PDA

View Full Version : Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history



Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 03:28 AM
Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history

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

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/022723

Iron Age through early Saxon period. Modern Brits are much more native. East English are only 20-40% Anglo-Saxon, an average of about 30%. BAM! Called it! I'll have to find that post. Great read, on this pre-print.

" By this measure the East England samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-*Saxon ancestry on average, with a spread from 20% to 40%, and the Welsh and
Scottish samples are consistent with 20% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average....."

Humanist
07-18-2015, 04:08 AM
The above link is not working for me.

Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723)

Motzart
07-18-2015, 04:57 AM
That 30% anglo-saxon estimate is consistent with the number from the POBI study.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 05:01 AM
The above link is not working for me.

Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723)

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723.full-text.pdf+html

rms2
07-18-2015, 12:35 PM
Here is the table that provides a nice overview of the results.

5241

Looking at ISOGG's R Tree, evidently the report lists the two Iron Age Celt males (HI1 and HI2) as R1b-L21 (R1b1a2a1a2c) and R1b-DF13 (R1b1a2a1a2c1). I believe it was Felix who said HI2 was DF25+.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 12:58 PM
An excerpt from this study:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/07/17/022723.full.pdf

http://oi62.tinypic.com/23j65w7.jpg

rms2
07-18-2015, 01:10 PM
Time for a brief but relevant aside. Apparently the earliest sets of remains in this study belonged to a people known only as "Iron Age". Evidently that's the language they spoke: Iron Age (whatever that is or was).

But the later sets of remains are all "Anglo-Saxon"; no doubt about that: firm, solid, unquestionably true.

Baffling.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 01:38 PM
" By this measure the East England samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a spread from 20% to 40%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 20% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average..."

By another measure that could be even less than 30% (between 20% and 30% instead of between 20% and 40%) - an excerpt:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/wu42fo.jpg

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 01:52 PM
Exactly. You have the Danes, Normans, and Protestants entering Britain, which likely have ancestry from similar groups, which weren't really Saxons. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if no one in England is above 30% Anglo-Saxon.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 01:55 PM
Exactly. You have the Danes, Normans, and Protestants entering Britain, which likely have ancestry from similar groups, which weren't really Saxons. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if no one in England is above 30% Anglo-Saxon.

Indeed.

According to this study, Anglo-Saxons were most genetically similar to modern Danish and modern Dutch people.

So I suppose that it is impossible to distinguish Anglo-Saxon ancestry from Medieval Danish ancestry (see Danish settlement in "Danelaw").

Therefore this figure of 30% for East England is not all Anglo-Saxon, but includes also "Danelaw" Danish ancestry.

=================================

As for Normans, they were heavily mixed with local French people by 1066, so they should be possible to distinguish from Anglo-Saxons. Moreover, "original Normans" were mostly from Norway, not from Denmark, and Norwegians are quite genetically different from Danes.

Moreover, William's army included also people of Breton, Flemish, etc. blood. The Stuarts were of Celtic Breton ancestry, for example (and had R1b-L21 haplogroup, which is common among Bretons, due to them being largely descendants of earlier Briton refugees and emigrants).

So in Norman times after Hastings there was some sort of a back-migration of R1b-L21 into Britain from Bretagne as well.

Norwegian ancestry is visible in populations of the Orkney and Shetland Archipelagos in Scotland (especially their high % of R1a).

Danish settlement in "Danelaw" did not bring nearly as much of R1a as did Norwegian settlement in the Northern Islands of Scotland.

Protestants is a religion, not an ethnic group. French Huguenots had similar DNA as other French people. According to Eurogenes K15 and other admixture analyses, both Hinxton Celtic and Hinxton Anglo-Saxon samples were more "northern-oriented" autosomally, than modern English people are, suggesting considerable genetic impact of immigrants from Southern Europe in Roman times and since Hastings to modern times.

I suppose those were mostly immigrants from Italy and France.

Here is this Eurogenes K15 (posted by Anglecynn):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3155-First-ancient-genomes-from-Britain-Celtic-and-Anglo-Saxon&p=58823&viewfull=1#post58823

Average for 2 skeletons from pre-Roman Celtic period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 37.83
Atlantic 29.63
Baltic 10.16
Eastern_Euro 9.21
West_Mediterranean 6.55
West_Asian 4.44
East_Mediterranean 0
Red_Sea 0.7
South_Asian 0.95
Southeast_Asian 0.02
Siberian 0.06
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0.15
Sub-Saharan 0.255

Average for 3 skeletons from the Anglo-Saxon period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 41.37
Atlantic 28.59
Baltic 8.85
Eastern_Euro 9.48
West_Mediterranean 6.16
West_Asian 3.23
East_Mediterranean 0.3
Red_Sea 0.28
South_Asian 0.36
Southeast_Asian 0.23
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0.03
Oceanian 0.13
Northeast_African 0.27
Sub-Saharan 0.68

Modern times, average for a sample of English people from Kent:

North_Sea 35.52
Atlantic 29.86
Baltic 9.89
Eastern_Euro 8.36
West_Mediterranean 8.77
West_Asian 3.35
East_Mediterranean 2.5
Red_Sea 0.33
South_Asian 0.58
Southeast_Asian 0.03
Siberian 0.05
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.06
Sub-Saharan 0.03

As you can see not just Anglo-Saxons, but also Iron Age Celts from Hinxton, were actually more "Northern", than modern English.

If Anglo-Saxons just mixed with Celts and that's it, then modern English should have had much more of North_Sea component than they do.

But what we observe, is actually an increase in Mediterranean components compared to Ancient Britons and Anglo-Saxons.

This indicates that modern English are not just a mixture of British Celts and Anglo-Saxons, but also someone who came from the south (be it Roman-related immigration, or Norman-related immigration, or French Huguenots, or whoever else did they get throughout history).

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 02:00 PM
Danelaw, the Flemish coming in... Protestants from German speaking areas and eastern France.. It's very complicated. In other words, likely no one in Britain is over 40% Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frank, Alemanni, Wulfing (wherever they were from; Sweden?) mix, etc...

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 02:23 PM
Many Walloons also settled in England, not just the Flemish (though I'm not sure how genetically different are they from each other). Anyway, despite all those invasions by "Northmen", modern English are actually more Mediterranean and less North_Sea in K15, than Iron Age Britons...

Quite ironic. It kind of looks like "going South against all odds"... :biggrin1: ;)

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 02:33 PM
Yes. I've said something else that wasn't received well. Not only do I think that Brits are no more than 30% Saxon, but that Brits are also up to 30% more recently mixed with other continental sources, including the Irish. That Mediterranean shift is quite obvious, where Iron Age SE England sits by the Irish, and now there is a pretty sizable move towards the continent.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 03:01 PM
Yes. I've said something else that wasn't received well. Not only do I think that Brits are no more than 30% Saxon, but that Brits are also up to 30% more recently mixed with other continental sources, including the Irish. That Mediterranean shift is quite obvious, where Iron Age SE England sits by the Irish, and now there is a pretty sizable move towards the continent.

But so far we don't have aDNA from Romano-Britons. We only have samples from pre-Roman Britons and from Anglo-Saxon times. It is probable, that Romano-Britons were more Mediterranean than pre-Roman Britons. For some reason people usually tend to totally underplay the scale of Roman-era immigration into Britain from the continent, and they only talk about Anglo-Saxons entering Celtic populations.

Certainly there was some Roman-era settlement too, and they could bring more of Mediterranean with them.

MitchellSince1893
07-18-2015, 03:23 PM
Using rarecoal we find that the ancestors of the Anglo-*‐Saxon samples are closest to modern Danish and Dutch populations, while the Iron Age samples share
ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.

This caught my eye because it counters the thought that Angles were genetically distinct from their Saxon neighbors and present day Danes, and that most the Angles left Jutland leaving little present day genetic legacy. This argument pertains to Angles being the primary source for U152 in Britain. According to Myres et. al. (2010) U152 ranges from 0% to 4.8% in various parts of present day Denmark.

The sample areas Hinxton, Oakington, and Linton are all in East Anglia so it's reasonable to think at least some of them would have been of Angle ancestry. Yet they are genetically closer to modern day Danes.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 03:44 PM
How old is this presence of U152 in Denmark? Does it have high diversity there?

A much more likely source for U152 in Britain is from France, Belgium and Italy.

It could arrive at various points in time, pre-Roman, Roman times or / and later.

Dubhthach
07-18-2015, 03:46 PM
60 million people live in Britain today, is a sample of 30 modern Britons really a reasonable sized group to make comparison with. Ideally 100 each from England, Wales and Scotland would have been a better start.

Awh well they have to start somewhere. I also think that it might been a good idea to use an Irish sample as a comparison (they did use Spanish and Dutch right?)

Rich, as for speaking "Iron age" sure I turned on tv earlier and watched the weather been spoken in a "Iron age" language ;) (well one that's undergone 1500 years of further dev!)

-Paul

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 03:57 PM
U152 could come to Britain with Belgian or Gallic tribes, as well as later in Roman times. Let's remember that Celtic Britain was not an ethnic monolith. According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels, who at that time lived only in Ireland - Gaelic languages expanded to what became Scotland only much later), Belgians (Belgae), and Picts. Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales. There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. Gaels originally lived only in Ireland - Scottish Gaelic emerged when Irish Gaels invaded and mixed with Picts.

Here some discussion about U152 in Britain:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25962.html

Distribution of U152 in England seems to correlate well with areas inhabited by Gallic tribes (who crossed the Channel and settled there) according to Julius Caesar. Not sure about U152 in Scotland.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 04:34 PM
Don't forget the U152 Beaker sample. Is the above a subclade study?

MitchellSince1893
07-18-2015, 04:47 PM
...Not sure about U152 in Scotland.

My thoughts on a potential source for the high concentration of the U152 in Scotland
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4399-British-Isles-DNA-Project-by-County-Mapped-for-U152&p=81467&viewfull=1#post81467
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4399-British-Isles-DNA-Project-by-County-Mapped-for-U152&p=82218&viewfull=1#post82218
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4399-British-Isles-DNA-Project-by-County-Mapped-for-U152&p=94317&viewfull=1#post94317
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4399-British-Isles-DNA-Project-by-County-Mapped-for-U152&p=94388&viewfull=1#post94388

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 04:52 PM
I wonder about Pictish DNA. They eventually got assimilated by various Scottish groups, but a distinct Pictish identity apparently still existed as late as the 12th century:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/84532-what-happened-celts-non-present-day-celtic-nations-31.html

"The Picts defeated the Angles in 685AD and pushed their frontier down towards the Firth of Forth. The Northumbrians did not recover from this defeat but the Picts were still around until their king Áed, was murdered and replaced by a Gael - Giric in 878AD. Pictland ceased to exist by around 900AD."

However:

"The Picts last enter history in 1138, when Saint Ælred, abbot of Rievaulx, describes Pictish Galwegians 'bristling with arrows' alongside Scots at the Battle of the Standard."

alan
07-18-2015, 05:09 PM
Indeed.

According to this study, Anglo-Saxons were most genetically similar to modern Danish and modern Dutch people.

So I suppose that it is impossible to distinguish Anglo-Saxon ancestry from Medieval Danish ancestry (see Danish settlement in "Danelaw").

Therefore this figure of 30% for East England is not all Anglo-Saxon, but includes also "Danelaw" Danish ancestry.

=================================

As for Normans, they were heavily mixed with local French people by 1066, so they should be possible to distinguish from Anglo-Saxons. Moreover, "original Normans" were mostly from Norway, not from Denmark, and Norwegians are quite genetically different from Danes.

Moreover, William's army included also people of Breton, Flemish, etc. blood. The Stuarts were of Celtic Breton ancestry, for example (and had R1b-L21 haplogroup, which is common among Bretons, due to them being largely descendants of earlier Briton refugees and emigrants).

So in Norman times after Hastings there was some sort of a back-migration of R1b-L21 into Britain from Bretagne as well.

Norwegian ancestry is visible in populations of the Orkney and Shetland Archipelagos in Scotland (especially their high % of R1a).

Danish settlement in "Danelaw" did not bring nearly as much of R1a as did Norwegian settlement in the Northern Islands of Scotland.

Protestants is a religion, not an ethnic group. French Huguenots had similar DNA as other French people. According to Eurogenes K15 and other admixture analyses, both Hinxton Celtic and Hinxton Anglo-Saxon samples were more "northern-oriented" autosomally, than modern English people are, suggesting considerable genetic impact of immigrants from Southern Europe in Roman times and since Hastings to modern times.

I suppose those were mostly immigrants from Italy and France.

Here is this Eurogenes K15 (posted by Anglecynn):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3155-First-ancient-genomes-from-Britain-Celtic-and-Anglo-Saxon&p=58823&viewfull=1#post58823

Average for 2 skeletons from pre-Roman Celtic period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 37.83
Atlantic 29.63
Baltic 10.16
Eastern_Euro 9.21
West_Mediterranean 6.55
West_Asian 4.44
East_Mediterranean 0
Red_Sea 0.7
South_Asian 0.95
Southeast_Asian 0.02
Siberian 0.06
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0.15
Sub-Saharan 0.255

Average for 3 skeletons from the Anglo-Saxon period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 41.37
Atlantic 28.59
Baltic 8.85
Eastern_Euro 9.48
West_Mediterranean 6.16
West_Asian 3.23
East_Mediterranean 0.3
Red_Sea 0.28
South_Asian 0.36
Southeast_Asian 0.23
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0.03
Oceanian 0.13
Northeast_African 0.27
Sub-Saharan 0.68

Modern times, average for a sample of English people from Kent:

North_Sea 35.52
Atlantic 29.86
Baltic 9.89
Eastern_Euro 8.36
West_Mediterranean 8.77
West_Asian 3.35
East_Mediterranean 2.5
Red_Sea 0.33
South_Asian 0.58
Southeast_Asian 0.03
Siberian 0.05
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.06
Sub-Saharan 0.03

As you can see not just Anglo-Saxons, but also Iron Age Celts from Hinxton, were actually more "Northern", than modern English.

If Anglo-Saxons just mixed with Celts and that's it, then modern English should have had much more of North_Sea component than they do.

But what we observe, is actually an increase in Mediterranean components compared to Ancient Britons and Anglo-Saxons.

This indicates that modern English are not just a mixture of British Celts and Anglo-Saxons, but also someone who came from the south (be it Roman-related immigration, or Norman-related immigration, or French Huguenots, or whoever else did they get throughout history).

think that is a very good summary

alan
07-18-2015, 05:26 PM
I wonder about Pictish DNA. They eventually got assimilated by various Scottish groups, but a distinct Pictish identity apparently still existed as late as the 12th century:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/84532-what-happened-celts-non-present-day-celtic-nations-31.html

"The Picts defeated the Angles in 685AD and pushed their frontier down towards the Firth of Forth. The Northumbrians did not recover from this defeat but the Picts were still around until their king Áed, was murdered and replaced by a Gael - Giric in 878AD. Pictland ceased to exist by around 900AD."

However:

"The Picts last enter history in 1138, when Saint Ælred, abbot of Rievaulx, describes Pictish Galwegians 'bristling with arrows' alongside Scots at the Battle of the Standard."

The last reference is however an ancient error. The group in Galloway were Irish Cruithin refugees in the Rinns of Galloway - the confusion being that Cruithin at that time could either mean Picts or Irish Cruithin tribes. The last reliable mentions of the picts are probably no later than 900AD. The Pictish kingdoms were a huge distance north of Galloway north of the Forth-Clyde Line. Prior to Norse and Gaels Galloway was part of the British/north Welsh kingdom of Rheged (Dunragit recalls this). There are no Pictish placenames in Galloway.

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 05:46 PM
This study has endorsed the most reliable approach by using ancient genomes to quantify admixture due to past demographic events. The authors state that "only 20-30% of the ancestry of modern Britons was contributed by Anglo-Saxon immigrants, with the higher number in East England [...]", while the POBI study stated that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the contemporary English gene pool amounted to roughly 50% (or rather, "between 10-40%"). The main difference is that the latter relies on contemporary populations to quantify the amount of Anglo-Saxon admixture, IMO the use of ancient genomic data is crucial here as it avoids ending up with a blurry model. Needless to say, this is a cautionary tale.

Motzart
07-18-2015, 06:02 PM
Time for a brief but relevant aside. Apparently the earliest sets of remains in this study belonged to a people known only as "Iron Age". Evidently that's the language they spoke: Iron Age (whatever that is or was).

But the later sets of remains are all "Anglo-Saxon"; no doubt about that: firm, solid, unquestionably true.

Baffling.

Looks like my disdain for the term celt is in good company. Maybe this bit from the POBI study has something to do with it? We can argue about the validity of the cultural term celt but there is no genetic basis for it.


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

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

Jean M
07-18-2015, 06:31 PM
Looks like my disdain for the term celt is in good company. Maybe this bit from the POBI study has something to do with it?

That conclusion from the PoBI study was very silly. What they actually found fits the deduction that the Celts had been in the British Isles long enough to develop (slight) regional differences - the type you would expect from some mild local genetic drift. With the whole of Britain full of R1b-L21, it doesn't exactly look like the Welsh, Scottish and Cornish are completely unrelated to each other.

The Anglo-Saxon input was more recent.

Also we have the factor of mixture between the English and Celts over many centuries, making the whole of Britain pretty much a melange today. So PoBI had to use special methodology to generate any regional clusters. This is the limitation of modern DNA. That is why I'm delighted to have at least some ancient DNA from Britain distinguishing Anglo-Saxon and Celt.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 08:07 PM
This study has endorsed the most reliable approach by using ancient genomes to quantify admixture due to past demographic events. The authors state that "only 20-30% of the ancestry of modern Britons was contributed by Anglo-Saxon immigrants, with the higher number in East England [...]", while the POBI study stated that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the contemporary English gene pool amounted to roughly 50% (or rather, "between 10-40%"). The main difference is that the latter relies on contemporary populations to quantify the amount of Anglo-Saxon admixture, IMO the use of ancient genomic data is crucial here as it avoids ending up with a blurry model. Needless to say, this is a cautionary tale.

