From a collection of 195 people
Region% of natives that have this region
Iberian Peninsula 4%

Finn
06-20-2018, 08:32 PM
No, you sent me one page from Hines and a discussion of Germanic literature of a later period, and as I keep saying you have to be specific about date and place because things vary over time.

Beyond that, if we are talking about non high-level people, it's clear that there is a range of status for both AS and Britons and not all AS are going to be way above all Britons. The Hines page you sent even said that.

[QUOTE]In addition, if we are talking about specific situations where (1) women are scarce; (2) the young man may not have a family structure in place, he may be off trying to increase his social status or make some money, after all; or (3) it's beneficial to make alliances with the Britons, I can certainly see why it would not matter if in general Britons were considered of low or high status. This is why it makes some sense to me that at least some DNA evidence indicates that there may have been more intermarriage in the early part of the AS period than in the middle part (when there may have been legal strictures in place making it harder too).


That's why chain migration is relevant, because the man came in first, but than the woman came also in (not an exception in migration). The A-S had initially close knit with their homeland and invaded area's around the North Sea. I guess there were lots of marriages between Kent and Friesland for example (even in dress and style similarities). So initially the whole North Sea area was their "marriage market". This has such kind of effect that you can hardly seperate my auDNA (and that from my father) from the early Anglo-Saxons. The migration period had tremendous impact on the North Sea area! (excuse me of being to fascinated....because this aspect fascinates me tremendous).


Also, we know from plenty of other situations that a belief in unequal status does not prevent intermarriage and certainly NOT interbreeding.

You yourself keep saying that sure they might have had sex with slave girls. I don't think it was likely to be so limited, but surely you see that that too would have led to babies.


Interbreeding agree! But I disagree on intermarriage because this had a specific role in their society.... I guess I make another judgment of the impact of it. May be you can convince me if you exemplify "plenty of other situations". Social status, keeping up appearance, against the other clans of earls and karls was outmost important, they literally were able to commit a murder for it....honor revenge the whole package.

As said in my region it was until the midst of the twentieth century (!) not done that a cotter married with a yeoman farmer....as an example of the impact these kind of the things have. And the blueprint of it was laid in the migration period.


I don't think anyone is arguing against this as a broad general claim (and Hines himself admits that it did not prevent intermarriage in Northumbria).

It's not a sufficient argument to say they could not have interbred -- which, as you may recall, was my first point to you way, way back (I think it was only yesterday, but it seems longer).


Agree!


People generally like to have sex and to marry, and not everyone had lots of options. And sometimes attraction matters, even back in the day. That's not a new thing.


ok....on the other hand attraction or romantic love was not a major thing in marriage at that time....(see the royals until the end of the twentieth century had such quarrels). It were arrangements.
The romantic marriage is a very modern western concept. I guess woman in the early middle ages had to accept their faith and with a little luck they had a fine man....


Like I said originally, if the evidence supported NO interbreeding and we were trying to figure out why (which is what Hines seems to think based on language), then the social status thing might explain why not (especially if combined with sufficient marriagable women).

I guess he meant that that at first the Britonic people acquired the higher status german language....



But in the absence of such evidence or in the fact of evidence to the contrary, or with contradictory evidence, I don't even understand why you would think that we should assume that there couldn't have been interbreeding because Britons were of a lower social status. That's not how humans are normally, over a huge range of societies. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's obviously not adequate evidence

I think interbreeding en marriage are indeed seperate things.

(PS And partly the communication isn't always easy I'm not using google translate very much, I think in Dutch and even partly in lower Saxon and so I'm continues searching for words....I try to be clear. But my communication is different from yours. I have been to international conferences and more often it's the case that englishman but more often people of the US think that the way they talk and communicate is obvious and kind of standard...it isn't for the most part of the world....hahahah US as the new A-S, to make the circle round....;)

rms2
06-20-2018, 09:08 PM
That is unfortunate. I was hoping you would. I'm sure I'm not alone in growing weary of constant back and forth between you two over the last few months. I will update my list then.

Suit yourself. If you don't enjoy our "constant back and forth", don't read the posts, or put me on ignore, if that's your cup of tea. You really ought to mind your own business.