The study which claimed 50% Anglo-Saxon input - but based only on Y-DNA, not autosomal stuff - was the 2003 study by Capelli:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf

But that estimate by Capelli et al. was based on several dubious presuppositions.

For instance, they chose modern Central Irish people as a good proxy for ancient Romano-Britons (which seems dubious at least):

Citation: "To represent the indigenous population of the British Isles, we have selected a site in central Ireland (...)"

Why did they assume that Gaelic-speakers from Central Ireland are genetically identical with ancient Brythonic-speakers, speakers of other Celtic languages (see what Caesar wrote about the hodge-podge of ethnic groups, including continental immigrants such as Belgians and Gauls, that pre-Roman Britain was) and Latin-speakers from England? No idea. Of course Brythonic and Gaelic are both Celtic languages, but distinct ones,

So that quote sounds a bit like: "to represent the population of Serbia, we have selected a site in Russia", etc. :)

But of course back in 2003 they didn't have aDNA, so they were justified in a way.

==========================

The "between 10% - 40%" estimate (depending on region?) for South, Central and East England comes from a different study:

"The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population" (2015): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html


Also we have the factor of mixture between the English and Celts over many centuries

The PoBI study tried to minimize effects of recent mixing, by selecting only probands with all 4 grandparents born in the same area each. They also selected to their study only rural people (if I remember correctly), which was also done to minimize effects of mixing in naturally more cosmopolitan urban areas. So that study in fact examined the genetic structure of the British population as it looked like perhaps in the 19th century, not today. Today people from various regions are more mixed with each other than 200 years ago, when populations were less mobile.

Before industrialization and mass urbanization, most people married within a few miles from their village, and didn't travel much. It has only been in the last ~200 years, especially the last century, that we now marry people born dozens or hundreds of miles from our birthplaces.

avalon
07-18-2015, 08:33 PM
This study has endorsed the most reliable approach by using ancient genomes to quantify admixture due to past demographic events. The authors state that "only 20-30% of the ancestry of modern Britons was contributed by Anglo-Saxon immigrants, with the higher number in East England [...]", while the POBI study stated that the Anglo-Saxon contribution to the contemporary English gene pool amounted to roughly 50% (or rather, "between 10-40%"). The main difference is that the latter relies on contemporary populations to quantify the amount of Anglo-Saxon admixture, IMO the use of ancient genomic data is crucial here as it avoids ending up with a blurry model. Needless to say, this is a cautionary tale.

Well actually the POBI study estimated 10-40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry for Central and Southern England which if we take the median of 25% is pretty close to the 30% estimated by this Hinxton ancient genomes study.

Both studies reached a similar figure for Anglo-Saxon ancestry so maybe modern DNA studies aren't so bad after all?

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 09:00 PM
Today people from various regions are more mixed with each other than 200 years ago, when populations were less mobile.

Before industrialization and mass urbanization, most people married within a few miles from their village, and didn't travel much. It has only been in the last ~200 years, especially the last century, that we now marry people born dozens or hundreds of miles from our birthplaces.

To clarify, I'm not saying that there were no long-distance migrations by individuals and entire groups back then. Of course there were, but everything was at a slower pace. And once a migrating group / family settled in a given place, their children and grandchildren usually stayed there and married people from neighbouring villages. Often actually from the same village - Alicja Budnik in a 2005 study about rural Kashubian communities in the Hela Peninsula found out, that in the late 19th century 70% - 80% of marriages were between people from the same village, and only up to 30% were exogamous marriages (between people from different villages). Of course that was an especially endogamous region, due to its isolation (a peninsula), but also in other regions rates of exogamy were much lower in the past. E.g. in modern rural areas of Wielkopolska region, 92% of marriages are exogamous and only 8% are between people from the same village. Here is the study in question (in Polish, with English summary):

http://apsl.edu.pl/spb/pliki/nr1/Budnik.pdf

http://oi58.tinypic.com/jg00v9.jpg

In the last 200 years these processes in all of Europe (first in the west, then in the east) have definitely sped up.

Also religion, language, etc. are no longer such barriers to intermarriage as in the past.

avalon
07-18-2015, 09:04 PM
Yes. I've said something else that wasn't received well. Not only do I think that Brits are no more than 30% Saxon, but that Brits are also up to 30% more recently mixed with other continental sources, including the Irish. That Mediterranean shift is quite obvious, where Iron Age SE England sits by the Irish, and now there is a pretty sizable move towards the continent.

I am not buying this supposed "Mediterranean shift." If we consider migrants to Britain in the last 1000 years; Normans, Flemish, Huguenots, to name the better known, I can't imagine these people contributed 30% to the British gene pool, this puts them on a par with the Anglo-Saxons/Danes. It doesn't seem plausible.

Also, medieval and early modern migrants to Britain were generally from Northern Europe so I don't see the med influence? If there is one then the Romans have to be the obvious source but even then I doubt it was significant.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 09:16 PM
Also, medieval and early modern migrants to Britain were generally from Northern Europe

From Northern Europe but still less northern than Britain itself, i.e. from France, the Netherlands, Belgium, South-West Germany, etc.

Not to mention the Jews such as Ed Miliband, who are autosomally almost fully EEF with some ANE and almost no WHG, like Sardinians.


I am not buying this supposed "Mediterranean shift."

Maybe samples aren't representative, but we can see in that K15 comparison, that modern English are more Med than Iron Age Britons.


If there is one then the Romans have to be the obvious source but even then I doubt it was significant.

Are there estimates on the size of continental-derived population in Roman Britain? Were Roman cities like Londinium inhabited mostly by locals, or mostly by continentals? Were they at least founded by continentals, or did the Romans teach the Celts how to build "Roman-style" cities?

In Roman provinces of Germania Inferior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Inferior) and Germania Superior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Superior), it is estimated, that Roman settlers made up to 10% - 15% of the population* and most of them lived in Roman-established cities and colonies, while natives made up the bulk of rural population. Certainly Gaul, Iberia, as well as other Romance-speaking areas did not adopt Latin "just like that", without any immigration of Latin-speakers from Italy.

*This refers to the 1st century AD (later probably more migrants came) - this info I got from my German friend:

"(...) When the Romans shifted their borderline to the Rhine in the last decades BC, the local Germanic and Celtic tribes (it is often unclear who was Celtic or Germanic) were 'pacified', the areas were controlled by the legions and later on Roman settlers, merchants and clerks moved in. New Roman towns were 'planted' and already existing settlements were often enlarged in new, Roman style. Over the time there was a linguistical change from the native Celtic and Germanic languages to Latin. The local elites often changed their names to Roman names. There are studies based on Roman tombstones which indicate the name of the defunct person, the name of the father, their profession, etc., from the 1st century AD. Therefore we know that about 10 - 15% of the population [of Roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior] were not natives. This refers surely only to the wealthier part of the population that could afford tombstones. So the percentage of immigrants among the total population was probably lower. Those immigrants came from all parts of the Roman Empire, but mainly from Gaul which was Romanized several decades before. Even some "real" Romans from Roma came to Germania, but also Egyptians and Greeks. The centers of Romanization were the cities, the so-called coloniae. Similar processes took place all over the Roman Empire. (...)"

Therefore I really doubt that in Roman-controlled Britain there were no immigrants from other parts of the Empire. They had to be there. People such as North Africans and Syrians certainly migrated to Italy and other parts of the Empire, given that some of them even became emperors.

Merchants from the Eastern Mediterranean travelled throughout all of the Roman Empire and some undoubtedly settled in various areas.

There were quite a lot of Roman-established cities not only in West and South Germany (they are the oldest cities in Germany, since Germanic tribes did not have any before the Romans came - the Celts at least had their so-called oppida, which resembled cities), but also in England:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#Englan d

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#German y

Some of the oldest cities in Germany and Switzerland include Colonia Agrippina (Köln), Mogontiacum (Mainz), Bonna (Bonn), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Noviomagus (Speyer), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Castra Regina (Regensburg), Basilea (Basel), Constantia (Konstanz), Argentoratum (Strasbourg). All established by the Romans, inherited by the Franks who took control over those Roman provinces, and after the split of the Frankish Empire inherited by East Francia, the precursor of the Holy Roman Empire, which subjugated the Saxons, the Bavarians, etc.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-18-2015, 09:18 PM
Because these Iron Age samples we've seen plot with Irish and Orcadians. The Saxons we've seen are more Scandinavian like. Modern SE English are intermediary between the Iron Age ones and basically where Germans and French samples meet.

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 09:38 PM
Well actually the POBI study estimated 10-40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry for Central and Southern England which if we take the median of 25% is pretty close to the 30% estimated by this Hinxton ancient genomes study.

Both studies reached a similar figure for Anglo-Saxon ancestry so maybe modern DNA studies aren't so bad after all?

I'm sure you'll agree that 10-40% is quite a big gap, which is why I used the word "blurry" to describe the model implied here. Ancient DNA is obviously helpful as it enables us to drastically narrow this blurry estimate down.

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 10:07 PM
I'm sure you'll agree that 10-40% is quite a big gap, which is why I used the word "blurry" to describe the model implied here. Ancient DNA is obviously helpful as it enables us to drastically narrow this blurry estimate down.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that this interval is due to regional differences.

I.e. in some parts of England it is only 10%, while in other parts it peaks at 40%.

Maybe I'm wrong though, and maybe this big gap is really due to lack of accuracy.

But ancient DNA is obviously more helpful, I definitely agree with this.

Certainly it is better to use actual Ancient Britons than modern Central Irish as a proxy for them (as Capelli did in 2003).

Tomenable
07-18-2015, 10:30 PM
Slightly off-topic but here is a good reading about the transition from Roman to Germanic rule in the province of Noricum (east of Raetia):

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/70029-transition-roman-barbarian-rule-noricum-ripense-late-5th-century.html

I think it is not totally off-topic because there could be many analogies with the transition from Roman to Anglo-Saxon rule in Britain. Noricum was also abandoned by all Roman legions (which were evacuated), and its inhabitants were left on their own - pretty much like it was in Britain. This article mentions for example, that some part of the population of Noricum sympathized with the invaders, rather than with Rome and its supporters. If such Romano-Britons sympathizing with Anglo-Saxon immigrants existed also in England, they likely voluntarily and easily integrated with them.

This would help explain for example these findings from the Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Oakington: http://oi62.tinypic.com/23j65w7.jpg

=================================

Edit:

The article also suggests, that there was a considerable population continuity in Noricum (like in Britain according to this new aDNA evidence).

The last, 3rd, part of the article:


3. Political Changes in Noricum Ripense in the Second Half of the Fifth Century

3.1 The Period Before 476

In the period before 476, that is before Odovacar deposed the last Western emperor and ruled Italy as king, Noricum Ripense was apparently still an integral part of the Roman Empire. As stated in Chapter 20 of the Vita Severini, the garrisons of the towns along the Danube from Quintanis to Asturis were paid troops, supported by public funds, ie taxation revenue; their pay apparently was sent from Italy, the administrative centre.

However, Roman military power along that section of the border was apparently far less than it had been at the beginning of the Fifth Century. The impression given by the Vita Severini is that very little remained of the forces described in the Notitia Dignitatum, representing the situation around 400. The only regular forces described in the Vita are a small contingent under a tribune at Favianis, the main town of Noricum Ripense, and a “numerus” at Batavis just inside Raetia Secunda. The unit at Favianis was apparently too small and weak to pursue bandits, according to the Vita.

There may have been other units that Eugippius simply did not mention since they played no role in the life of Severinus, and it is possible that he exaggerated the weakness of the temporal power represented by the military in oder to magnify the spiritual power of Severinus as the salvation of the people of the province. For example, at the beginning of Chapter 20 it is stated that when the Roman Empire was still in existence, ie until 476, there were soldiers in many towns guarding the border defences supported by public money; the implication is that the border garrisons were still there during the period immediately after the arrival of Severinus.

Nevertheless, Roman power was now too weak to prevent the capture and destruction of Asturis as described in Chapter 1 of the Vita; that was probably the work of Ostrogoths from Pannonia Prima, which had been occupied by that tribe after the collapse of the Hun hegemony in 453. Bands of Ostrogoths could also raid the environs of Favianis with comparative impunity and capture people and cattle, as related in Chapter 4 of the Vita.

Eugippius does not mention the Danube fleet, although navigation on the river was common according to the Vita Severini, so it may be supposed that it was no longer in existence. Furthermore, the border fortifications were apparently in a state of disrepair; the Burgum one mile from Favianis to which Severinus is described as withdrawing for hermetic isolation in Chapter 4 was probably the ruin of a watchtower.

Defence of the frontier seems to have devolved to some extent onto the Rugi, a Germanic people which had entered into an alliance with Rome after gaining its independence following the collapse of Hun power. The Rugi settled north of the Danube, that is just beyond the border of the Empire, where they had a protective function. The residence of their kings seems to have been near the northern bank of the river, not far from the modern Krems, opposite Favianis. The Rugi seem to have stayed largely on their own side of the river, since Severinus is represented as crossing over from Favianis to meet them.

It seems to have been the power of the Rugi that prevented the Ostrogoths from moving westward in force from their base in Pannonia Prima, apart from isolated groups. In the period before 476, Asturis was the only town of Noricum Ripense that was actually conquered and destroyed by the Ostrogoths; other incursions were only raids to seize plunder outside the protection of the fortified towns. There was much friction between the Rugi and the related Ostrogoths. In 468, the leaders of the Ostrogoths felt strong enough to deny the Rugian king, Flaccitheus, passage through Noricum Mediterraneum to Italy, as related in Chapter 5 of the Vita Severini. In 469, Flaccitheus, together with other Germanic tribes, engaged in a war against the Ostrogoths, but he and his allies were defeated near the river Bolia. The power of the Rugi was temporarily weakened, and Rugians were occasionally kidnapped by Ostrogoths, as described in Chapter 5. However, a few years later, the Ostrogoths left Pannonia and went partly westwards, partly (with their main force) southwards, where they settled again in the province of Moesia. En route, they besieged Tiburnia, the capital of Noricum Mediterraneum, in 473, as described in Chapter 17. (As part of the peace settlement ending the siege, the Ostrogoths forced the citizens of Tiburnia to hand over a collection of clothing intended as charity for the people under the care of Severinus, thus indicating how poor the barbarians were).

One of the tribes that had fought against the Ostrogoths was the Sciri. After their defeat, a number of them went to Italy as mercenaries, among them the young Odovacar. Chapter 7 describes how, passing through Noricum Ripense, he visited Severinus and received his blessing.

After the departure of the Ostrogoths, the pressure on the Rugi and on the people of Noricum Ripense was relieved. The Vita Severini depicts largely good relations between the Rugi and the Romans of the province and a degree of stability and order, attributed by Eugippius to the reverence in which Severinus was held by Flaccitheus and later by his son Feletheus or Feva, who succeeded him in about 475. The Rugi played the role of protectors of the Romani against the less civilised Germanic tribes, the Alamanni, Heruli and Thoringi, who appear in the Vita Severini purely as plunderers. Part of the reason for that role was that, while those tribes were still pagan, the Rugians had become Christian, perhaps through missionaries from the Goths. However, they had adopted the Arian form of Christianity, which could be a source of conflict with the Catholic Romans of Noricum as much as a bond. It appears that Severinus was able to play down the religious conflict, and it may be that Eugippius, reflecting the conditions of his own time, exaggerated the conflict between Catholic Romans and Arian Rugians.

The Rugians were not uncivilised, although their civilisation was less developed than that of the Roman province. The royal family must have spoken Latin, since there is no mention of an interpreter in the many conversations between them and Severinus. By contrast, the negotiations with the Alamannic king Gibuld related in Chapter 19 were through an intermediary who may have been an Arian cleric. The relatively high material culture of the Rugian noble class is represented by the presence at the royal residence of barbarian goldsmiths who in strict and hard custody work for the crown-treasure, as described in Chapter 8.

Despite the alliance and generally good relations, the Rugi could be hard masters, in the manner of a military class ruling over a civilian population protected by them. Chapter 8 relates how hard conditions were imposed on the Romans, including sending numbers of them across the Danube to work as servants, and how there were attempts to force conversion to Arianism. Eugippius attributes those negative features of Rugian rule entirely to the “wicked” Queen Giso, wife of Feletheus, but that might not represent the true situation. It is entirely likely that the Rugians as a whole sought to exploit their position as military defenders of the Roman frontier to improve their standard of living by extorting labour services from the civilian population. They may also have extorted food supplies; in Chapter 17 it is stated that the people suffer a lack of food under the harsh rule of the barbarians. It is possible that the picture of their harsh rule refers more to the period after 476, when the Rugians seem to have been left as the sole rulers of the province.

Another indication that the barbarian allies of the Romans could be a burden as well as a help to the population of the province occurs in Chapters 1 and 2, with the description of the expulsion of the barbarian garrison of Comagenis. The garrison was there under a treaty or “foedus”, and held the town under strict occupation, controlling entry and exit. Presumably these particular barbarians were not Rugi, as their role is described in a totally negative way in the Vita Severini, in contrast to the depiction of good relations with the Rugi, and they were probably Ostrogoths. However, it appears that the garrison was under the command of Roman officers who held the keys to the town-gates and obviously granted Severinus free access.

By contrast with the military structure, the civilian administration, both at the provincial and town level, had apparently disappeared. The role of the civilian governors appears to have been taken over by the Church authorities. For example, it is Paulinus, the bishop of Noricum Mediterraneum, stationed at Tiburnia, who, as related in Chapter 25 receives letters of warning from Severinus about an invasion of the Alamanni in 473 and sends instructions to the forts of the diocese. Severinus himself is described as exercising some sort of temporal authority in addition to his religious mission, negotiating with the Rugian kings and organising the support of the poorer sections of the civilian population through the imposition of tithes.

At this point it is useful to speculate on what exactly the mission of Severinus was. The “memorandum” says nothing about his background or origin, except to say that he came from the East. In the letter from Eugippius to Paschasius, the question of the origin of Severinus is discussed. It is stated there that one Primenius, a noble priest of Italy who had taken refuge in Noricum after Odovacar’s seizure of power, had asked Severinus from which province he had come, but Severinus replied that such earthly considerations were of no importance, and the only important thing was that God had ordered him to come to the people in their hour of need. Eugippius further states that Severinus was a pure Latin as shown by his speech, had earlier in his life gone to a desert in the East to follow the life of a hermit, and later, compelled by divine revelation, had gone to the towns of Noricum Ripense which were afflicted by frequent raids of the barbarians.