I refuse to censor myself and put others on ignore at your whim, and, as long as I'm not violating any rules, c'est la vie.

JMcB
06-20-2018, 09:08 PM
Nice podcast about Anglo-Saxon migration with Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, Patrick Wyman....about chain migration!

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

Thanks Finn, that was very interesting!

rms2
06-20-2018, 09:25 PM
@Mitchell I surely admit I have my part in it, it's a kind of circle.
What triggers me is that when people spin my words or false assume things....and kinds of disrespectful behavior....and when I make remarks about this it's simply ignored. Or self justified.
Then I get kind of stubborn. And keep on reacting (something with red flag on a bull). Because these things are clearly not moderated.
But as said I see you point about the endless chit chat fitty.

I keep wondering where you come up with this "spin my words or false assume things" stuff. No one has done anything of the kind.

The only answer I can come up with is that you just really do not like it when someone disagrees with you.

When you get beaten in debate, you resort to mischaracterizing how that occurred.

I think I will now let you have this thread, Finn, which has gone way beyond its original intent.

JonikW
06-20-2018, 10:55 PM
Won't be that long until the Reich paper guys. Then we'll have a lot to discuss, that's for sure. I look forward to seeing what the two of you make of it.:beerchug:

msmarjoribanks
06-20-2018, 11:44 PM
Won't be that long until the Reich paper guys. Then we'll have a lot to discuss, that's for sure. I look forward to seeing what the two of you make of it.:beerchug:

Should be fun reading.

JMcB
06-21-2018, 12:23 AM
Are we really sure what people of that time meant when they labelled certain groups dark? It might not always be to do with colouring. The Irish labelled the Vikings dark and light e.g. dubhgall and fionngall. I can't image the Viking groups had different colouring? Anyway I doubt Celts were particularly dark as they are just Bell Beaker descendents so I'm not sure if these texts can be taken too literally. Anglo-Saxons and Vikings had some dark hair as well. All these groups did mix with the natives anyway.

Hello Jessie,

At this point, it doesn’t really look like we know what the labels meant because the matter hasn’t even been settled among the scholars.

A bit off topic but for those interested:

Viking identities in Ireland: it’s not all black and white.
CLARE DOWNHAM

There has been recent debate about the meaning of the labels Finn (‘white/fair’) and Dub (‘black/dark’) assigned to different viking groups in ninth- and tenth- century Ireland. In the mid-1970s Alfred Smyth argued that these terms could be appropriately translated as ‘old’ and ‘new’, in contrast to previous scholarship where the contrasting colours of viking groups had been linked with their physical appearance (for example, hair, weaponry or dress). Smyth favoured the received view that Dub described Danes and that Finn described Norwegians. Nevertheless, his exploration of the origin of these terms was significant for analyses which followed. David Dumville has argued in an earlier volume in this series that these labels did not identify separate Danish and Norwegian groups active in Ireland, but linked them to ‘new’ and ‘old’ groups that ruled Dublin in the ninth century. Colmán Etchingham has recently put forward a counter-argument favouring the translation of Dubgaill as Danes and Finngaill as Norwegians. This paper is written to reconsider the case that the label ‘dark foreigners’ can be equated with the followers and descendants of Ólafr and Ívarr who ruled at Dublin from the mid-ninth century ....

http://www.academia.edu/1502651/Viking_identities_in_Ireland_its_not_all_black_and _white

JerryS.
06-21-2018, 12:50 AM
going back to the OP's question, in my view it would seem that the amount of Celtic in you (as an Englishman) varies and depends upon which part of England your family originated. More Celtic near Wales and Scotland or on the west coast, less so on the east coast and midland.

Finn
06-21-2018, 07:22 AM
Are we really sure what people of that time meant when they labelled certain groups dark? It might not always be to do with colouring. The Irish labelled the Vikings dark and light e.g. dubhgall and fionngall. I can't image the Viking groups had different colouring? Anyway I doubt Celts were particularly dark as they are just Bell Beaker descendents so I'm not sure if these texts can be taken too literally. Anglo-Saxons and Vikings had some dark hair as well. All these groups did mix with the natives anyway.


I guess it has much to do with stereotyping. How did they saw themselves as a group different from others and in the group between classes. And I would not wonder if this stereotyping has lead to natural selection. So preferred phenotypes. This probably has had it's effect.

And of course these stereotyping has a disgusting aspect....My mother is pretty darkish and I remember that in my hometown (especially when some people had to much beer....) she heard "du swaarde". Simple hillbilly thoughts....but yeah....

Radboud
06-21-2018, 10:34 AM
No that’s not true I have done k36 and the results we’re indeed different but not one of the eight was only Germanic and the Hinxtons were of different periods... I come back on this.


I was only speaking about Hinxton 2/3/5 and NO3423 from Oakington. It has been widely accepted for years that only Hinxton2 appears to be a fresh migrant from the Jutland Peninsula, based on several tests. The other samples do have an obvious affinity to the British Isles. Only the oracle results of a Northern Dutch of the Eurogenes K15 test is not going change that view.



It seems like you already quoted some of Davidski's comments that are in favor of a mixed background of Hinxon 3 and 5. Here is more info:


Lumping 2, 3 and 5 together as Anglo-Saxons might indeed produce an overall effect that is just outside the range of modern UK variation (ie. more continental Germanic). But if we treat 2 as an outlier, then 3 and 5 really just look English, and in fact much more so than 4, or even 1 and 4 together.


http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton3-ers389797.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton5-ers389799.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html

NO3423 shows a strong pull to the British & Isles cluster on Northern_Europe PCA.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Vh_LIVuyRMFpkc5vO0fz-Qm7u7kQPb0ngHTomASV5zch6fAHTew6C3GQZdyBoQSOxMg-AMZ95yl5gd4eA8PT=w1920-h947-rw

Finn
06-21-2018, 11:28 AM
I was only speaking about Hinxton 2/3/5 and NO3423 from Oakington. It has been widely accepted for years that only Hinxton2 appears to be a fresh migrant from the Jutland Peninsula, based on several tests. The other samples do have an obvious affinity to the British Isles. Only the oracle results of a Northern Dutch of the Eurogenes K15 test is not going change that view.



It seems like you already quoted some of Davidski's comments that are in favor of a mixed background of Hinxon 3 and 5. Here is more info:




http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton3-ers389797.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton5-ers389799.html
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html

NO3423 shows a strong pull to the British & Isles cluster on Northern_Europe PCA.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Vh_LIVuyRMFpkc5vO0fz-Qm7u7kQPb0ngHTomASV5zch6fAHTew6C3GQZdyBoQSOxMg-AMZ95yl5gd4eA8PT=w1920-h947-rw

Clear! The only contra argument is that H3 an H5 come not only to one but to several North Dutch/ Frisian results.....So supposed that these have no Britonic component.....how can you be sure that H3 and H5 are mixtures? May be H2 was a Jute and H3 and H5 Saxons....can this be ruled out????

And has someone more background of this samples? Were they buried in A-S style or?

Finn
06-21-2018, 12:01 PM
Frisian 1
T849741
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 4.365399
2 West_Scottish @ 4.545426
3 Orcadian @ 5.110952
4 North_Dutch @ 5.190604
5 Southeast_English @ 6.412594
6 Danish @ 6.424430
7 Southwest_English @ 8.019354
8 North_German @ 8.355955
9 West_Norwegian @ 8.551015
10 Norwegian @ 9.134100

Frisian 2
T164951
1 Irish @ 2.448543
2 West_Scottish @ 2.757798
3 Southeast_English @ 3.257060
4 Danish @ 3.361821
5 North_Dutch @ 4.269686
6 North_German @ 5.012462
7 Southwest_English @ 5.396040
8 Orcadian @ 5.918579
9 Norwegian @ 8.684077
10 South_Dutch @ 8.886513

Frisian 3
T158165
1 West_Norwegian @ 5.314766
2 Norwegian @ 6.230392
3 Swedish @ 6.346105
4 North_Dutch @ 9.435695
5 Danish @ 10.495336
6 North_Swedish @ 10.514571
7 Orcadian @ 11.131961
8 West_Scottish @ 12.361656
9 West_German @ 12.478151
10 Irish @ 12.997328

Frisian 4
]T020224
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 6.955227
2 West_Scottish @ 7.113685
3 Orcadian @ 8.161603
4 North_Dutch @ 8.768803
5 Danish @ 9.009404
6 Southeast_English @ 9.366833
7 North_German @ 10.249235
8 Southwest_English @ 11.381751
9 West_Norwegian @ 11.973129
10 Norwegian @ 12.511053

I would not be so confident that Irish on number 1 occurs only under native Britons or Mixed AS/Brit......