Those hints have led to suggestions that the mission of Severinus was secular as well as religious, that in his earlier life he had been a person from the upper class with some experience of administration, probably in the upper Danube region, that he had experienced a religious and conversion and gone to live in the desert, and had been recalled to Noricum in order to take over the leadership of the people in the absence of a functioning civilian administration. It is also suggested that he had connections to the family of Orestes, the father of the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus, which originated from Poetovio in the southeast of Noricum, and that Orestes might have been instrumental in bringing Severinus back to the province.

Such suggestions are pure speculation and cannot be proved one way or the other. It obvious from the incidents described in the Vita that Severinus did play a temporal role as well as the spiritual role of preaching to the people. His role as the founder and organiser of monasteries in Noricum was both spiritual and temporal, since the monasteries are shown as performing administrative functions. It is possible that Eugippius, writing from a monastic point of view, chose to attribute the success of Severinus as an administrator and as a protector against the enemies of Rome purely to divine intervention resulting from the spiritual weapons of prayer and penance, and ignored secular elements in the actions of Severinus, such as political and administrative experience and possibly military ability.

With regard to the economic situation at the time, the Vita Severini paints the picture of a mainly agricultural society, in which town life and the specialised economic activities associated with the town have largely disappeared. Although towns still exist, they are essentially walled fortresses, places of refuge to which the people go with their goods and their cattle when there is an incursion by the enemy. The inhabitants of the towns are depicted as the owners of fields outside, and appear to be primarily peasants who sometimes live in the towns.

For example, Chapter 10 describes Maurus, janitor of the basilica of the monastery of Favianis, going outside the town with another man to pick fruit, presumably in an orchard belonging to the monastery. Chapter 12 describes the people of Cucullis as owning fields that are threatened by locusts. Chapter 14 tells how a woman of Iuvao, healed by Severinus, goes out to work in the fields with her own hands in accordance with the custom of the province (indicating that readers in more developed Italy might think it strange that a town-dweller would do agricultural work). Chapter 22 has all the inhabitants of Batavis outside the town working at the harvest, leaving only a garrison of 40 men. In Chapter 30, the people of Lauriacum bring their cattle within the walls so that they will not be seized by the enemy.

Despite the essentially agrarian nature of the economy of the province, it was not entirely self-sufficient, and still depended to some extent on trade. Food was brought from the province of Raetia Secunda by boats travelling down the River Inn to the Danube and down to Favianis, as related in Chapter 3. Oil was also imported, although later its importation became more difficult. There was also significant trade between Romans and Rugians. The latter held weekly markets on their side of the Danube, which were frequented by the Romans as a matter of course.

In winter, when the Danube was frozen, the ice was crossed by cartloads of goods; at other times, cross-river traffic was by boats. The Danube was the main artery of the country for the conveyance of both goods and passengers, eg the bringing of food to Favianis already referred to, and the journey of Severinus by boat from Boiotro to Favianis, a journey of 149 Roman miles. The attraction of the Rugian markets is demonstrated by the request of the people of Boiotro that Severinus should obtain for them permission to trade from King Feva, as related in Chapter 22.

Connections with Italy were still fairly good, as shown by the regular exchange of letters, for example between Severinus and the Lady Barbaria. Holy relics, eg of the Milanese martyrs Gervasius and Protasius and of St John the Baptist were sent to Severinus; although Eugippius describes the arrival of the relics in miraculous terms, it is likely that they were sent by the Church authorities in Italy by arrangement with Severinus, in order to maintain the authority of the Church in the embattled border province of Noricum Ripense.

Connections were also good between Noricum Ripense and Noricum Mediterraneum, as shown by the correspondence between Severinus and the heads of the Church in the latter province, and the regular despatch of tithes and material aid from Noricum Mediterraneum to Severinus.

The people of Noricum Ripense, as described in the Vita Severini, seem to have been mostly free peasants with small to medium landholdings. A large proportion of them seems to have been impoverished, since the Vita constantly refers to “the poor” and hunger is described as a major problem. Severinus is described as instituting a system of social support, based on the tithe, which he seems to have been the first to introduce in the West. The monasteries played the main part in performing that charitable work, and thus became an important social institution. The charitable activities of Severinus reduced social tensions and increased the solidarity of the population.

3.2 The Period After 476

The main feature of the period after 476 is the complete breakdown of the military organisation and the defence of the border due to the cessation of financial support from the central government in Italy after the seizure of power by Odovacar. That removed the barrier to incursions by barbarian enemies, the most dangerous now being the Alamanni coming from the West. Whereas before 476, apart from the capture of Asturis, the barbarian menace had been limited to raids for the purpose of capturing food and prisoners for ransom, now the Germanic tribes were able to conquer towns and take entire populations captive, eventually leading to the Roman withdrawal from Noricum Ripense.

The crucial evidence occurs in Chapter 20 of the Vita Severini, where it is stated: “At the time when the Roman Empire was still in existence, the soldiers of many towns were supported by public money for their watch along the wall. When this arrangement ceased, the military formations were dissolved and, at the same time, the wall was allowed to break down. The garrison of Batavis, however, still held out”. The passage goes on to describe how some members of the garrison then set off for Italy to fetch the last payment of salary, but were ambushed and killed by barbarians on the way.

The implication is that Odovacar, after deposing Romulus Augustulus and taking power in Italy, ceased sending pay to the soldiers on the Danube frontier, perhaps because he wanted to consolidate his resources in order to defend his position in Italy. The episode described in the Vita Severini may actually have been more general; the garrisons in a number of towns may have sought their pay, and then simply disbanded when they were unable to obtain it. It appears that some of the Roman soldiers then took service with the Rugian king; chapter 44 mentions a soldier called Avitianus, a Roman judging by his name, who is in the service of Ferderuchus and sent by him to seize holy objects from the monastery of Severinus.

There are other indications in the Vita Severini that suggest that Odovacar’s writ did not run in Noricum Ripense. For example, the area seems to have become a refuge for supporters of the father of Romulus Augustulus, Orestes, who was killed by Odovacar. One of those refugees was the priest Primenius from Italy, of whom it is said in the Letter of Eugippius to Paschasius that he sought the protection of Severinus for fear of the murderers of Orestes. If the speculation that Severinus had a connection to the family of Orestes in Poetovio is correct, that would explain why partisans of Orestes took refuge in Noricum Ripense, where Severinus apparently exercised some sort of temporal authority.

However, that does not mean that there was hostility between Odovacar and Severinus. Chapter 32 relates how Odovacar wrote to Severinus offering him a choice of petition, and Severinus requested that he pardon a certain Ambrosius, apparently another refugee. Furthermore, that same chapter describes some nobles praising Odovacar in the presence of Severinus, indicating that Odovacar had supporters among the ruling class of Noricum Ripense. It was probably just that Odovacar simply did not have the resources to provide for the defence of the province, and left it to its own devices.

The main threat now came from the Alamanni; Chapter 19 speaks of their frequent invasions in the region of Batavis. At first, Severinus had some influence over that people; in the same chapter it is stated that their king, Gibuldus, honoured and loved Severinus, and could be intimidated by him into refraining from further attacks on Roman territory and into releasing all the Roman prisoners held by his people.

However, that influence does not seem to have lasted long, since the Alamanni and/or other barbarians soon began to attack Batavis again, as related in Chapter 22, where a small force under Hunumundus captures the town while the inhabitants are out in the fields working on the harvest. From then on, the Vita does not show Severinus exerting any influence over the barbarians, but rather prophesying destruction and urging the population to retreat downstream progressively.

Although according to Eugippius the influence wielded by Severinus over Gibuldus is purely spiritual, it may that in fact it was the temporal power of Rome that stood behind Severinus that was decisive in deterring attacks by the Alamanni. When that power evaporated due to the dissolution of the military as related in Chapter 20, the ability of Severinus to influence the barbarians seems to have disappeared also. A number of episodes show that the barbarians were not intimidated by the spiritual power of the clergy; Chapter 22 shows the barbarians of Hunumundus pursuing a priest into the baptistery of Batavis and killing him there, Chapter 24 describes the Heruli making a sudden attack on Ioviaco and crucifying a priest. Needless to say, Eugippius describes those priests as evil men who had disobeyed Severinus and thereby, in his hagiographical view, had lost the sort of spiritual power that Severinus possessed.

The course of events shows a progressive abandonment of the towns to the barbarians and a retreat downstream. First Quintanis is abandoned, as related in Chapter 27, and the inhabitants flee to Batavis; then Batavis is also abandoned, at the urging of Severinus, and most of the people move to Lauriacum. Chapter 31 describes how Lauriacum was then abandoned, and the population moved to the area around Favianis, under Rugian protection. Finally, in 488, the town population was evacuated to Italy. The whole process of the collapse of Roman control and occupation of the province of Noricum Ripense therefore took place over a period of 12 years.

However, as the Vita Severini shows, the retreat of the town population downstream was not entirely voluntary. Chapter 22 shows the inhabitants of Batavis and Boiotro, led by a priest, defying Severinus when tells them that it is useless to seek to continue to trade since the town will soon be abandoned, and ordering him out; the capture of the town by Hunumundus is portrayed as a punishment for disobedience. Chapter 24 describes some of the people of Ioviaco disobeying the order of Severinus to leave that place, and suffering the punishment of being taken prisoner by the Heruli. Chapter 27 shows some of the people of Batavis refusing to leave their native soil, and being killed or taken prisoner by the Thoringi.

The reluctance of part of the people to leave their places of abode as ordered by Severinus, who appears to be acting as a temporal rather than a spiritual leader, is probably to be explained by the custom that when free persons abandoned their own lands and were resettled on lands belonging to other owners, they lost their freedom and became “coloni”, or a sort of serf bound to the owners of the land. Some of the people, most probably the poorer peasants who had less to lose, preferred to remain and take their chances with the barbarians, whose purpose was not extermination but the acquisition of land together with a population to work it.

The operation of the above-mentioned custom is most clearly indicated in Chapter 31, which describes Feletheus, king of the Rugi, coming to Lauriacum with his army for the purpose of evacuating the population and resettling them in territory under his control, including the city of Favianis. The people of Lauriacum are upset by that, and ask Severinus to intercede with the king on their behalf. At first sight, that reaction seems strange, since after all the aim of Feletheus, as he explicitly states, is to give them refuge from the barbarian attacks to which Lauriacum has been subjected. However, their dismay is understandable when it is realised that the proposed resettlement in towns subject to the Rugi would entail their becoming serfs of the Rugian king. In the event, Severinus negotiates an agreement whereby the Romans in his care are resettled in the towns of the Rugi but retain their personal freedom, living as equals with the Rugi rather than as their subjects.

The dissolution of the regular Roman army after 476 meant that the inhabitants of Noricum Ripense were thrown back on their own resources for defence against the invading Alamanni, Thoringi and Heruli. New military units must have been formed, consisting of remnants of the dissolved army and new recruits from among the Roman population. The Vita Severini (Chapter 27) shows the people of Batavis forming an armed force that went into battle against the besieging Alamanni and defeating them. Chapter 30 shows the townspeople of Lauriacum sending out scouts to detect the approach of the enemy, and also defending their walls and scaring off an attacking force.

The disappearance of a military power controlled from Italy, and the devolution of the civil power onto religious leaders such as Severinus, led to a change in the relationship between the Rugians and the Roman population of Noricum Ripense. Formerly, the Rugians had been allies of the Empire, and had more or less stayed on the northern bank of the Danube as a forward defence force, although the Vita Severini shows that they had close commercial ties with the Roman population on the south bank. After 476, king Feletheus seems to have taken advantage of the power vacuum to extend his power to the south bank, establishing a sort of protectorate over the Roman population and reducing them to the status of tribute-paying subjects.

Chapter 31 states that a number of towns of Noricum Ripense, including Favianis, now paid tribute to Feletheus. Chapter 42 states that Favianis had been given to Ferderuchus, the brother of Feletheus, apparently as a fief in some sort of quasi-feudal arrangement. Rugian control seems to have extended as far west as Lauriacum, but did not include that town, since its inhabitants did not want to migrate into Rugian territory.

The rule of the Rugian royal family over the remaining Roman towns can be described as an incipient feudalism, with the actual administration being carried out in their name by Roman officials. In Chapter 44, for example, there is a reference to a steward of Ferderuchus who is ordered to seize the holy objects from the monastery of Severinus after the latter’s death; his refusal to do so suggests that he was a Roman and a Catholic. As previously stated, remnants of the Roman army entered the service of the Rugian kings, which was not unusual in the various Germanic kingdoms formed on former Roman territory with a Roman population. The Romans native to the area of Rugian control had to pay tribute to their overlords, but apparently did not lose their personal freedom; even the refugees moving into the area retained their freedom under the deal negotiated by Severinus, and were not treated as captives.

After about 480, the centre of gravity of Roman civilisation in Noricum Ripense became concentrated into the area under Rugian control, that is Favianis and its environs. The connection with Noricum Mediterraneum remained intact, since at the time of the death of Severinus his monastery at Favianis contained stores of clothes and other goods for distribution to the poor; as related elsewhere in the Vita, these goods had been brought across the Tauern Alps from Noricum Mediterraneum.

After the death of Severinus in 482, the situation of the Roman population began to deteriorate, and some Rugian magnates began to act in an arrogant manner, treating the Romans as a conquered people who could be plundered at will. Chapter 44 describes the plundering of the monastery at Favianis by Ferderuchus; Eugippius expresses the thoroughness of the looting by writing, sarcastically, that Ferderuchus did not take the walls as he was unable to ship them across the Danube.

It appears that there were two factions at the Rugian court, in so far as the treatment of the Roman population was concerned. King Feletheus appears as a relative moderate, who treated the Romans with a light hand, and was prepared to resettle the incoming refugees on conditions of equality. On the other hand, there was a radical group led by Queen Giso and Ferderuchus, which was more hostile to the Romans, sought to exploit them and reduce them to servitude, and also seems to have been motivated as Arians by a hostility to the Catholic Church.

The Rugian protectorate lasted for little of a decade, and was extinguished by the two military expeditions of Odovacar in 487 and 488. Eugippius gives as Odovacar’s reason for this expedition the murder of Ferderuchus by Feva’s son, Fredericus. That is improbable, and contradicted by the chronology of the events; according to the Vita, the murder of Ferderuchus occurred within a month of the death of Severinus in 482, whereas the first expedition by Odovacar took place in 487.

Odovacar’s invasion was not a punitive expedition, but rather a result of the political intrigues of the time. Odovacar had never been recognised as king of Italy by the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople, Zeno (474-491), who took the position that on the deposition of Romulus Augustulus the separation of the Empire had ended and authority over all the territory of the Western Emperors reverted to him. Odovacar was accepted by Zeno only as regent (patricius), administering Italy in the name of the Emperor. When Odovacar began to prepare an invasion of Dalmatia, Zeno sought to divert him by inciting Feletheus to invade Italy. That was prevented by Odoacar’s attack in 487. During a battle on the Danube, Feva and Giso were captured (Chapter 44 of the Vita); they were sent to Italy and later put to death. Fredericus escaped, but soon returned to the Rugian country. In 488, Odovacar sent his brother Hunwulf (called Onoulfus in the Vita) to the Danube with a large army to finish off Fredericus, who was again defeated and fled to the headquarters of the Ostrogoth king, Theoderic, at Novae in Moesia (as stated previously, the mother of Fridericus, Giso, was probably a member of the Ostrogothic royal family).

Zeno then incited Theoderic to invade Italy and overthrow Odovacar, which occurred between 489 and 493. Theoderic may also have been motivated by a plea for revenge from his kinsman Fredericus. The intention of the Eastern Emperor was that Theoderic, after destroying the power of Odovacar, should administer Italy as his representative, but Theoderic set up an independent kingdom that lasted until its overthrow by Justinian more than 40 years later.

The Rugi were largely destroyed in Odovacar’s two invasions. Their remnants joined the Ostrogoths and took part in the invasion of Italy under Theoderic. They were settled in Italy as a group separate from the Ostrogoths, and disappear from history after the reconquest by Justinian. The emigration of the Rugi left a vacuum that was filled by the expanding power of the Heruli, which finally ended Roman rule in Noricum Ripense.

It was in this period that the evacuation to Italy of the Roman population of Noricum Ripense took place, as described in the Vita Severini. According to chapter 44, Onoulfus, at the time of the second expedition in 488, acting on the instructions of Odovacar his brother, ordered all the Romans to emigrate to Italy. The evacuation was led by Count Pierius, obviously a high Roman military and political official in Odovacar’s service.

Eugippius represents the evacuation as the salvation of the Roman population, akin to the exodus of the Israelites from their Egyptian bondage. But the historical truth may be somewhat different. The attitude of the Roman population in the war between Odovacar and Feletheus is unknown, but it is possible that it sympathised with the Rugians, at least in part. Chapter 32 has Severinus predicting the end of the reign of Odovacar, which may indicate the existence of opposition to that king; on the other hand, the prediction is given in response to the praising of Odovacar by a group of nobles, which seems to indicate support for him by part of the ruling class. It is also possible that Odovacar distrusted the Roman population of Noricum Ripense since it had had good relations with Feletheus, and Roman soldiers had served in the Rugian army. Furthermore, Odovacar was now effectively at war with the Emperor Zeno, with whom the Romans of Noricum Ripense could be expected to sympathise.

It is therefore possible that the evacuation of the Roman population was not so much a salvation as a punishment. If Odovacar distrusted the Romans because of their closeness to the Rugians, who had become allies of the Emperor Zeno, he may have wanted to bring them to Italy where they could be kept under control. The wording in the Vita is significant in that it indicates compulsion; Onoulfus “ordered” the Romans to emigrate (“universos iussit ad Italiam migrare Romanos”), they were “compelled” to leave by Pierius (“universi per comitem Pierium compellerentur exire”). Whatever the reason for the evacuation, it signalled the end of the Roman presence on the upper Danube.