Finn
06-21-2018, 12:11 PM
Recap:
H3
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Orcadian @ 9.127441
2 West_Norwegian @ 11.658904
3 West_Scottish @ 11.995344
4 North_Dutch @ 12.863199
5 Irish @ 13.158059
6 Danish @ 13.290552
7 Icelandic @ 13.357376
8 Southeast_English @ 13.513114
9 Norwegian @ 13.890123
10 Southwest_English @ 14.249584
11 Swedish @ 15.848876
12 North_German @ 16.658036
13 West_German @ 17.735425
14 South_Dutch @ 19.273254
15 North_Swedish @ 19.454336
16 French @ 22.542522
17 East_German @ 26.272764
18 Southwest_Finnish @ 27.431009
19 Finnish @ 30.223162
20 Spanish_Galicia @ 30.806345
215 iterations.

H5
Using 1 population approximation:
1 North_Dutch @ 6.663682
2 Irish @ 6.700557
3 Icelandic @ 7.295135
4 Danish @ 7.419753
5 West_Scottish @ 7.48539
6 Southeast_English @ 7.624928
7 North_German @ 7.709945
8 Southwest_English @ 8.194094
9 Norwegian @ 9.24185
10 Swedish @ 9.273832


I guess 3 of the 4 Frisians are even more Britonic than H3 an H5 ;)

spruithean
06-21-2018, 12:21 PM
Frisian 1
T849741
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 4.365399
2 West_Scottish @ 4.545426
3 Orcadian @ 5.110952
4 North_Dutch @ 5.190604
5 Southeast_English @ 6.412594
6 Danish @ 6.424430
7 Southwest_English @ 8.019354
8 North_German @ 8.355955
9 West_Norwegian @ 8.551015
10 Norwegian @ 9.134100

Frisian 2
T164951
1 Irish @ 2.448543
2 West_Scottish @ 2.757798
3 Southeast_English @ 3.257060
4 Danish @ 3.361821
5 North_Dutch @ 4.269686
6 North_German @ 5.012462
7 Southwest_English @ 5.396040
8 Orcadian @ 5.918579
9 Norwegian @ 8.684077
10 South_Dutch @ 8.886513

Frisian 3
T158165
1 West_Norwegian @ 5.314766
2 Norwegian @ 6.230392
3 Swedish @ 6.346105
4 North_Dutch @ 9.435695
5 Danish @ 10.495336
6 North_Swedish @ 10.514571
7 Orcadian @ 11.131961
8 West_Scottish @ 12.361656
9 West_German @ 12.478151
10 Irish @ 12.997328

Frisian 4
]T020224
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Irish @ 6.955227
2 West_Scottish @ 7.113685
3 Orcadian @ 8.161603
4 North_Dutch @ 8.768803
5 Danish @ 9.009404
6 Southeast_English @ 9.366833
7 North_German @ 10.249235
8 Southwest_English @ 11.381751
9 West_Norwegian @ 11.973129
10 Norwegian @ 12.511053

I would not be so confident that Irish on number 1 occurs only under native Britons or Mixed AS/Brit......

I'm curious, what study features the data on these Frisian samples? What is their era?

In regards to your comment in bold at the end of this post, I am not surprised, most Western Europeans are really quite genetically similar. I don't think there has ever been much of a difference genetically between Germanic and Celtic groups.

Radboud
06-21-2018, 01:04 PM
Clear! The only contra argument is that H3 an H5 come not only to one but to several North Dutch/ Frisian results.....So supposed that these have no Britonic component.....how can you be sure that H3 and H5 are mixtures? May be H2 was a Jute and H3 and H5 Saxons....can this be ruled out????