3.3 The Period After 488

Eugippius gives the impression that all the population of the province (“omnes incolae”) left in the course of the evacuation. However, he states that the order was given to the “Romans”, and it is possible that that term included only the landowners, the merchants, the clergy, the monks, the few remaining officials and others whose livelihood depended on Roman rule. The tradition of Severinus preserved by his monks, in which he is presented as predicting the evacuation several times, indicates that the monks in particular were supporters of the emigration. It is possible that a large part of the emigrants consisted of those who had previously fled to the area of Rugian control from the upstream towns abandoned earlier, and who did not have firm roots in the country.

Accordingly, it is likely that a part of the population, in particular the poorer peasants, chose to stay behind on their land and put up with their new masters. A certain continuity of habitation is demonstrated by archaeological finds and by the persistence of place-names such as Quintanis-Kuenzing, Batavis-Passau, Lentia-Linz, Lauriacum-Lorch, Cucullis-Kuchl. Continuity of habitation is particularly evident in Raetia and Noricum west of the Enns; Lauriacum seems to have held out, despite the statement in Chapter 31 of the Vita that its population was all evacuated to Rugian territory. Likewise, the population west of Lauriacum that had not participated in the flight downriver remained under Alamannic rule.

In Noricum Ripense east of the Enns, that is in the territory controlled by the Rugians, continuity of habitation is less apparent. There the towns seem to have been completely abandoned, but not so the countryside. The results of archaeology therefore bear out the account of an evacuation of the eastern part of Noricum Ripense.

West of the Enns there was also cultural continuity. Until the Middle Ages the Romance-speaking population retained Christianity, Roman legal concepts, and certain elements in music and painting. Salzburg and Passau are thought to have still had a Romance-speaking population in the eighth century, from which the composers of early charters were drawn. The fact that the name “Norici” was used in reference to the Bavarians indicates the survival of a substantial Romance population in that area.

Agamemnon
07-18-2015, 10:31 PM
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that this interval is due to regional differences.

I.e. in some parts of England it is only 10%, while in other parts it peaks at 40%.

Maybe I'm wrong though, and maybe this big gap is really due to lack of accuracy.

But ancient DNA is obviously more helpful, I definitely agree with this.

Certainly it is better to use actual Ancient Britons than modern Central Irish as a proxy for them (as Capelli did in 2003).

Going off this study, the use of ancient genomes already rules out two possibilities, namely the 10% and 40% contribution estimates implied by Leslie et al. 2015. Coming up with such a figure in the first place just goes on to prove that the use of contemporary data as proxies is indeed bound to produce inaccurate results... At best! The Isles have the advantage of being a genetic "sink" of sorts, so a rough estimate was bound to have some truth to it at this point (even if that includes a big gap), nevertheless I'd be surprised if this were also true for other populations (Eastern European data should prove helpful in gauging the validity of models grounded in contemporary data).

alan
07-19-2015, 12:29 AM
I am not buying this supposed "Mediterranean shift." If we consider migrants to Britain in the last 1000 years; Normans, Flemish, Huguenots, to name the better known, I can't imagine these people contributed 30% to the British gene pool, this puts them on a par with the Anglo-Saxons/Danes. It doesn't seem plausible.

Also, medieval and early modern migrants to Britain were generally from Northern Europe so I don't see the med influence? If there is one then the Romans have to be the obvious source but even then I doubt it was significant.

I am a believer that there was a Latinate speaking population in lowland Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Britons were an awkward patchwork of Latin and Celtic areas with geography, former urban/rural and class playing into this. I also believe the Latinised population was probably the one that suffered most from the Anglo-Saxons. The places where sophisticated Roman life, towns, villas etc never made much impact were relatively resistant - Scotland, Wales, Dumnonia, the Pennines etc. I suspect that this Romanised population had a significant Roman empire input that the more non-Romanised areas lacked. Virtually any input into Britain other than from the northern coasts of Europe (much of which was beyond the empire) would have pulled the autosomal DNA plot southwards. The only part of the empire with as northern autosomal DNA as the isles was probably the north coast of Gaul. All other incomers from the Roman empire would have dragged the plot south.

ADW_1981
07-19-2015, 12:52 AM
Exactly. You have the Danes, Normans, and Protestants entering Britain, which likely have ancestry from similar groups, which weren't really Saxons. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if no one in England is above 30% Anglo-Saxon.

Protestants? Unfortunately, both the earlier Britons and slightly later Anglo-Saxons all yielded to their Roman Catholic masters. (At least in later AS periods when they were predominantly Christian in Britain)

alan
07-19-2015, 12:52 AM
From Northern Europe but still less northern than Britain itself, i.e. from France, the Netherlands, Belgium, South-West Germany, etc.

Not to mention the Jews such as Ed Miliband, who are autosomally almost fully EEF with some ANE and almost no WHG, like Sardinians.



Maybe samples aren't representative, but we can see in that K15 comparison, that modern English are more Med than Iron Age Britons.



Are there estimates on the size of continental-derived population in Roman Britain? Were Roman cities like Londinium inhabited mostly by locals, or mostly by continentals? Were they at least founded by continentals, or did the Romans teach the Celts how to build "Roman-style" cities?

In Roman provinces of Germania Inferior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Inferior) and Germania Superior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Superior), it is estimated, that Roman settlers made up to 10% - 15% of the population* and most of them lived in Roman-established cities and colonies, while natives made up the bulk of rural population. Certainly Gaul, Iberia, as well as other Romance-speaking areas did not adopt Latin "just like that", without any immigration of Latin-speakers from Italy.

*This refers to the 1st century AD (later probably more migrants came) - this info I got from my German friend:

"(...) When the Romans shifted their borderline to the Rhine in the last decades BC, the local Germanic and Celtic tribes (it is often unclear who was Celtic or Germanic) were 'pacified', the areas were controlled by the legions and later on Roman settlers, merchants and clerks moved in. New Roman towns were 'planted' and already existing settlements were often enlarged in new, Roman style. Over the time there was a linguistical change from the native Celtic and Germanic languages to Latin. The local elites often changed their names to Roman names. There are studies based on Roman tombstones which indicate the name of the defunct person, the name of the father, their profession, etc., from the 1st century AD. Therefore we know that about 10 - 15% of the population [of Roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior] were not natives. This refers surely only to the wealthier part of the population that could afford tombstones. So the percentage of immigrants among the total population was probably lower. Those immigrants came from all parts of the Roman Empire, but mainly from Gaul which was Romanized several decades before. Even some "real" Romans from Roma came to Germania, but also Egyptians and Greeks. The centers of Romanization were the cities, the so-called coloniae. Similar processes took place all over the Roman Empire. (...)"

Therefore I really doubt that in Roman-controlled Britain there were no immigrants from other parts of the Empire. They had to be there. People such as North Africans and Syrians certainly migrated to Italy and other parts of the Empire, given that some of them even became emperors.

Merchants from the Eastern Mediterranean travelled throughout all of the Roman Empire and some undoubtedly settled in various areas.

There were quite a lot of Roman-established cities not only in West and South Germany (they are the oldest cities in Germany, since Germanic tribes did not have any before the Romans came - the Celts at least had their so-called oppida, which resembled cities), but also in England:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#Englan d

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#German y

Some of the oldest cities in Germany and Switzerland include Colonia Agrippina (Köln), Mogontiacum (Mainz), Bonna (Bonn), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Noviomagus (Speyer), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Castra Regina (Regensburg), Basilea (Basel), Constantia (Konstanz), Argentoratum (Strasbourg). All established by the Romans, inherited by the Franks who took control over those Roman provinces, and after the split of the Frankish Empire inherited by East Francia, the precursor of the Holy Roman Empire, which subjugated the Saxons, the Bavarians, etc.

Totally agree. As well as the normal Roman towns, there were Colonia (settlements of retired military veterans) in Britain such as Lincoln, Colchester and Gloucester. Think York too was at one time one but am not certain. Then you had the massive military presence along the walls and elsewhere. Am pretty certain the Roman towns would have had a continental element of some sort. I dont think it was huge but perhaps enough to explain the less northern autosomal DNA of present England and Iron Age Britons in England. There were few areas in the empire where settlers could have come from which today (even with the extra Germanic layers of post-Roman times) match the northernness of Iron Age Britons and modern Irish and Scots in autosomal terms. I think while it was a small minority in all probability, we should not write off the Roman empire population input into lowland Britain.

ADW_1981
07-19-2015, 01:03 AM
I wonder about Pictish DNA. They eventually got assimilated by various Scottish groups, but a distinct Pictish identity apparently still existed as late as the 12th century:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/84532-what-happened-celts-non-present-day-celtic-nations-31.html

"The Picts defeated the Angles in 685AD and pushed their frontier down towards the Firth of Forth. The Northumbrians did not recover from this defeat but the Picts were still around until their king Áed, was murdered and replaced by a Gael - Giric in 878AD. Pictland ceased to exist by around 900AD."

However:

"The Picts last enter history in 1138, when Saint Ælred, abbot of Rievaulx, describes Pictish Galwegians 'bristling with arrows' alongside Scots at the Battle of the Standard."

The physical type of the Pict contrasts many of the people of Scotland today, whom I can only assume have Gael ancestry. Red haired and large framed/boned (Pict) is very different from the somewhat stocky brunette type I see among many Scottish today. (Gael?)

alan
07-19-2015, 01:19 AM
The physical type of the Pict contrasts many of the people of Scotland today, whom I can only assume have Gael ancestry. Red haired and large framed/boned (Pict) is very different from the somewhat stocky brunette type I see among many Scottish today. (Gael?)

No if you look at the long standing rural populations of Scotland, its long been recognised that the west coast Scots including west Highlanders and the south-west lowlands are taller (though darker haired) than the east coast people (who are northerly lowlanders). Even 19th century anthropologists commented on this. Poorer city people tend to be short but that is more to do with diet, stress, illness, environment etc and a couple of generations of more affluence usually makes them sprout up in height.

Chad Rohlfsen
07-19-2015, 01:30 AM
Protestants? Unfortunately, both the earlier Britons and slightly later Anglo-Saxons all yielded to their Roman Catholic masters. (At least in later AS periods when they were predominantly Christian in Britain)

I'm talking about the religious wars that led to a mass migration of Protestants to places like Britain. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Edit: btw, the Roman Empire didn't embrace Christianity until the last century in Britain.

alan
07-19-2015, 01:36 AM
Actually I recall a study that indicated that in Scotland Gaelic was associated with a rise in both dark and red hair at the expense of blond/light brown. I think that mix of higher amounts of both dark brown and red hair is typical of the more Gaelic areas of both Scotland and Ireland. The reason for this is Scots and Irish, although predominantly brown haired, carry vast amounts of the red hair genes even if it is just a single copy in most cases and doesnt express itself in red head hair. If I recall correctly nearly half the population carry at least on copy. Its commonly observed that redheads seem to pop up in dark haired families more than families with mousey and blonde hair.

alan
07-19-2015, 01:39 AM
I'm talking about the religious wars that led to a mass migration of Protestants to places like Britain. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

yes I found that baffling too since all early Christianity in Europe came from Roman roots and protestantism didnt exist until over 1000 years later.

alan
07-19-2015, 01:42 AM
I'm talking about the religious wars that led to a mass migration of Protestants to places like Britain. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Edit: btw, the Roman Empire didn't embrace Christianity until the last century in Britain.

AFAIK the only large group of continental Protestants to come to Britain was the Huguenots from France. Some Moravian Germans too.

MitchellSince1893
07-19-2015, 02:03 AM
...Are there estimates on the size of continental-derived population in Roman Britain? Were Roman cities like Londinium inhabited mostly by locals, or mostly by continentals? Were they at least founded by continentals, or did the Romans teach the Celts how to build "Roman-style" cities?

In Roman provinces of Germania Inferior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Inferior) and Germania Superior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Superior), it is estimated, that Roman settlers made up to 10% - 15% of the population* and most of them lived in Roman-established cities and colonies, while natives made up the bulk of rural population. Certainly Gaul, Iberia, as well as other Romance-speaking areas did not adopt Latin "just like that", without any immigration of Latin-speakers from Italy.

*This refers to the 1st century AD (later probably more migrants came) - this info I got from my German friend:

"(...) When the Romans shifted their borderline to the Rhine in the last decades BC, the local Germanic and Celtic tribes (it is often unclear who was Celtic or Germanic) were 'pacified', the areas were controlled by the legions and later on Roman settlers, merchants and clerks moved in. New Roman towns were 'planted' and already existing settlements were often enlarged in new, Roman style. Over the time there was a linguistical change from the native Celtic and Germanic languages to Latin. The local elites often changed their names to Roman names. There are studies based on Roman tombstones which indicate the name of the defunct person, the name of the father, their profession, etc., from the 1st century AD. Therefore we know that about 10 - 15% of the population [of Roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior] were not natives. This refers surely only to the wealthier part of the population that could afford tombstones. So the percentage of immigrants among the total population was probably lower. Those immigrants came from all parts of the Roman Empire, but mainly from Gaul which was Romanized several decades before. Even some "real" Romans from Roma came to Germania, but also Egyptians and Greeks. The centers of Romanization were the cities, the so-called coloniae. Similar processes took place all over the Roman Empire. (...)"

Therefore I really doubt that in Roman-controlled Britain there were no immigrants from other parts of the Empire. They had to be there. People such as North Africans and Syrians certainly migrated to Italy and other parts of the Empire, given that some of them even became emperors.

Merchants from the Eastern Mediterranean travelled throughout all of the Roman Empire and some undoubtedly settled in various areas.

There were quite a lot of Roman-established cities not only in West and South Germany (they are the oldest cities in Germany, since Germanic tribes did not have any before the Romans came - the Celts at least had their so-called oppida, which resembled cities), but also in England:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#Englan d

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_cities_founded_by_the_romans.shtml#German y

Some of the oldest cities in Germany and Switzerland include Colonia Agrippina (Köln), Mogontiacum (Mainz), Bonna (Bonn), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Noviomagus (Speyer), Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg), Castra Regina (Regensburg), Basilea (Basel), Constantia (Konstanz), Argentoratum (Strasbourg). All established by the Romans, inherited by the Franks who took control over those Roman provinces, and after the split of the Frankish Empire inherited by East Francia, the precursor of the Holy Roman Empire, which subjugated the Saxons, the Bavarians, etc.

From a y-dna perspective there possible evidence for significant impact of Roman occupation in Britain. While U152 can come from various sources including the Romans, other y haplogroups that are common in Italy but uncommon in Britain; in combination with U152 may possibly indicate Roman influence.


if an area of England has high U152 and say haplogroup J and/or E, it may indicate a Roman presence.

Looking at the British Isles Y-DNA Project by County the following counties have high % of J haplogroup
Fife: 33%
Dorset: 21%
Hampshire: 20%
Sussex: 20%
Stirlingshire: 16.7%
Cambridge: 14.3%
Lincolnshire: 12.5%
Northumberland: 12.5%
Staffordshire: 9.5%
Northamptonshire: 9.1%
Lanarkshire: 8%

Haplogroup E:
Isle of Wight: 33%
Westmorland: 25%
Renfrewshire: 17%
Shropshire: 14%
Sussex E: 14%
Ayrshire: 13%
Somerset: 13%
Lancashire: 11%
Surrey: 11%
Derbyshire: 10%
Middlesex: 10%
Midlothian: 8%
Nottinghamshire: 8%
Oxfordshire: 8%

Just a reminder that these are quite small sample sizes, but based on the above,

U152 and J and/or E are both above 8% in:
Renfrewshire, Westmorland, Fife, Cambridgshire, Midlothian, and Nottinghamshire

So these may indicate some Roman U152...but this is all very tentative. Some of the Romans in Britain were indeed U152 but there were probably many other sources for U152 in Britain. Other pre-Roman potential sources U152 include Bell Beaker, Hallstatt, La Tene, and the Belgae.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4399-British-Isles-DNA-Project-by-County-Mapped-for-U152&p=82218&viewfull=1#post82218

MitchellSince1893
07-19-2015, 02:29 AM
AFAIK the only large group of continental Protestants to come to Britain was the Huguenots from France. Some Moravian Germans too.

While not as large as the Huguenots, in the early 1700s around 13000 Palatinate Germans arrived in London. Many of them went on to the New World and Ireland, but many others settled in England.

Jean M
07-19-2015, 09:00 AM
Protestants?

I think Chad is talking about Huguenot refugees in the 17th century: http://www.historytoday.com/robin-gwynn/englands-first-refugees

[Added] Sorry - I now see that Chad responded. Feel free to delete this post, moderator.

Dubhthach
07-19-2015, 09:09 AM
We have a proverb in Irish:
"Tús maith leath na hOibre" == "Good start is half the work"

What we've have to remember is we only at start of this, ideally we need a couple dozen ancient DNA genomes from Britain, France, Ireland, Germany/Netherlands/Denmark to help us build up a picture. With regards to 10-40% range in modern English, well no doubt this is reason why ye started seeing "border clusters" breaking off in PoBI study (eg. Devon cluster, West Midland cluster, Cumbria cluster etc.) as AS spread over sub-roman england occurred over a range of time ye can imagine that in more westerly areas that when ye has AS take over that they were already part admixed AS/Brition.

I do think the 10-40% level is interesting when we consider distrubition of U106 in Britain (Busby) which likewise shows a cline of decline from East to West, not really exceeding 26% -- "East England" (N=172) -- U106 = 25.6%

alan
07-19-2015, 10:06 AM
No if you look at the long standing rural populations of Scotland, its long been recognised that the west coast Scots including west Highlanders and the south-west lowlands are taller (though darker haired) than the east coast people (who are northerly lowlanders). Even 19th century anthropologists commented on this. Poorer city people tend to be short but that is more to do with diet, stress, illness, environment etc and a couple of generations of more affluence usually makes them sprout up in height.