The average Northern Dutch of Eurogenes K15 contain Dutch samples that are north of the Rhine, they are not neccesary only samples from the northern regions like Friesland/Drenthe etc, but also central regions like Utrecht. I have seen some Frisians that are not distinguishable from the Danes. Btw, the distances between H3 and modern averages are pretty big.

Anyway, You have to look at more stuff than just some K15 results, like PCA's, shared drift etc, as I showed in the links. If we look at the full picture, we can see that Hinxton 2 is an outlier and looks fully ''continental''. Hinxton 3 and 5 on the other hand, have a pull to the British Isles.

Hinxton 3 shares most genetic drift with the British and Icelanders and could pass as a most Eastern English, although with a Scandinavian pull. Hinxton 5 also looks like a continental/British mix. They obviously stand out from continental Europe:

From the comments, I doubt that a Frisian/ most Northern German would look English if we treat 2 as an outlier:



Lumping 2, 3 and 5 together as Anglo-Saxons might indeed produce an overall effect that is just outside the range of modern UK variation (ie. more continental Germanic). But if we treat 2 as an outlier, then 3 and 5 really just look English, and in fact much more so than 4, or even 1 and 4 together.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton5-ers389799.html





For instance, plotting the f3-statistics of Hinxton2, which actually looks like the genome of someone straight off the boat from the Jutland Peninsula, against those of Hinxtons 1 and 4, we see that the former shares most drift with the Danes. Moreover, the Danes, Swedes and Germans, all Germanic-speakers of course, deviate strongly on both graphs from the lines of slope that run from the Erzya to the Irish. The reason they deviate from these lines is because they don't share enough drift with Hinxtons 1 and 4 compared to the other reference populations from Northwestern Europe, especially the Irish.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/JvcvsYlXjXWmZ4PSTDNVESKBtxf4Ynmh-R6SpEKoj61a1tbXvYP55VuMeHodYpSf_REleCZmecIuE9U=w19 20-h947




A similar pattern can be seen when plotting the average results of Hinxtons 1 and 4 against those of 2, 3 and 5. However, the effect isn't nearly as pronounced, possibly because Hinxtons 3 and 5 are of mixed Celtic/Germanic origin.




https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/cHjIfOM9WYgDk4LUzllPDJANAD78d6h4XAzZti9BGCCFnontNH UEPR1gmrAkRjijSV3lOH0S6nsv5Ds=w1920-h947-rw

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html

Nino90
06-21-2018, 02:05 PM
I think French,Swiss and Austrians have higher Celtic admix then most Englishmen.

JMcB
06-21-2018, 02:27 PM
For what it’s worth, I found this comment interesting:

“My opinion is that 4 doesn't represent the present-day English very well, and is in fact a smoking gun for a significant genetic shift in England to the east. Looking at 1, it's probably useful to keep an open mind when this eastern gene flow arrived in England, because this sample suggests that it started coming during the Iron Age, and can't be exclusively associated with the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Danes.

But the argument put forward at the ASHG presentation that 1 and 4 look like modern Brits, and therefore the Anglo-Saxons had little impact on the present-day British gene pool, doesn't make much sense to me. I'd say the English of the Iron Age looked rather Irish and Scottish until the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans arrived, and then became more like the present-day English after all of these groups mixed, albeit in different proportions. Not only is that logical, but it does also fit the data from the five ancient genomes.

In any case, I suspect Hinxton4 will turn out to be a very valuable sample, because it's a high coverage genome that appears to be an excellent example of an Iron Age Celt. There are a lot of interesting things that can be done with this genome”.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/analysis-of-hinxton5-ers389799.html

Finn
06-21-2018, 02:38 PM
@spruithaen All modern Frisians but as fare as I can see ‘deep Frisians’ with -stra in the surname, number 1 and 2 have also a Gedcom link...

spruithean
06-21-2018, 02:39 PM
Oddly enough, there was a thread not too long ago where Bollox79 and I discussed our flipped Rathlin1/Hinxton4 results.

He scores higher on Rathlin1 while I score higher with Hinxton4. We agreed it was probably due to his more recent Gaelic ancestry, and my relatively recent Cornish/English ancestry (though I have fairly recent Ulster and Munster ancestry too).

I'm not sure I'm a good example for any comparison to Hinxton4 though as my maternal side is Dutch and a good portion of my maternal tree is endogamous.

EDIT: Thanks Finn. I wonder if I am related to any of them to any degree, considering where my grandmother's ancestors came from in the north.

Finn
06-21-2018, 02:58 PM
@Spruithean @radboud just some speculating but I guess that in the clay and peat districts of Friesland and Groningen you can catch the biggest AS/Nordic component. In the sandy parts of Friesland and Drenthe you can catch some older population residu that might be closer to the Irish.
Just intuition....not based on hard facts...
And your grandmother comes from westeremden that’s clay district, Frisian/Chauci, AS-Nordic stream (close to my residence).

msmarjoribanks
06-21-2018, 03:04 PM
Nice podcast about Anglo-Saxon migration with Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, Patrick Wyman....about chain migration!

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

This was a good episode, and thanks for bringing not only it, but the entire Spencer Wells/Razib Khan podcast to my attention.

Jessie
06-21-2018, 03:08 PM
@Spruithean @radboud just some speculating but I guess that in the clay and peat districts of Friesland and Groningen you can catch the biggest AS/Nordic component. In the sandy parts of Friesland and Drenthe you can catch some older population residu that might be closer to the Irish.
Just intuition....not based on hard facts...
And your grandmother comes from westeremden that’s clay district, Frisian/Chauci, AS-Nordic stream (close to my residence).

I guess they could be some old Bell Beaker. We all know that the British and Dutch Bell Beakers were very similar. Gedmatch is not always completely accurate anyway as on the Eurogenes K13 my no 1 population is North Dutch.

Finn
06-21-2018, 03:13 PM
I guess they could be some old Bell Beaker. We all know that the British and Dutch Bell Beakers were very similar. Gedmatch is not always completely accurate anyway as on the Eurogenes K13 my no 1 population is North Dutch.

Yep Bronze Age may be.... and don’t say your surname is Neeley because Jessie Neeley that’s my biggest match on Gedmatch B....that would be odd!!!

msmarjoribanks
06-21-2018, 03:13 PM
Oddly enough, there was a thread not too long ago where Bollox79 and I discussed our flipped Rathlin1/Hinxton4 results.

He scores higher on Rathlin1 while I score higher with Hinxton4. We agreed it was probably due to his more recent Gaelic ancestry, and my relatively recent Cornish/English ancestry (though I have fairly recent Ulster and Munster ancestry too).

I'm not sure I'm a good example for any comparison to Hinxton4 though as my maternal side is Dutch and a good portion of my maternal tree is endogamous.

EDIT: Thanks Finn. I wonder if I am related to any of them to any degree, considering where my grandmother's ancestors came from in the north.

Dumb question, but how did you do this comparison?

Dewsloth
06-21-2018, 03:16 PM
I guess it has much to do with stereotyping. How did they saw themselves as a group different from others and in the group between classes. And I would not wonder if this stereotyping has lead to natural selection. So preferred phenotypes. This probably has had it's effect.

And of course these stereotyping has a disgusting aspect....My mother is pretty darkish and I remember that in my hometown (especially when some people had to much beer....) she heard "du swaarde". Simple hillbilly thoughts....but yeah....

This doesn't seem to hold for all Germanic groups. Certainly the Thuringii and Baiuvarii are known for taking wives from outside their territory and phenotype.

Finn
06-21-2018, 03:26 PM
This doesn't seem to hold for all Germanic groups. Certainly the Thuringii and Baiuvarii are known for taking wives from outside their territory and phenotype.

Hmmm interesting, how come? Any idea?

spruithean
06-21-2018, 03:41 PM
Dumb question, but how did you do this comparison?

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm

You enter your K36 data from GEDmatch.

msmarjoribanks
06-21-2018, 03:44 PM
http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/ancient.htm

You enter your K36 data from GEDmatch.

Thanks!

I've done that, but never cottoned on to the fact that it was related to specific samples. Will re-do.

msmarjoribanks
06-21-2018, 04:22 PM
I suppose there's a better thread for this, but so cool!