By the way the same pattern with the taller people being in the west was also noted for Ireland by Hooton and others.

alan
07-19-2015, 10:34 AM
I am a believer that there was a Latinate speaking population in lowland Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Britons were an awkward patchwork of Latin and Celtic areas with geography, former urban/rural and class playing into this. I also believe the Latinised population was probably the one that suffered most from the Anglo-Saxons. The places where sophisticated Roman life, towns, villas etc never made much impact were relatively resistant - Scotland, Wales, Dumnonia, the Pennines etc. I suspect that this Romanised population had a significant Roman empire input that the more non-Romanised areas lacked. Virtually any input into Britain other than from the northern coasts of Europe (much of which was beyond the empire) would have pulled the autosomal DNA plot southwards. The only part of the empire with as northern autosomal DNA as the isles was probably the north coast of Gaul. All other incomers from the Roman empire would have dragged the plot south.

One bit of evidence I feel for a Latinate sort of urban or ex-urban pop is the chester type names from Latin castra. Those names seem to exist in places where Celtic placenames have only minimal survival. I often feel that a Latinate population could explain the lack of Celtic placenames in many areas of Lowland Britain. Another thing I often think is that if Britain was a somewhat divided population of Celtic, Latinate etc - divided along geographical, class, urban/rural sort of lines then this may have been a factor in how a new language like Anglo-Saxon was able to be take over so thoroughly. I have always found it very doubtful that lowland England would be the great exception in terms of 400 years in the Roman empire not leading to a Latinate population. I dont see why that would have not have happened in the well Romanised parts of England when it did in almost all of the rest of the Roman empire - the small Basque population being the only other exception that springs to mind.

MT1976
07-19-2015, 11:30 AM
One bit of evidence I feel for a Latinate sort of urban or ex-urban pop is the chester type names from Latin castra. Those names seem to exist in places where Celtic placenames have only minimal survival. I often feel that a Latinate population could explain the lack of Celtic placenames in many areas of Lowland Britain. Another thing I often think is that if Britain was a somewhat divided population of Celtic, Latinate etc - divided along geographical, class, urban/rural sort of lines then this may have been a factor in how a new language like Anglo-Saxon was able to be take over so thoroughly. I have always found it very doubtful that lowland England would be the great exception in terms of 400 years in the Roman empire not leading to a Latinate population. I dont see why that would have not have happened in the well Romanised parts of England when it did in almost all of the rest of the Roman empire - the small Basque population being the only other exception that springs to mind.

Quite possibly. But this goes against the evidence that Latin inscriptions only continued in the west, 'highland' zone. The presence of Latin-derived names neednt require continuing Latin speaking groups, but merely the presence of Latin -knowing individuals in the later period in which such toponyms were formulated. Just a thought.

rms2
07-19-2015, 11:46 AM
Christianity also only held out in the West after the arrival of Anglo-Saxons. It seems likely Latin inscriptions there can be attributed to monks, priests and bishops. In the southeast, the Anglo-Saxons stamped out not only the Latinate culture of the villa-dwellers, along with their villas, but also their Christianity, and with it their Latin.

avalon
07-19-2015, 08:19 PM
I am a believer that there was a Latinate speaking population in lowland Britain by the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the Britons were an awkward patchwork of Latin and Celtic areas with geography, former urban/rural and class playing into this. I also believe the Latinised population was probably the one that suffered most from the Anglo-Saxons. The places where sophisticated Roman life, towns, villas etc never made much impact were relatively resistant - Scotland, Wales, Dumnonia, the Pennines etc. I suspect that this Romanised population had a significant Roman empire input that the more non-Romanised areas lacked. Virtually any input into Britain other than from the northern coasts of Europe (much of which was beyond the empire) would have pulled the autosomal DNA plot southwards. The only part of the empire with as northern autosomal DNA as the isles was probably the north coast of Gaul. All other incomers from the Roman empire would have dragged the plot south.

Thanks alan, that's the best explanation I have read for a Mediterranean shift in the British population.

avalon
07-19-2015, 08:43 PM
Going off this study, the use of ancient genomes already rules out two possibilities, namely the 10% and 40% contribution estimates implied by Leslie et al. 2015. Coming up with such a figure in the first place just goes on to prove that the use of contemporary data as proxies is indeed bound to produce inaccurate results models grounded in contemporary data.

Not really. This Hinxton study on page 3 refers to a spread of 20-40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry in England and they settle for an overall average figure of 30%. So, just like the POBI study (leslie 2015) they have an estimated spread which allows for a higher 40% ancestry in places like East Anglia, for instance.

Both studies have come up with similar estimates for Anglo-Saxon ancestry, 10-40% compared to 20-40% so perhaps people shouldn't be so dismissive of modern DNA studies, particularly the POBI project which had very good rural sampling from all parts of Britain.

I agree that ancient DNA is better but it has its own shortfalls and is a young science.

Jean M
07-19-2015, 08:52 PM
I have always found it very doubtful that lowland England would be the great exception in terms of 400 years in the Roman empire not leading to a Latinate population.

Peter Schrijver is of the same opinion. (You can download the chapter, though not read it online.) The Rise and Fall of British Latin: Evidence from English and Brittonic (2002): https://www.academia.edu/13835386/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_British_Latin_Evidence_from_E nglish_and_Brittonic

There is another interesting chapter by him along similar lines in Higham (ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxons England (2007)

Tomenable
07-19-2015, 09:06 PM
This Hinxton study on page 3 refers to a spread of 20-40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry in England and they settle for an overall average figure of 30%.

Actually, these percentage figures refer to East England, not to entire England.

I'm not sure what exactly does it mean, though. Does it mean roughly this red area?:

http://www.foreignstudents.com/sites/default/files/images/Maps/east_england_highlighted.PNG

avalon
07-19-2015, 09:11 PM
Maybe I am misreading but this study appears to have contradictory info. In their principal component plot they say that the Iron Age samples are closer to modern French and English, whilst most Anglo-Saxon samples are closer to modern Scottish and Norwegian. How might this be explained and does it agree with the Eurogenes analysis of the Hinxton genomes?

Then on page 3 using different analysis they say that Scottish samples are more like the Iron Age samples?

avalon
07-19-2015, 09:25 PM
Actually, these percentage figures refer to East England, not to entire England.

I'm not sure what exactly does it mean, though. Does it mean roughly this red area?:

http://www.foreignstudents.com/sites/default/files/images/Maps/east_england_highlighted.PNG

Yes, that looks like an good definition of East England. Although some might argue that Yorkshire, Humberside, Durham and Northumberland are technically east as well.

Dubhthach
07-19-2015, 09:39 PM
Depends on what they mean by modern Scottish? Orcadian dataset for example? In which case the Orcadian sample falls mid way between Western Scotland and say Norway.

Motzart
07-19-2015, 11:54 PM
I hope that eventually the other germanic migration areas will get the same treatment. It will be interesting to see the gothic & vandalic contribution to southern european populations.

avalon
07-20-2015, 09:03 AM
Depends on what they mean by modern Scottish? Orcadian dataset for example? In which case the Orcadian sample falls mid way between Western Scotland and say Norway.

That would make sense. Two different datasets for modern Scotland. I wish they were more specific with details of sample locations, I have noticed this lack of detail in other studies.

Dubhthach
07-20-2015, 09:07 AM
That would make sense. Two different datasets for modern Scotland. I wish they were more specific with details of sample locations, I have noticed this lack of detail in other studies.

Well I think Orkney was one of earliest large samples taken that tends to show up in lot of studies. Part of reason was that logic was "these people lived on islands for hundred of years, there should be minimum inflow" -- of course they did forget that the islands were part of Kingdom of Norway up unit 1468 and that "Norn" only became extinct as language in Orkney in the late 18th century.

Jessie
07-20-2015, 09:32 AM
Indeed.

According to this study, Anglo-Saxons were most genetically similar to modern Danish and modern Dutch people.

So I suppose that it is impossible to distinguish Anglo-Saxon ancestry from Medieval Danish ancestry (see Danish settlement in "Danelaw").

Therefore this figure of 30% for East England is not all Anglo-Saxon, but includes also "Danelaw" Danish ancestry.

=================================

As for Normans, they were heavily mixed with local French people by 1066, so they should be possible to distinguish from Anglo-Saxons. Moreover, "original Normans" were mostly from Norway, not from Denmark, and Norwegians are quite genetically different from Danes.

Moreover, William's army included also people of Breton, Flemish, etc. blood. The Stuarts were of Celtic Breton ancestry, for example (and had R1b-L21 haplogroup, which is common among Bretons, due to them being largely descendants of earlier Briton refugees and emigrants).

So in Norman times after Hastings there was some sort of a back-migration of R1b-L21 into Britain from Bretagne as well.

Norwegian ancestry is visible in populations of the Orkney and Shetland Archipelagos in Scotland (especially their high % of R1a).

Danish settlement in "Danelaw" did not bring nearly as much of R1a as did Norwegian settlement in the Northern Islands of Scotland.

Protestants is a religion, not an ethnic group. French Huguenots had similar DNA as other French people. According to Eurogenes K15 and other admixture analyses, both Hinxton Celtic and Hinxton Anglo-Saxon samples were more "northern-oriented" autosomally, than modern English people are, suggesting considerable genetic impact of immigrants from Southern Europe in Roman times and since Hastings to modern times.

I suppose those were mostly immigrants from Italy and France.

Here is this Eurogenes K15 (posted by Anglecynn):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3155-First-ancient-genomes-from-Britain-Celtic-and-Anglo-Saxon&p=58823&viewfull=1#post58823

Average for 2 skeletons from pre-Roman Celtic period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 37.83
Atlantic 29.63
Baltic 10.16
Eastern_Euro 9.21
West_Mediterranean 6.55
West_Asian 4.44
East_Mediterranean 0
Red_Sea 0.7
South_Asian 0.95
Southeast_Asian 0.02
Siberian 0.06
Amerindian 0
Oceanian 0
Northeast_African 0.15
Sub-Saharan 0.255

Average for 3 skeletons from the Anglo-Saxon period from Hinxton:

North_Sea 41.37
Atlantic 28.59
Baltic 8.85
Eastern_Euro 9.48
West_Mediterranean 6.16
West_Asian 3.23
East_Mediterranean 0.3
Red_Sea 0.28
South_Asian 0.36
Southeast_Asian 0.23
Siberian 0
Amerindian 0.03
Oceanian 0.13
Northeast_African 0.27
Sub-Saharan 0.68

Modern times, average for a sample of English people from Kent:

North_Sea 35.52
Atlantic 29.86
Baltic 9.89
Eastern_Euro 8.36
West_Mediterranean 8.77
West_Asian 3.35
East_Mediterranean 2.5
Red_Sea 0.33
South_Asian 0.58
Southeast_Asian 0.03
Siberian 0.05
Amerindian 0.35
Oceanian 0.31
Northeast_African 0.06
Sub-Saharan 0.03

As you can see not just Anglo-Saxons, but also Iron Age Celts from Hinxton, were actually more "Northern", than modern English.

If Anglo-Saxons just mixed with Celts and that's it, then modern English should have had much more of North_Sea component than they do.

But what we observe, is actually an increase in Mediterranean components compared to Ancient Britons and Anglo-Saxons.

This indicates that modern English are not just a mixture of British Celts and Anglo-Saxons, but also someone who came from the south (be it Roman-related immigration, or Norman-related immigration, or French Huguenots, or whoever else did they get throughout history).

That Average for the Celtic Hinxton is remarkably similar to the K15 for both my brother and myself. It doesn't appear there has been much change in the modern Irish population.

Brother's K15

Population
North_Sea 38.02%
Atlantic 28.50%
Baltic 9.12%
Eastern_Euro 9.98%
West_Med 7.56%
West_Asian 5.23%
East_Med -
Red_Sea -
South_Asian 0.94%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.66%
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

Mine

North Sea 37.04%
Atlantic 29.88%
Baltic 11.89%
Eastern Euro 8.75%
West Med 4.95%
East Med -
Red Sea 1.10%
South Asian -
Southeast Asian -
Siberian 0.07%
Amerindian 1.15%
Oceanian -
Northeast African -
Sub-Saharan -

avalon
07-20-2015, 10:31 AM
No if you look at the long standing rural populations of Scotland, its long been recognised that the west coast Scots including west Highlanders and the south-west lowlands are taller (though darker haired) than the east coast people (who are northerly lowlanders). Even 19th century anthropologists commented on this. Poorer city people tend to be short but that is more to do with diet, stress, illness, environment etc and a couple of generations of more affluence usually makes them sprout up in height.

Isn't there a good case that Eastern Scotland has quite a bit more Germanic ancestry than the west of Scotland?

Obviously, we have Angles settling in SE Scotland, then following the Norman invasion, the so called Anglo-Norman era 1097-1296 which led to the establishment of English burghs and the spread of Scots up the east coast.

According to this site, Gaelic was no longer spoken in Eastern Scotland by 1500. http://www.dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/

I believe there may be genetic evidence to back this up as U106 has been found at elevated levels in NE Scotland.

rms2
07-20-2015, 11:09 AM
. . .

I believe there may be genetic evidence to back this up as U106 has been found at elevated levels in NE Scotland.

That has been discussed before a number of times at various dna discussion venues. Busby's NE Scotland sample location showed U106 at 19.4% (N=67), which, for Scotland, was exceptional. As it turns out, King David I settled Northumbrians there in the 12th century, which probably explains the relatively high frequency of U106.

MitchellSince1893
07-20-2015, 01:56 PM
That has been discussed before a number of times at various dna discussion venues. Busby's NE Scotland sample location showed U106 at 19.4% (N=67), which, for Scotland, was exceptional. As it turns out, King David I settled Northumbrians there in the 12th century, which probably explains the relatively high frequency of U106.

He brought a lot of Flemish folks as well...Flanders is very close to the current hot spot for U106 in Europe (24%/27% of the male population in E./W. Flanders in Brabant study). Not sure how many of them went to NE Scotland though.


David Canmore ascended to the Scottish throne in 1124 (as David I) and his wife Maud, of Flemish stock, came north with him accompanied by a large retinue of her Flemish kinsmen(5). This was the first evidence of a Flemish presence in Scotland.

cairn
07-20-2015, 03:55 PM
He brought a lot of Flemish folks as well...Flanders is very close to the current hot spot for U106 in Europe (24%/27% of the male population in E./W. Flanders in Brabant study). Not sure how many of them went to NE Scotland though.

The Innes and Murray clans/families, both prominent in NE Scotland, claim descent from Flemish immigrants. I believe a few other NE clans also claim descent from Flemish immigrants, but I don't remember any others off the top of my head at the moment. I don't think the numbers of Flemish coming to NE Scotland were very high, but they certainly established themselves in prominent positions and, if the claims of the Innes, Murray and other clans are true, there are many descendants of these immigrants in Scotland today.

ADW_1981
07-20-2015, 04:21 PM
No if you look at the long standing rural populations of Scotland, its long been recognised that the west coast Scots including west Highlanders and the south-west lowlands are taller (though darker haired) than the east coast people (who are northerly lowlanders). Even 19th century anthropologists commented on this. Poorer city people tend to be short but that is more to do with diet, stress, illness, environment etc and a couple of generations of more affluence usually makes them sprout up in height.

I guess I will know for sure when I get the chance to visit Scotland in the next year or so. I would say "Prince Harry" is the stereotype of what a Scottish person "Should" look like, based on the physical description of the Picts by the Romans. Of course, this is not the case at all. From my experience of Scots who've visited Canada, and I have seen hundreds, there is a predominance of mousey brown hair, and stoutness. A minority fit the pale, red headed type, and another minority fit the blonde Norse stereotype.

alan
07-20-2015, 04:31 PM
Isn't there a good case that Eastern Scotland has quite a bit more Germanic ancestry than the west of Scotland?

Obviously, we have Angles settling in SE Scotland, then following the Norman invasion, the so called Anglo-Norman era 1097-1296 which led to the establishment of English burghs and the spread of Scots up the east coast.

According to this site, Gaelic was no longer spoken in Eastern Scotland by 1500. http://www.dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/

I believe there may be genetic evidence to back this up as U106 has been found at elevated levels in NE Scotland.

A lot of people dont realise that the highland-lowland division is not about latitude. The lowlands includes the north-eastern coastal as far north as Inverness. In fact most of what had been the main population areas of the Picts ended up in the lowlands. After Gaelicisation and no doubt elite level movement from the west in the period 850-1100, there was a phase of settlement of Normans and other NW Europeans in the lowlands, including the north-east coastal strip as far north as Inverness under David the 1st after 1100 and I think too under his immediate successorts. All the burghs, towns, village, castles and many fisheries in eastern Scotland seem to have originated in these non-Scottish settlers who arrived in and after this period (unlike Ireland, Scotland had no pre-Norman urban settlements). In the period c. 1100-1400 these English speaking (Scots dialect) settlers in the towns, boroughs, castle and fisheries were like little islands in a sea of rural gaelic in places like Fife, Angus, Aberdeenshire (the north-east Scottish lowlands) etc but by 1500 Gaelic was retreating before these new more prestigous languages. This was probably a complex mix of a growing non-Gaelic population holding all the prestige positions and more wealthy but also probably a lot to do with the local Gaelic speakers changing over the Scots dialect of English. I fully expect that there was at least a modest genetic input from the English speaking settlers and those from France, Flanders, Brittany and Normandy. Most people accept that the lowland Scots have some extra genetic ingredients in their mix that come from these settlers in the 12th century etc. What north-east lowlanders cannot be claimed to be is pure Pictish descendants as some crazies tend to like to claim for the area.

alan
07-20-2015, 04:59 PM
I guess I will know for sure when I get the chance to visit Scotland in the next year or so. I would say "Prince Harry" is the stereotype of what a Scottish person "Should" look like, based on the physical description of the Picts by the Romans. Of course, this is not the case at all. From my experience of Scots who've visited Canada, and I have seen hundreds, there is a predominance of mousey brown hair, and stoutness. A minority fit the pale, red headed type, and another minority fit the blonde Norse stereotype.

The classical sources always tended to pick out the striking minority that stood out then exaggerate them as though they were the majority. Most Scots have some shade or brown hair as do most Irish and most English in my experience. Indeed, some form of middling brown hair seems to be typical across central and north-west Europe. They do have more red hair than the norm but its still not much more than one in ten. IMO it is likely it was never a lot higher than that. Classical sources are terrible exaggerators - the people they were calling giants often turn out to be barely middling height when they are dug up.