My winners (80 or above) are:

91: 2,400 BC - Germany - I0118
87: 1,789 BC - Poland - Rise150 (hmm, that's a surprise)
86: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF18
85:2,000 BC - Ireland - Rathlin1
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF2
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF3
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 3DRIF16
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF21
82: 500 AD - Bavaria - AED 249
81: 2,250 BC - Germany (BB) - I0112
80: 1,900? BC - Czeck (Unet.) - Rise577

Didn't see Hixton unless there's a different name I'm ignorant of.

spruithean
06-21-2018, 04:27 PM
I suppose there's a better thread for this, but so cool!

My winners (80 or above) are:

91: 2,400 BC - Germany - I0118
87: 1,789 BC - Poland - Rise150 (hmm, that's a surprise)
86: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF18
85:2,000 BC - Ireland - Rathlin1
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF2
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF3
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 3DRIF16
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF21
82: 500 AD - Bavaria - AED 249
81: 2,250 BC - Germany (BB) - I0112
80: 1,900? BC - Czeck (Unet.) - Rise577

Didn't see Hixton unless there's a different name I'm ignorant of.

Hinxton4 should be in the same section where you found Rathlin1, Hinxton4 is directly below Rathlin1. 6DRIF18 and Poland Rise150 are my highest scores (84). I'll try and find the thread that was discussing these results of different users.

Dewsloth
06-21-2018, 04:53 PM
I suppose there's a better thread for this, but so cool!

My winners (80 or above) are:

91: 2,400 BC - Germany - I0118
87: 1,789 BC - Poland - Rise150 (hmm, that's a surprise)
86: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF18
85:2,000 BC - Ireland - Rathlin1
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF2
83: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF3
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 3DRIF16
82: 200 AD - Gladiator - 6DRIF21
82: 500 AD - Bavaria - AED 249
81: 2,250 BC - Germany (BB) - I0112
80: 1,900? BC - Czeck (Unet.) - Rise577

Didn't see Hixton unless there's a different name I'm ignorant of.

Very interesting. My dad doesn't have any in the 90 range (I think the Ashkenazi relatives make the distances increase) but I0118 is one of his top hits, too. A tie with 6DRIF22 for the #2 spot at 78.

I0118 is Alberstedt (female so no Y-SNP data) and is sort of a curious combination of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker traits.

I put this in an earlier thread regarding Alberstedt:

Not so many here get Alberstedt. I looked it up and

Alberstedt The site Alberstedt in Merseburg-Querfurt, Saxony-Anhalt, on the loess-bearing Querfurter Platte, is located on a hilltop. This promontory site was used by the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker people as a burial ground. The single grave of individual x ALB3/I0118 (feature 7144.2, 2459-2345 calBCE, MAMS 21492)
was uncovered within a strip of 20m width in preparation for major roadworks. The grave was initially ascribed to the Bell Beaker culture but is rather an unusual burial complex strewn with cattle bones as well as a few sherds of Corded Ware-like pottery in the back filling28. The radiocarbon date falls in line with both the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware occupation phases of this region. Given the ambiguous archaeological classification we have decided to use the location and date to classify this sample (Late Neolithic Alberstedt). The intermediate position of this sample on the PCA plot (Figure 2a) between unambiguously assigned Corded Ware (Esperstedt) and Bell Beaker (Rothenschirmbach) individuals, and >50% Yamnaya ancestry are consistent with an individual who has mixed Corded Ware and Bell Beaker ancestry.
Edit: Alberstedt is only about a 4-day walk from my Y-Line MDKA origin (north of Wiesbaden), although I'd like to think my ancestors moved more than 300km in 4,500 years. :lol:

More about all the ancient results table here in this thread:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10813-Tool-for-K36-your-similarities-rates-on-maps&p=367476&viewfull=1#post367476

Radboud
06-21-2018, 05:31 PM
@Spruithean @radboud just some speculating but I guess that in the clay and peat districts of Friesland and Groningen you can catch the biggest AS/Nordic component. In the sandy parts of Friesland and Drenthe you can catch some older population residu that might be closer to the Irish.
Just intuition....not based on hard facts...
And your grandmother comes from westeremden that’s clay district, Frisian/Chauci, AS-Nordic stream (close to my residence).

Admittedly, I wish I had more sources to show about this subject. It has been 3-4 years since the publications of the Hinxton samples. I remember that back in the day, there were more interesting findings/discussions about these samples, but I cannot find them at the moment.

Question for you Finn: What do you think about the Frisians in South/North Holland? It's puzzling to me, because there is a lack of Anglo-Saxon fibulae in North-Holland and there are signs of population continuity in North-Holland. Yet there is also evidence of a Frisian substrate in Holland linguistically.

msmarjoribanks
06-21-2018, 05:40 PM
Hinxton4 should be in the same section where you found Rathlin1, Hinxton4 is directly below Rathlin1. 6DRIF18 and Poland Rise150 are my highest scores (84). I'll try and find the thread that was discussing these results of different users.

Ah, don't know how I missed it before. Only 74.

etrusco
06-21-2018, 06:11 PM
@all


Since this issue has been debated I link two papers from Angelika Lutz on possible influence from celtic in the early stage of Old English and also celtic influence on west germanic. It seems that the do/does interrogative form and the ing construction is from celtic.

https://www.academia.edu/6656068/Why_is_West-Saxon_English_different_from_Old_Saxon
https://www.academia.edu/6599939/Celtic_influence_on_Old_English_and_West_Germanic

Finn
06-21-2018, 06:15 PM
Admittedly, I wish I had more sources to show about this subject. It has been 3-4 years since the publications of the Hinxton samples. I remember that back in the day, there were more interesting findings/discussions about these samples, but I cannot find them at the moment.

Question for you Finn: What do you think about the Frisians in South/North Holland? It's puzzling to me, because there is a lack of Anglo-Saxon fibulae in North-Holland and there are signs of population continuity in North-Holland. Yet there is also evidence of a Frisian substrate in Holland linguistically.

The map of Pylsteen based on in depth Lao e.a. (2013) is in this respect an eye opener for me;
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24041&d=1508019846

I guess the story is that although Holland now it’s the center of the Netherlands during migration time it was a kind of retraitre zone..so still a hiding place for the pre migration Frisii.....obviously not interesting for a big AS-Nordic influence. Although there was some overflow especially above Amsterdam, but also around Utrecht....

They were called Frisians because Frisian was equal to coastal inhabitant....but I guess no one kingdom, no magna Frisia, no Redbad king of all the Frisians....more aspiring chieftains in little area’s along the coast. When there was a power basis than this was Wijnaldum in nowadays Friesland with findings like the amaldine rich Fibulae. These people were part of the Nordic network.

When there was a force to unite like in Rngland but I guess the Franks were already upcoming....the West Frisians already were oriented on the Franks.

I guess due to the influence of the Franks the name West Frisia became in decline.

All these influences perfectly reflected in the map of Pijlsteen...

The language is difficult to judge, where it according to you old Frisian language influences or Ingveaonic?

Finn
06-21-2018, 06:26 PM
@all


Since this issue has been debated I link two papers from Angelika Lutz on possible influence from celtic in the early stage of Old English and also celtic influence on west germanic. It seems that the do/does interrogative form and the ing construction is from celtic.

https://www.academia.edu/6656068/Why_is_West-Saxon_English_different_from_Old_Saxon
https://www.academia.edu/6599939/Celtic_influence_on_Old_English_and_West_Germanic

Thanks interesting stuff:thumb:

etrusco
06-21-2018, 06:45 PM
@finn

This is also interesting. It is a paper from Schrijver about "British latin"…..worth reading

https://www.academia.edu/13835386/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_British_Latin_Evidence_from_E nglish_and_Brittonic

JonikW
06-21-2018, 09:44 PM
Ah, don't know how I missed it before. Only 74.

Late to this sadly (can hardly keep up with this fascinating thread) but love this calculator. I'm Czech Rise577 89, 6DRIF18 88, Hinxton4 86.

Molfish
06-25-2018, 03:55 PM
Based on my mum's Northern Europe PCA position, I'm comfortable with the idea that most English are around half Briton.
24239

Now I'd like to settle on a solid estimate for how much Germanic/Norse input the modern Irish have.