What we get from 19th century sources is, outside the more heavily norse settled islands, the west highlanders and Hebrideans are most typically dark-mid brown haired light eyed fairly tall people with a significant red haired majority. Lowlanders at that time had more flat brown, mousey and dirty fair hair but were shorter. The tall/blonde east short/dark west population thing only worked in England at that time. In Scotland and Ireland at the time it was the darker haired west coasters who were taller. Its far too late today to be able to observe this - much of the population of the now-pretty empty highlands moved into the lowland cities, towns and villages and many lowlanders have as mich highland as lowland blood. There is also a lot of Irish blood in industrial Scotland. In the highlands there are still pockets of very long standing communities, Gaelic etc but the population is so low that what often stands out is a lot of English retirees and people who have used the crazy price rises in the SE of England to trade in their house to move north where their money goes much further. This of course is as you can imagine not at all popular with local people as it pushes prices beyond local incomes. Some resent them so much that the term 'white settlers' is used for them.

avalon
07-20-2015, 08:32 PM
A lot of people dont realise that the highland-lowland division is not about latitude. The lowlands includes the north-eastern coastal as far north as Inverness. In fact most of what had been the main population areas of the Picts ended up in the lowlands. After Gaelicisation and no doubt elite level movement from the west in the period 850-1100, there was a phase of settlement of Normans and other NW Europeans in the lowlands, including the north-east coastal strip as far north as Inverness under David the 1st after 1100 and I think too under his immediate successorts. All the burghs, towns, village, castles and many fisheries in eastern Scotland seem to have originated in these non-Scottish settlers who arrived in and after this period (unlike Ireland, Scotland had no pre-Norman urban settlements). In the period c. 1100-1400 these English speaking (Scots dialect) settlers in the towns, boroughs, castle and fisheries were like little islands in a sea of rural gaelic in places like Fife, Angus, Aberdeenshire (the north-east Scottish lowlands) etc but by 1500 Gaelic was retreating before these new more prestigous languages. This was probably a complex mix of a growing non-Gaelic population holding all the prestige positions and more wealthy but also probably a lot to do with the local Gaelic speakers changing over the Scots dialect of English. I fully expect that there was at least a modest genetic input from the English speaking settlers and those from France, Flanders, Brittany and Normandy. Most people accept that the lowland Scots have some extra genetic ingredients in their mix that come from these settlers in the 12th century etc. What north-east lowlanders cannot be claimed to be is pure Pictish descendants as some crazies tend to like to claim for the area.

You're like a walking encyclopedia!

The lowland/highland division in Scotland is quite obvious when you look at a physical map of the Isles. Like you said the lowlands run right up the east coast then west to Inverness. Presumably, the Scottish lowlands contain the best agricultural land so this would have been an added factor that drew Anglo-Norman settlers to Scotland.

There is a parallel with Wales in the period 1063 to 1300. English settlement was generally modest but was concentrated most in the fertile, Welsh lowlands. Towns/boroughs didn't exist in Wales until the Anglo-Normans arrived so I guess it is in places like Chepstow, Monmouth and along the South Wales coastal strip that settlement was most obvious.

Similar story in Central Wales where the Marcher Lords established towns and again in North Wales following the defeat of Gwynedd in 1282. The general picture is of a minority Anglo-Norman elite taking the best land and the native Welsh confined to the uplands and the West.

http://www.medart.pitt.edu/image/England/maps/mshbrphy.jpg

MitchellSince1893
07-20-2015, 08:40 PM
A lot of people dont realise that the highland-lowland division is not about latitude. The lowlands includes the north-eastern coastal as far north as Inverness. In fact most of what had been the main population areas of the Picts ended up in the lowlands. After Gaelicisation and no doubt elite level movement from the west in the period 850-1100, there was a phase of settlement of Normans and other NW Europeans in the lowlands, including the north-east coastal strip as far north as Inverness under David the 1st after 1100 and I think too under his immediate successorts. All the burghs, towns, village, castles and many fisheries in eastern Scotland seem to have originated in these non-Scottish settlers who arrived in and after this period (unlike Ireland, Scotland had no pre-Norman urban settlements). In the period c. 1100-1400 these English speaking (Scots dialect) settlers in the towns, boroughs, castle and fisheries were like little islands in a sea of rural gaelic in places like Fife, Angus, Aberdeenshire (the north-east Scottish lowlands) etc but by 1500 Gaelic was retreating before these new more prestigous languages. This was probably a complex mix of a growing non-Gaelic population holding all the prestige positions and more wealthy but also probably a lot to do with the local Gaelic speakers changing over the Scots dialect of English. I fully expect that there was at least a modest genetic input from the English speaking settlers and those from France, Flanders, Brittany and Normandy. Most people accept that the lowland Scots have some extra genetic ingredients in their mix that come from these settlers in the 12th century etc. What north-east lowlanders cannot be claimed to be is pure Pictish descendants as some crazies tend to like to claim for the area.

FWIW,

My Mitchell ancestors were from one of these royal burghs...Montrose in Angus Co. I've only been able to trace them here back to 1775.

Supposedly, based on the surname histories you see all over the internet, the Mitchells in Scotland were originally in Surrey, England and from there went to Durham and/or Yorkshire. Circa 1130 these Mitchell's were invited to Scotland by King David.

avalon
07-20-2015, 09:18 PM
The classical sources always tended to pick out the striking minority that stood out then exaggerate them as though they were the majority. Most Scots have some shade or brown hair as do most Irish and most English in my experience. Indeed, some form of middling brown hair seems to be typical across central and north-west Europe. They do have more red hair than the norm but its still not much more than one in ten. IMO it is likely it was never a lot higher than that. Classical sources are terrible exaggerators - the people they were calling giants often turn out to be barely middling height when they are dug up.

What we get from 19th century sources is, outside the more heavily norse settled islands, the west highlanders and Hebrideans are most typically dark-mid brown haired light eyed fairly tall people with a significant red haired majority. Lowlanders at that time had more flat brown, mousey and dirty fair hair but were shorter. The tall/blonde east short/dark west population thing only worked in England at that time. In Scotland and Ireland at the time it was the darker haired west coasters who were taller. Its far too late today to be able to observe this - much of the population of the now-pretty empty highlands moved into the lowland cities, towns and villages and many lowlanders have as mich highland as lowland blood. There is also a lot of Irish blood in industrial Scotland. In the highlands there are still pockets of very long standing communities, Gaelic etc but the population is so low that what often stands out is a lot of English retirees and people who have used the crazy price rises in the SE of England to trade in their house to move north where their money goes much further. This of course is as you can imagine not at all popular with local people as it pushes prices beyond local incomes. Some resent them so much that the term 'white settlers' is used for them.

Am I right in thinking that since the highland clearances much of the land in the highlands has been owned by Anglo-Norman aristocratic families in any case and that vast areas of land are owned by a handful of people?

I agree about physical stereotypes by the way. In my experience the Scots are the most red haired people in the Isles but red hair is still only a minority in Scotland perhaps 10% at most. The vast majority of Brits and Irish have a sort of middling brown hair with a pale complexion and usually light eyes but sometimes brown.

The Isles does have some striking phenotypes though other than the quintessential "craggy red haired Celt." I am often struck by the dark hair blue eyes combo seen in Celtic parts of the Isles and also by what I call the Sean Connery/Catherine Zeta Jones dark look, although admittedly this is quite rare in the Isles.

ADW_1981
07-20-2015, 10:41 PM
The physical type I am referring to, which was mostly towards women is "Susan Boyle". Not trying to offend, just stating my experiences.

Tomenable
07-21-2015, 01:17 AM
In my experience the Scots are the most red haired people in the Isles but red hair is still only a minority in Scotland perhaps 10% at most. The vast majority of Brits and Irish have a sort of middling brown hair with a pale complexion and usually light eyes but sometimes brown.

Google tells me:

"Red hair is a recessive genetic trait caused by a series of mutations in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), a gene located on chromosome 16. As a recessive trait it must be inherited from both parents to cause the hair to become red. Consequently there are far more people carrying the mutation for red hair than people actually having red hair. In Scotland, approximately 13% of the population are redheads, although 40% carry at least one mutation. There are many kinds of red hair, some fairer, or mixed with blond ('strawberry blond'), some darker, like auburn hair, which is brown hair with a reddish tint. This is because some people only carry one or a few of the several possible MC1R mutations. The lightness of the hair ultimately depends on other mutations regulating the general pigmentation of both the skin and hair."

"In Ireland as many as 10% of the population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair. It is thought that up to 46% of the Irish population carry the recessive redhead gene."

"It is hard to calculate the exact percentage of the population having red hair as it depends on how wide a definition one adopts. For example, should men with just partial red beards, but no red hair on the top of their heads be included or not ? Should strawberry blond be counted as red, blond, or both ? Regardless of the definition, the frequency of red hair is highest in Ireland (10 to 30%) and Scotland (10 to 25%), followed by Wales (10 to 15%), Cornwall and western England, Brittany."

alan
07-21-2015, 08:57 AM
The physical type I am referring to, which was mostly towards women is "Susan Boyle". Not trying to offend, just stating my experiences.

hahahaha -I dont think Susan Boyle is typical of any population. I believe she is slightly handicapped.

alan
07-21-2015, 09:16 AM
Google tells me:

"Red hair is a recessive genetic trait caused by a series of mutations in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), a gene located on chromosome 16. As a recessive trait it must be inherited from both parents to cause the hair to become red. Consequently there are far more people carrying the mutation for red hair than people actually having red hair. In Scotland, approximately 13% of the population are redheads, although 40% carry at least one mutation. There are many kinds of red hair, some fairer, or mixed with blond ('strawberry blond'), some darker, like auburn hair, which is brown hair with a reddish tint. This is because some people only carry one or a few of the several possible MC1R mutations. The lightness of the hair ultimately depends on other mutations regulating the general pigmentation of both the skin and hair."

"In Ireland as many as 10% of the population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair. It is thought that up to 46% of the Irish population carry the recessive redhead gene."

"It is hard to calculate the exact percentage of the population having red hair as it depends on how wide a definition one adopts. For example, should men with just partial red beards, but no red hair on the top of their heads be included or not ? Should strawberry blond be counted as red, blond, or both ? Regardless of the definition, the frequency of red hair is highest in Ireland (10 to 30%) and Scotland (10 to 25%), followed by Wales (10 to 15%), Cornwall and western England, Brittany."

You sometimes see people with near-black hair with very fair skin, probably red facial hair and when the light hits their hair in a certain way you can see the underlying red in their head hair. Aas you say a lot of people have reddish beards who do not have red head hair. Back in the days when facial hair was the norm I suppose this would have given an even greater impression of the rufosity of a population. Lets say Tacitus saw a population where 10-15pc of the men had red head hair but 40pc had ginger beards and moustaches then you can see how the reddish impression would be gained.

The other thing Tacitus says about the Caledoni tribe was they had large limbs. Well the old physical anthropology century sources before the great mixing of peoples was too advanced to see patterns do note that west Highlanders and western Irish were larger than the east coast people in the same countries. Hooton talks a lot about the relativley tall and heavy frames of the western Irish compared to the eastern for example. Military records of the 18th-mid 19th century confirm the relative tallness of the Irish and highlanders compared to the English at the time. Personally I think it was diet because in England they had a relatively unnutricious bread based diet while in the Gaelic areas the diet was based on dairy, oats, a little meat, fish and later potatoes were added. Its recognised now that that diet in what on the surface looks like poorer remoter areas was actually more healthy than the diet in English towns where bread was the main food. I would say this has been reversed in modern times in Scotland where a very very high percentage of Scots (most of whom live in the central belt) have immediate family backgrounds (parents, grandparents) in industrial poverty which also promoted loss of height. I have seen it in my own family where since industrial poverty 100 years ago each generation has consistently gained 3 inches in height from the last and I am a foot taller than my great grandad (who lived to nearly 100 so I knew him as a child). My impression is stature only recovers from poverty in steps over a few generation of sustained better conditions.

alan
07-21-2015, 09:24 AM
Am I right in thinking that since the highland clearances much of the land in the highlands has been owned by Anglo-Norman aristocratic families in any case and that vast areas of land are owned by a handful of people?

I agree about physical stereotypes by the way. In my experience the Scots are the most red haired people in the Isles but red hair is still only a minority in Scotland perhaps 10% at most. The vast majority of Brits and Irish have a sort of middling brown hair with a pale complexion and usually light eyes but sometimes brown.

The Isles does have some striking phenotypes though other than the quintessential "craggy red haired Celt." I am often struck by the dark hair blue eyes combo seen in Celtic parts of the Isles and also by what I call the Sean Connery/Catherine Zeta Jones dark look, although admittedly this is quite rare in the Isles.

Stereotypes are funny. It only takes a 10-20pc swing in terms of light or dark or red hair to create the stereotype that one population is dominated by one type. If you look at the stats for hair colour area by area the differences between most European countries is modest with only very very dark or fair populations at the fringes. Certainly having been in Germany, they are nowhere near as fair as people think and the French who are stereotyped as pretty dark are often not much different from isles people and seem to have a lot of light eyes, fair skin and middling hair. Italians seem to be stereotypes based on the southernmost Italians and Sicilians for example. I dont deny there are fringes where extremely dark or fair populations exist in the far south-west or far north-east but a heck of a lot of Europe is middling and a mix.

rms2
07-21-2015, 09:53 AM
When we were in Wales just a couple of weeks ago, I noticed quite a few redheads. It seemed that in every group of four young people there was at least one ginger (whose hair color did not appear to be the product of hair dye). But maybe my radar is attuned to red hair, since my youngest daughter has it. Ever since I found out I carry the red hair variant Arg160Trp, I tend to look for red hair, so I'm sure that's a factor. Still, it seems to me I saw as much red hair in Wales as I did in Ireland. I have not yet been to Scotland, so I can't comment on it, and we only spent a day in England - not enough time.

Apparently Wales currently leads in BritainsDNA's stats for red hair carriers. Here's their graphic on that.

5267

Shaikorth
07-21-2015, 12:48 PM
Stereotypes are funny. It only takes a 10-20pc swing in terms of light or dark or red hair to create the stereotype that one population is dominated by one type. If you look at the stats for hair colour area by area the differences between most European countries is modest with only very very dark or fair populations at the fringes. Certainly having been in Germany, they are nowhere near as fair as people think and the French who are stereotyped as pretty dark are often not much different from isles people and seem to have a lot of light eyes, fair skin and middling hair. Italians seem to be stereotypes based on the southernmost Italians and Sicilians for example. I dont deny there are fringes where extremely dark or fair populations exist in the far south-west or far north-east but a heck of a lot of Europe is middling and a mix.

Yep, that is what frequencies of pigmentation SNP's indicate. The cline is quite smooth in most areas of Europe, exceptions are where you'd expect (like Mordovians to Chuvash in Russia) for the most part. The Cornish of 1000genomes seem to differ from rest of the GBR sample which is more unexpected, but that may just be a sample size issue. The Scottish sample which is used in many academic studies including the recent Reich lab papers is from the same set, and comprises just four individuals.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/Kadu_album/GeneticPigm.jpg

alan
07-21-2015, 05:23 PM
When we were in Wales just a couple of weeks ago, I noticed quite a few redheads. It seemed that in every group of four young people there was at least one ginger (whose hair color did not appear to be the product of hair dye). But maybe my radar is attuned to red hair, since my youngest daughter has it. Ever since I found out I carry the red hair variant Arg160Trp, I tend to look for red hair, so I'm sure that's a factor. Still, it seems to me I saw as much red hair in Wales as I did in Ireland. I have not yet been to Scotland, so I can't comment on it, and we only spent a day in England - not enough time.

Apparently Wales currently leads in BritainsDNA's stats for red hair carriers. Here's their graphic on that.

5267

From what I have read and observed, within any of the Celtic countries red hair has zones of concentration and lower frequency. For instance in Ireland I can see a sharp division in that I see a lot of red hair among the catholics in Ulster (especially the western parts - Donegal, Derry, Fermanagh) and north Connaught (Sligo, Mayo, Rosscommon etc) (which collectively is roughly the independent Gaelic great Irishry out of Anglo-Norman control in the high Medieval era) but I dont see anywhere near as much in the southern half south of the Dublin-Galway line. It seems vastly less frequent in Dublin city for example. However it seems to me that when red hair goes down in frequency often mousy or fair sort of hair increases as if they have two different origins.

In Scotland red hair has areas of low frequency like the south-west between Glasgow and the border and seems higher in the central Highlands and north-east. Wales I dont know but I am sure it varies given its mountainous nature. However I agree that if you ever have a little group of Celtic fringers, one always seems to be a ginger. It seems typical to have 2 or 3 in every school class of 20-30. We know though that Celtic fringe populations carry at least one red hair marker at an incredibly high rate like 40pc or so so IMO red hair high frequency is mostly to do with relatively isolated long standing populations where these single copy carriers marry those with similar and have red haired kids. I think once an area is more cosmopolitan that quickly reduces due to more people not carrying a copy.

alan
07-21-2015, 05:31 PM
BTW the most ginger place I have ever been to is Achill Island on the Mayo coast. I passed through there just as they were having their St. Patrick's day parade and it was astonishing like half the population was ginger. Again a tiny and isolated population though.

alan
07-21-2015, 05:37 PM
When we were in Wales just a couple of weeks ago, I noticed quite a few redheads. It seemed that in every group of four young people there was at least one ginger (whose hair color did not appear to be the product of hair dye). But maybe my radar is attuned to red hair, since my youngest daughter has it. Ever since I found out I carry the red hair variant Arg160Trp, I tend to look for red hair, so I'm sure that's a factor. Still, it seems to me I saw as much red hair in Wales as I did in Ireland. I have not yet been to Scotland, so I can't comment on it, and we only spent a day in England - not enough time.

Apparently Wales currently leads in BritainsDNA's stats for red hair carriers. Here's their graphic on that.

5267

You were in Clare werent you? I stayed for a few days in Ennis once and although they had not many gingers there seemed to be way more people with light golden brown/mousey/dirty fair hair than in many areas I have seen in the west of Ireland.

rms2
07-21-2015, 06:18 PM
You were in Clare werent you? I stayed for a few days in Ennis once and although they had not many gingers there seemed to be way more people with light golden brown/mousey/dirty fair hair than in many areas I have seen in the west of Ireland.

Clare is where we stayed (in Mountshannon), but we drove all over the west of Ireland. I saw a lot of redheads, and some of the girls were extremely good looking, I must say.

Brent.B
07-21-2015, 07:11 PM
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong? If these results are accurate, would that mean that the Anglo-Saxons invasion/migration theory is less credible now? I mean, that the majority of the population isn't descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders?

How many people actually came from Northern Europe to settle the British Isles?

avalon
07-21-2015, 08:23 PM
From what I have read and observed, within any of the Celtic countries red hair has zones of concentration and lower frequency. For instance in Ireland I can see a sharp division in that I see a lot of red hair among the catholics in Ulster (especially the western parts - Donegal, Derry, Fermanagh) and north Connaught (Sligo, Mayo, Rosscommon etc) (which collectively is roughly the independent Gaelic great Irishry out of Anglo-Norman control in the high Medieval era) but I dont see anywhere near as much in the southern half south of the Dublin-Galway line. It seems vastly less frequent in Dublin city for example. However it seems to me that when red hair goes down in frequency often mousy or fair sort of hair increases as if they have two different origins.

In Scotland red hair has areas of low frequency like the south-west between Glasgow and the border and seems higher in the central Highlands and north-east. Wales I dont know but I am sure it varies given its mountainous nature. However I agree that if you ever have a little group of Celtic fringers, one always seems to be a ginger. It seems typical to have 2 or 3 in every school class of 20-30. We know though that Celtic fringe populations carry at least one red hair marker at an incredibly high rate like 40pc or so so IMO red hair high frequency is mostly to do with relatively isolated long standing populations where these single copy carriers marry those with similar and have red haired kids. I think once an area is more cosmopolitan that quickly reduces due to more people not carrying a copy.

From my own experience there is also red hair variation in Wales. I believe it is quite common in South Wales, probably on a par with Scotland and Ireland and this is supported by old sources from the 19th/early 20th century which observed high frequencies in places like Carmarthen, Abergavenny and Llanelli. I can think of quite a few ginger rugby players/celebrities, etc, from South Wales.

In North Wales red hair is less common IMO, particularly in Gwynedd, an area I know very well. Having said that, my grandmother was a red head from North Wales!

avalon
07-21-2015, 08:40 PM
Razib Khan has an interesting post about the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/

He highlights the fact that Anglo-Saxons were female and stresses the importance of more work being needed on this topic.


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.

anglesqueville
07-21-2015, 08:47 PM
Just for info, and on the edge of your conversation: I live in a very rural area in higher normandy, and there are here many red hair people, both male and female; I"ve been teacher in a high school here during more than 30 years. I should have done statistics, too bad: i believe that the percentage of red hair in the classrooms is not less than 5% (real red hairs and brows, white eyelashes, extrem fair skin and freckles all over). Furthermore I know very well Ireland and ... Poland. From my own experience (for what it's worth) the most "reddish" country is not Ireland. Not sure at all one must associate this phenotype with "celtic" settlement.

rms2
07-21-2015, 09:07 PM
Razib Khan has an interesting post about the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/

He highlights the fact that Anglo-Saxons were female and stresses the importance of more work being needed on this topic.

That's right. It seems likely to me the Anglo-Saxon invasion force, arriving over the centuries beginning in the immediate post-Roman period, was lopsidedly male. Its legacy is reflected in the frequency of R1b-U106 and I-M253, both of which reach their frequency peaks in the places settled most heavily by the Anglo-Saxons and decline as one moves north and west, where the Celts held out and resisted English speech, culture and paganism the longest (in the case of the latter long enough for the Anglo-Saxons themselves to abandon paganism).

Tomenable
07-21-2015, 10:44 PM
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong? If these results are accurate, would that mean that the Anglo-Saxons invasion/migration theory is less credible now? I mean, that the majority of the population isn't descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders?

How many people actually came from Northern Europe to settle the British Isles?

Heinrich Härke estimated that Britain got up to 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and that influx lasted for at least 100 years (so up to 20,000 came each year on average). I don't think that any higher number than this is plausible. Much depends on how large was local Romano-Briton population before that immigration, and how fast did both groups grow. According to Härke, those immigrants increased in numbers faster than local population, due to the fact that Romano-Britons were losing ground, while Anglo-Saxons were gaining ground. But it is also possible, that they simply had higher fertility rates than locals (just like today Muslim immigrants and some other groups of immigrants have higher fertility rates).

So what initially was 10% influx (assuming that Romano-Britons numbered ca. 2 million), could in the end become 20-30% of ancestry. This new study confirms that Anglo-Saxon immigration was not a single event, but that there was a prolonged period of immigration:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/07/17/022723.full.pdf

http://s12.postimg.org/e38a0bup9/Continued_immigration.png


I mean, that the majority of the population isn't descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders?

Where did you find this? There is no such a conclusion there.

The study says that 20-30% of English ancestry is from Anglo-Saxons. It doesn't mean that only 20-30% of English people have some Anglo-Saxon ancestors, but that each and every of English people has on average 20-30% of Anglo-Saxons among his/her ancestors (remember that several centuries ago, each of us had thousands of ancestors). So the majority of the population is descended from Anglo-Saxons, but to a lesser extent than from Romano-Britons. After so many centuries, nearly everyone is mixed, just as Jean M wrote.

By the way, even individuals from opposite ends of Europe share a lot of common ancestors during the last 1000 years:

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555


Here we use genome-wide data from European individuals to investigate these relationships over the past 3,000 years, by looking for long stretches of genome that are shared between pairs of individuals through their inheritance from common genetic ancestors. We quantify this ubiquitous recent common ancestry, showing for instance that even pairs of individuals from opposite ends of Europe share hundreds of genetic common ancestors over this time period.

(...)

We find that a pair of modern Europeans living in neighboring populations share around 2–12 genetic common ancestors from the last 1,500 years, and upwards of 100 genetic ancestors from the previous 1,000 years. These numbers drop off exponentially with geographic distance, but since these genetic ancestors are a tiny fraction of common genealogical ancestors, individuals from opposite ends of Europe are still expected to share millions of common genealogical ancestors over the last 1,500 years.

(...)

We find that even geographically distant Europeans share ubiquitous common ancestry within the past 1,000 years, and show that common ancestry from the past 3,000 years is a result of both local migration and large-scale historical events.

(...)

Here we define an “IBD block” to be a contiguous segment of genome inherited (on at least one chromosome) from a shared common ancestor without intervening recombination. (...) Segments of IBD are broken up over time by recombination, which implies that older shared ancestry tends to result in shorter shared IBD blocks. (...) Sufficiently long segments of IBD can be identified as long, contiguous regions over which the two individuals are identical (or nearly identical) at a set of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that segregate in the population.

(...)

During the period 500–1,500 ya, individuals typically share tens to hundreds of genetic common ancestors with others in the same or nearby populations, although some distant populations have very low rates. Longer ago than 1,500 ya, pairs of individuals from any part of Europe share hundreds of genetic ancestors in common, and some share significantly more.

(...)

We can furthermore conclude that pairs of individuals across Europe are reasonably likely to share common genetic ancestors within the last 1,000 years, and are certain to share many within the last 2,500 years. From our numerical results, the average number of genetic common ancestors from the last 1,000 years shared by individuals living at least 2,000 km apart is about 1/32 (and at least 1/80); between 1,000 and 2,000ya they share about one; and between 2,000 and 3,000 ya they share above 10. Since the chance is small that any genetic material has been transmitted along a particular genealogical path from ancestor to descendent more than eight generations deep [8]—about .008 at 240 ya, and 2.5×10−7 at 480 ya—this implies, conservatively, thousands of shared genealogical ancestors in only the last 1,000 years even between pairs of individuals separated by large geographic distances. At first sight this result seems counterintuitive. However, as 1,000 years is about 33 generations, and 233≈1010 is far larger than the size of the European population, so long as populations have mixed sufficiently, by 1,000 years ago everyone (who left descendants) would be an ancestor of every present-day European. Our results are therefore one of the first genomic demonstrations of the counterintuitive but necessary fact that all Europeans are genealogically related over very short time periods, and lends substantial support to models predicting close and ubiquitous common ancestry of all modern humans [7].

The fact that most people alive today in Europe share nearly the same set of (European, and possibly world-wide) ancestors from only 1,000 years ago seems to contradict the signals of long-term, albeit subtle, population genetic structure within Europe (e.g., [13],[14]). These two facts can be reconciled by the fact that even though the distribution of ancestors (as cartooned in Figure 1B) has spread to cover the continent, there remain differences in degree of relatedness of modern individuals to these ancestral individuals. For example, someone in Spain may be related to an ancestor in the Iberian peninsula through perhaps 1,000 different routes back through the pedigree, but to an ancestor in the Baltic region by only 10 different routes, so that the probability that this Spanish individual inherited genetic material from the Iberian ancestor is roughly 100 times higher. This allows the amount of genetic material shared by pairs of extant individuals to vary even if the set of ancestors is constant.

As for the definitions of "genetic" and "genealogical" ancestors:

Genetic ancestor is the one from whom you inherited a continuous segment of DNA. Genealogical ancestor is simply every ancestor. If I understand this correctly, during genetic recombination some parts of DNA are lost, so a baby does not inherit these parts. That's why you can have some ancestors in your genealogical tree - even several generations ago - from whom you did not inherit too much of your DNA.

Please correct me if my understanding of this issue is wrong.

=======================

Here is actually their definition:


The relationship between numbers of long, shared segments of genome, numbers of genetic common ancestors, and numbers of genealogical common ancestors can be difficult to envision. Since everyone has exactly two biological parents, every individual has exactly 2n paths of length n meioses leading back through their pedigree, each such path ending in a grandn–1parent. However, due to Mendelian segregation and limited recombination, genetic material will only be passed down along a small subset of these paths [8]. As n grows, these paths proliferate rapidly and so the genealogical paths of two individuals soon overlap significantly. (These points are illustrated in Figure 1.) By observing the number of shared genomic blocks, we learn about the degree to which their genealogies overlap, or the number of common ancestors from which both individuals have inherited genetic material.

At least one parent of each genetic common ancestor of two individuals is also a genetic common ancestor, so the number of genetic common ancestors at each point back in time is strictly increasing. A more relevant quantity is the rate of appearance of most recent common genetic ancestors. This quantity can be much more intuitive, and is closely related to the coalescent rate [33], as we demonstrate later. For this reason, when we say “genetic common ancestor” or “rate of genetic common ancestry,” we are referring to only the most recent genetic common ancestors from which the individuals in question inherited their shared segments of genome.

alan
07-21-2015, 10:51 PM
Heinrich Härke estimated that Britain got up to 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and that influx lasted for ca. 100 years (so 20,000 per year on average). I don't think that any higher number than this is plausible. So now much depends on how large was local Romano-Briton population before that immigration, and how fast did both groups grow. According to Härke, immigrant Anglo-Saxons had a higher rate of natural growth than Romano-Britons, also due to the fact that Romano-Britons were losing ground, while Anglo-Saxons were gaining ground. It is also possible that they had higher fertility rates than locals (just like today Muslim immigrants and some other groups of immigrants have higher fertility rates).

This new study confirms that Anglo-Saxon immigration was not a single event, but that there was a prolonged period of immigration:

I must admit I find that incredibly hard to believe. You would think a constant heavy flow for 100 years would lead to all sorts of problems among the Anglo-Saxon themselves.

rms2
07-21-2015, 11:11 PM
This is guesswork on my part, but it is based on what I know of the whole Germanic principle of the Gefolge or posse comitatus, the war band gathered about a chieftain who rewarded his followers with gifts of food, drink, weapons, horses, etc. We know from history and Germanic legend that German warriors served not only in the Roman Army but also in the war band of Attila, who richly rewarded his followers. The Gefolge was open to young men who could fight and prove themselves, regardless of origin. That's why I think Anglo-Saxon war bands were open to young British men (as in Celtic Britons) who could hold their own. This quickened the assimilation of the Britons and promoted the adoption of the English language.

For example, it is thought that the Anglo-Saxon King Cerdic of Wessex was of British rather than Germanic origin. We also know that at times the various British kingdoms allied with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons.

Tomenable
07-21-2015, 11:23 PM
You would think a constant heavy flow for 100 years would lead to all sorts of problems among the Anglo-Saxon themselves.

Well, and it actually did lead to all sorts of problems among them. :)

Anglo-Saxons split into dozens of competing political entities, which fought also against each other, not only against Celts.

By the way, "Saxons" was an umbrella term for all Germanic-speaking newcomers to Britain, rather than a specific tribe.

"Saxons" was probably how local Celts called them (just like "Welsh" is how Britons were called by Germanic newcomers).

There were also Frisians and other ethnic groups migrating to Britain under that umbrella term "Saxons" (check the link):

http://historum.com/european-history/92308-why-england-named-after-angles-6.html#post2235785
Not to mention the - always forgotten - Jutes. :beerchug:

Tomenable
07-21-2015, 11:41 PM
This is guesswork on my part, but it is based on what I know of the whole Germanic principle of the Gefolge or posse comitatus, the war band gathered about a chieftain who rewarded his followers with gifts of food, drink, weapons, horses, etc. We know from history and Germanic legend that German warriors served not only in the Roman Army but also in the war band of Attila, who richly rewarded his followers. The Gefolge was open to young men who could fight and prove themselves, regardless of origin. That's why I think Anglo-Saxon war bands were open to young British men (as in Celtic Britons) who could hold their own. This quickened the assimilation of the Britons and promoted the adoption of the English language.

For example, it is thought that the Anglo-Saxon King Cerdic of Wessex was of British rather than Germanic origin. We also know that at times the various British kingdoms allied with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons.

You are right that there was no political unity among the Celts.

It was actually a Celtic king - Wurtgern - who first invited Anglo-Saxons, to fight against Picts who invaded the Britons. Here is how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describes that (though one needs to remember that it was written long time after those events, so it is not a fully accurate description, and is not free from mythical romanticization/glorification of perceived "founding fathers" of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms):

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angsax.asp


"A.D. 449. This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire, and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa, invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons to his assistance, landed in Britain in a place that is called Ipwinesfleet; first of all to support the Britons, but they afterwards fought against them. The king directed them to fight against the Picts; and they did so; and obtained the victory wheresoever they came. They then sent to the Angles, and desired them to send more assistance. They described the worthlessness of the Britons, and the richness of the land. They then sent them greater support. Then came the men from three powers of Germania; the Old Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes."

As for Attila - it was not like that. Those Germanic warriors under the Huns were not mercenaries, but subjects of the Huns. In the 4th century the Huns subjugated many Germanic tribes, and therefore they served in Hunnic armies as their subjects or "vassals".

Hunnic king Balamber defeated the Goths under Vinitharius, and then took the grand-daughter of Vinitharius as his wife:

An excerpt from "Getica" by Jordanes:

http://christogenea.org/references/origin-and-deeds-goths-jordanes


(...) in the third battle, when they [the Huns under Balamber and the Goths under Vinitharius] met each other unexpectedly at the river named Erac, Balamber shot an arrow and wounded Vinitharius in the head, so that he died. Then Balamber took to himself in marriage Vadamerca, the grand-daughter of Vinitharius, and finally ruled all the people of the Goths as his peaceful subjects (...)

Kopfjäger
07-21-2015, 11:41 PM
This is guesswork on my part, but it is based on what I know of the whole Germanic principle of the Gefolge or posse comitatus, the war band gathered about a chieftain who rewarded his followers with gifts of food, drink, weapons, horses, etc. We know from history and Germanic legend that German warriors served not only in the Roman Army but also in the war band of Attila, who richly rewarded his followers. The Gefolge was open to young men who could fight and prove themselves, regardless of origin. That's why I think Anglo-Saxon war bands were open to young British men (as in Celtic Britons) who could hold their own. This quickened the assimilation of the Britons and promoted the adoption of the English language.

For example, it is thought that the Anglo-Saxon King Cerdic of Wessex was of British rather than Germanic origin. We also know that at times the various British kingdoms allied with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons.

The Britons were too busy kicking each other's asses, hence, the hegemonic rise of the Anglo-Saxons. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if these "English" armies being victorious in battles such as Stamford Bridge were mostly Britons in Anglo-Saxon garb.

rms2
07-21-2015, 11:43 PM
Recall that it took the Anglo-Saxons a good three hundred years to complete their conquest of Britain. At times they came close to losing it all and being expelled. At one point the British King Riothamus had them so thoroughly beaten and cowed that he felt confident enough to take most of his troops to Gaul to fight against the Loire Saxons. There, unfortunately, he became embroiled in Roman politics, was betrayed by the Romans and defeated by the Visigoths.

The Britons also had trouble cooperating with each other against the Anglo-Saxons. Urien of Rheged, for example, had them on the run when he was betrayed by a rival British prince and assassinated.

The idea that the Anglo-Saxons advanced quickly across Britain, raping and slaughtering as the hapless and defenseless Britons fled screaming before them, is just hogwash. The struggle was long, bitter, and complex.

Tomenable
07-21-2015, 11:58 PM
Heinrich Härke and many other scholars support family-based Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain, not just arrival of war bands.

War bands came first (for example that group of mercenaries invited by Wurtgern / Vortigern), but they later brought in their families.

Here is such an article - "Favourable Conditions for Cattle Farming, one Reason for the Anglo-Saxon Migration over the North Sea":

http://www.nihk.de/downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

Roman Britain was 1) more civilized, 2) had more fertile soils; and 3) was relatively defenceless after Rome evacuated its legions.

So that naturally attracted immigrants, just like today more developed regions attract immigrants from less developed regions.

We can argue that when the Romans invaded Britain, Celts who lived there were skilled warriors. However, Romano-Britons after several centuries of Roman rule and of relative peace (Pax Romana) were no match for experienced Anglo-Saxon warriors. The best evidence for this is that they invited the Saxons to fight off the Picts - who preserved independence and undoubtedly their warrior skills, unlike the Britons.

Of course now I'm talking in general terms. Romano-Briton population as a whole was much less militarized than barbarian tribes.

rms2
07-22-2015, 12:03 AM
Heinrich Härke and many other scholars support family-based Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain, not just arrival of war bands.

War bands came first (for example that group of mercenaries invited by Wurtgern / Vortigern), but they later brought in their families.

Here is such an article - "Favourable Conditions for Cattle Farming, one Reason fro the Anglo-Saxon Migration over the North Sea":

http://www.nihk.de/downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

Roman Britain was 1) more civilized, 2) had more fertile soils; and 3) was relatively defenceless after Rome evacuated its legions.

So that naturally attracted immigrants, just like today more developed regions attract immigrants from less developed regions.

Well, and many of the Anglo-Saxons lived on mounds of manure known as Terpen along the North Sea coast built up as high as they could pile them against the flooding that has always been endemic there. That couldn't have been fun.

When you live on a big pile of cowsh*t, almost anyplace else looks better.

If you understand German, this song captures something of the Frisian/Anglo-Saxon experience:


https://youtu.be/MnVh8Y9yaQs

Kopfjäger
07-22-2015, 12:17 AM
Heinrich Härke and many other scholars support family-based Anglo-Saxon immigration to Britain, not just arrival of war bands.

War bands came first (for example that group of mercenaries invited by Wurtgern / Vortigern), but they later brought in their families.

Here is such an article - "Favourable Conditions for Cattle Farming, one Reason for the Anglo-Saxon Migration over the North Sea":

http://www.nihk.de/downloads/5/favourable_conditions_for_cattle_farming.pdf

Roman Britain was 1) more civilized, 2) had more fertile soils; and 3) was relatively defenceless after Rome evacuated its legions.

So that naturally attracted immigrants, just like today more developed regions attract immigrants from less developed regions.

We can argue that when the Romans invaded Britain, Celts who lived there were skilled warriors. However, Romano-Britons after several centuries of Roman rule and of relative peace (Pax Romana) were no match for experienced Anglo-Saxon warriors. The best evidence for this is that they invited the Saxons to fight off the Picts - who preserved independence and undoubtedly their warrior skills, unlike the Britons.

Of course now I'm talking in general terms. Romano-Briton population as a whole was much less militarized than barbarian tribes.

I think that's a fair representation of the Picts, more accurate than the Lorenzo Lamas look-a-likes portrayed in Hollywood cinema.

rms2
07-22-2015, 12:23 AM
. . .



As for Attila - it was not like that. Those Germanic warriors under the Huns were not mercenaries, but subjects of the Huns. In the 4th century the Huns subjugated many Germanic tribes, and therefore they served in Hunnic armies as their subjects or "vassals".

. . .

It is a fact that Germanic warriors served in Hunnic warbands. Only a free man fought and carried weapons, so I am sorry, but you are quite mistaken when you say, "it was not like that". Of course, a member of a king's Gefolge is his subject and not his equal; the warband served but one chief.

rms2
07-22-2015, 12:26 AM
. . .

We can argue that when the Romans invaded Britain, Celts who lived there were skilled warriors. However, Romano-Britons after several centuries of Roman rule and of relative peace (Pax Romana) were no match for experienced Anglo-Saxon warriors. The best evidence for this is that they invited the Saxons to fight off the Picts - who preserved independence and undoubtedly their warrior skills, unlike the Britons.

. . .

I think that was true in the southeast of what is now England, but the Celts of the west and northwest were far less Romanized than their southeastern counterparts and quite often defeated the Anglo-Saxons. Had the Britons formed a united front, the Anglo-Saxon invasion would have been short lived.

ADW_1981
07-22-2015, 12:39 AM
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong? If these results are accurate, would that mean that the Anglo-Saxons invasion/migration theory is less credible now? I mean, that the majority of the population isn't descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders?

How many people actually came from Northern Europe to settle the British Isles?

That's not really what it's saying. 30% is still an awful lot of someone's overall ancestry, and in some cases 40% (Kent as proxy I believe). The point is that it was not a complete population replacement. We can see from a paternal standpoint L21+, a rough SNP used in comparison as Hinxton Celt, is still very much common in England.

Tomenable
07-22-2015, 02:26 AM
Already before Anglo-Saxon immigration R1b-L21 was very likely less common in what is now England than in the rest of Britain. Regional genetic differences most certainly existed already before Roman conquest of Britain, and during Roman times. When you look at modern Britain, the largest genetic cluser (according to Leslie 2015) is to the south-east of the Tees-Exe Line, which separates lowland regions from other regions. That division likely existed already long time ago, because no matter at what period of British history or British archaeology you look at, most of cultural and ethnic differences tended to be roughly along this Tees-Exe Line. This refers also to pre-Roman and Roman periods. For example Roman villas existed to the south-east of this line. In pre-Roman Britain, coin-minting tribes lived to the south-east of it. And so on, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tees-Exe_line

Tees-Exe Line as it divides Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tees-Exe_line#/media/File:Tees-Exe_Line.jpg

Pre-Roman coin-minting tribes: http://www.visitnunney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/British.coinage.Roman_.invasion.jpg

Roman villas in Roman Britain: http://www.strangehistory.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/britannia-roman-villa-map.jpg

Anglo-Saxon sites in 5th century: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-51-VO2VxqmM/VEoNuHGtKoI/AAAAAAAAApU/6GnEAyHKseQ/s1600/AngArch5C.jpg

Anglo-Saxon burials to 8th century: http://s9.postimg.org/ls2hw9w27/AS_V_to_VII.png

People attribute this large red genetic cluster (http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/6/92/12/521296/v0_master.jpg) from Leslie 2015 specifically to Anglo-Saxons.

But it correlates just as well with Roman villas, with coal-minting tribes, with many things from British history and archaeology. This huge cluster in south-eastern Britain, compared to smaller clusters in other regions - this could exist long before Anglo-Saxons, and could be caused by the lowland-upland division of Britain, i.e. by the Tees-Exe Line. Maybe this is simply because lowland areas tend to be more vulnerable to all changes. I would say that English people are not just more Anglo-Saxon than Welsh, but they are generally more mixed. England was more affected by ALL immigration waves, not just Anglo-Saxon one. Even today in England you have a higher % of immigrants than in Wales.

People simply prefer to settle in lowlands.

ADW_1981
07-22-2015, 03:20 AM
Already before Anglo-Saxon immigration R1b-L21 was very likely less common in what is now England than in the rest of Britain. .

There are regional differences sure, but there is no evidence that the bulk of insular Celts weren't L21+. The western most regions such as western England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland are heavily, if not almost completely descended from L21. What evidence do you have England was not the same? There are some others who would clearly pre-date Anglo-Saxons such as I2a (xM26), I2-M26, and I2-M423 (BI type), and probably I2-M223 to name a few but they are heavily outnumbered by L21.

razyn
07-22-2015, 04:11 AM
Heinrich Härke estimated that Britain got up to 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and that influx lasted for at least 100 years (so up to 20,000 came each year on average). I don't think that any higher number than this is plausible.

I don't think that's plausible either, it's a math error. Averaging 2,000 a year, not 20,000, for 100 years.

authun
07-22-2015, 09:39 AM
Can somebody correct me if I am wrong? If these results are accurate, would that mean that the Anglo-Saxons invasion/migration theory is less credible now? I mean, that the majority of the population isn't descended from Anglo-Saxon invaders?

How many people actually came from Northern Europe to settle the British Isles?

That's not easy to determine because we don't have a single date. It is likely that migration continued over several generations. In addition, the growth rates of the respective host and immigrant populations don't have to be the same. Thomas, Härke and Stumpf showed that mathematically a 10% influx of males could result in an excess of 50% within a few generation if british women married anglo saxon men. Furthermore, early anglo saxon cemeteries are characterised by cremations and I don't think we have any idea to evaluate the effect of this on ancient inhumation DNA. Personally I doubt a 1 to 1 correlation.

30% is high though and if you took Millet's post roman population of 4m, would require 1.2m anglo saxons. Even if, as people like Härke suggest, that the roman british population crashed down to say 2m before the adventus, it still suggests an influx of 600,000 and there simply is not the archaeology on the Continent to suggest those sorts of numbers. Our biggest problem though is knowing what happened to the post roman british population, even if we knew without a shadow of a doubt what their genetic composition was, which we don't, we have no idea of numbers. The archaeologicl sequence is summarised by Härke:

"(1) Roman material culture up to the beginning of the fifth century; then (2) a black hole (‘post-crash gap’) in the first half of the fifth century, first punctuated, and then followed, by (3) Anglo-Saxon material culture from the second half of the fifth century."

We more or less know then that the British material culture stops before there is any anglo saxon material culture. In the ancient kingdom of Elmet for example the gap lasts from the late 4th cent. to the early 8th cent and even then, what does show up is ecclesiastical in nature. The neighbouring kingdom to the east, Deira was germanic as early as the 5th cent. and the neighbouring kingdom to the west, South Reghed/Gwynedd was still british in the 8th cent, on paper at least. The gap is filled slowly so what can explain this?

Chain migration is a plausible explanation and Haio Zimmermann suggests that Britain's favourable climate for cattle farming was a motivating factor for germanic farmers to migrate (into more or less empty land). Britain's warmer winters allowed cattle to be overwintered outdoors as enough biomass grew to feed them. This means that the typical germanic tripartite long house, where cattle are wintered indoors, are not necessary and the summer months can be used for growing food for human consumption without devoting a lot of time for growing winter fodder for the cattle. Life is more productive.

But, how does one put numbers on such a model. If the model is correct, anglo saxons will have come over a period of a couple of hundred years. This is afterall what we find at west heslerton. Migration is not a single event.

Why was cattle-stalling introduced in prehistory? The significance of byre and stable and of outwintering. (http://www.nihk.de/downloads.php?id=228)

authun
07-22-2015, 09:48 AM
Heinrich Härke estimated that Britain got up to 200,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and that influx lasted for at least 100 years (so up to 20,000 came each year on average). I don't think that any higher number than this is plausible. Much depends on how large was local Romano-Briton population before that immigration, and how fast did both groups grow. According to Härke, those immigrants increased in numbers faster than local population, due to the fact that Romano-Britons were losing ground, while Anglo-Saxons were gaining ground. But it is also possible, that they simply had higher fertility rates than locals (just like today Muslim immigrants and some other groups of immigrants have higher fertility rates).

Thomas, Härke and Stumpf's algorithm set the chances of reproductive success for british and germanic males as equal but it was the female mate choice which they varied. The female's choice of mate, for reasons of elevated status, meant that for every anglo saxon male wo was chosen meant that a british male was denied the chance to produce an heir.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/

authun
07-22-2015, 09:52 AM
I don't think that's plausible either, it's a math error. Averaging 2,000 a year, not 20,000, for 100 years.

That's not what the suggestion is. The model is about differential reproductive success using several plausible intermarriage rates. It's not about simple migration figures.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/

alan
07-22-2015, 10:06 AM
i tend to think the A-S invasions were moderate in size but grew enormously in core areas in eastern England then further west they had elite dominance advantage in reproduction until the Danes and then Normans replaced them.

authun
07-22-2015, 10:08 AM
Not having seen Leslie's paper, can anyone tell me if they address the question of cremations and how the data lost to the genetic record may affect the estimate?

nuadha
07-22-2015, 10:10 AM
Thomas, Härke and Stumpf's algorithm set the chances of reproductive success for british and germanic males as equal but it was the female mate choice which they varied. The female's choice of mate, for reasons of elevated status, meant that for every anglo saxon male wo was chosen meant that a british male was denied the chance to produce an heir.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/

why not mate with an anglo saxon woman, or did they just not come in hight number?

nuadha
07-22-2015, 10:14 AM
i tend to think the A-S invasions were moderate in size but grew enormously in core areas in eastern England then further west they had elite dominance advantage in reproduction until the Danes and then Normans replaced them.

Apparently the A-S were pretty homogenous over a time period so they weren't mixing that much. Maybe the AS and eastern england just outproduced the west.

authun
07-22-2015, 11:45 AM
why not mate with an anglo saxon woman, or did they just not come in hight number?

The suggestion is that whilst the farmers stayed with their families on the Continent, sons migrated in Britain to try to create their own wealth. During the roman period of course, they did the same thing but went and served in the roman army as auxilliaries. Consequently, more males than females migrated to Britain in the earlier migrations. As things in Britain became more established, females increasingly join them.

We see a similar pattern with the scandinavian migrations. Orkney and Shetland for example have roughly even male/female proportions whereas places like iceland show predominantly irish and british female populations.

5283

Genetic evidence for a family-based Scandinavian settlement of Shetland and Orkney during the Viking periods (http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/full/6800661a.html)

authun
07-22-2015, 11:53 AM
Razib Khan has an interesting post about the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/

He highlights the fact that Anglo-Saxons were female and stresses the importance of more work being needed on this topic.


Quite, take a look at Goodacre's study above which contrasts Shetland and Orkeny with Iceland, where the majority of female lineages are irish or british.

ADW_1981
07-22-2015, 12:41 PM
Both my (immediate) mtDNA lineages peak in Ireland - I2 and U4b1a2, probably both Proto-Celtic :P

Tomenable
07-22-2015, 02:18 PM
Welcome authun, good to see you here from Historum.


There are regional differences sure, but there is no evidence that the bulk of insular Celts weren't L21+. The western most regions such as western England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland are heavily, if not almost completely descended from L21. What evidence do you have England was not the same? There are some others who would clearly pre-date Anglo-Saxons such as I2a (xM26), I2-M26, and I2-M423 (BI type), and probably I2-M223 to name a few but they are heavily outnumbered by L21.

I don't doubt that "original" Insular Celts were mostly L21 (but that haplogroup could come to Britain already before the period of Celtic migrations; therefore those who carried it to Britain perhaps didn't speak Celtic languages, but some other related form of Indo-European).

But the point is, that Pre-Anglo-Saxon England was inhabited not just by Insular Celts, but also by Continental Celts and Non-Celts. We must as well remember that apart from Anglo-Saxon migrations, there were also migrations from Ireland to Scotland and to Wales. So undoubtedly those migrations from Ireland to Scotland and Wales, contemporary with Anglo-Saxon influx to England, increased the percentage of L21 there.

Has anybody attempted to estimate the scale of settlement of Celts from Ireland in Scotland and Wales after the end of Roman rule?

I have found in the internet several maps showing evidence of immigration from Ireland in toponymy and in archaeology.


What evidence do you have England was not the same?

I have already listed this evidence. For example, in England there lived some Gallic tribes and Belgian tribes too. Later there was Roman settlement in England (contrary to what has been suggested, Roman doesn't mean "from Italy" - most of newcomers were rather from Gaul).

Tomenable
07-22-2015, 02:39 PM
i tend to think the A-S invasions were moderate in size but grew enormously in core areas in eastern England then further west they had elite dominance advantage in reproduction until the Danes and then Normans replaced them.

And let's add that the Normans brought in also some L21 lineages.

For example some part of so called "Scoto-Normans", including ancestors of the Stuart dynasty, carried it, due to being descended from Bretons who invaded Britain under William's command, or from Breton mercenaries who came later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_fitz_Flaad

So the drop in frequency of L21 in Anglo-Saxon times could be initially larger, but it could be later "replenished" in Norman period (I'm just speculating, since I don't know how many Bretons actually came to settle, apart from Alan fitz Flaad). Of course Bretons were descendants of Britons, who had settled in Bretagne before. So it was a back-migration of L21 to Britain, to some extent.

Compare this to - for example - German-Americans invading West Germany, killing Germans and colonizing the land with German-American settlers. Genetic evidence would suggest continuity, despite replacement of population. High-resolution testing could help (due to Bretagne being perhaps inhabited by slightly different lineages of slightly different subclades of L21 than Britain).

alan
07-22-2015, 02:41 PM
Welcome authun, good to see you here from Historum.



I don't doubt that "original" Insular Celts were mostly L21 (but that haplogroup could come to Britain already before the period of Celtic migrations; therefore those who carried it to Britain perhaps didn't speak Celtic languages, but some other related form of Indo-European).

But the point is, that Pre-Anglo-Saxon England was inhabited not just by Insular Celts, but also by Continental Celts and Non-Celts. We must as well remember that apart from Anglo-Saxon migrations, there were also migrations from Ireland to Scotland and to Wales. So undoubtedly those migrations from Ireland to Scotland and Wales, contemporary with Anglo-Saxon influx to England, increased the percentage of L21 there.

Has anybody attempted to estimate the scale of settlement of Celts from Ireland in Scotland and Wales after the end of Roman rule?

I have found in the internet several maps showing evidence of immigration from Ireland in toponymy and in archaeology.



I have already listed this evidence. For example, in England there lived some Gallic tribes and Belgian tribes too. Later there was Roman settlement in England (contrary to what has been suggested, Roman doesn't mean "from Italy" - most of newcomers were rather from Gaul).

Its not like the Iron Age continental Celts were isolated from the insular ones for a huge period in the Bronze Age. Generally speaking we can see in the metalwork that the insular Celts were in constant contact with the continent through the Bronze Age. There was probably a constant trickle flow of genes too.

Tomenable
07-22-2015, 02:56 PM
Indeed. But my main point was, that Continental Celts were not L21, but mostly other subclades and also other haplogroups.

L21 is only found in significant frequencies in Ireland, Britain, and in places where Insular Celts settled (like Bretagne or Iceland).

rms2
07-22-2015, 03:38 PM
Indeed. But my main point was, that Continental Celts were not L21, but mostly other subclades and also other haplogroups.

It would be more correct to say that not all continental Celts were R1b-L21. Clearly some continental Celts were R1b-L21.



L21 is only found in significant frequencies in Ireland, Britain, and in places where Insular Celts settled (like Bretagne or Iceland).

That depends on what one means by "significant". L21 is fairly frequent in France outside of Bretagne and in Belgium. Its presence on the Continent cannot be attributed solely to settlers from the British Isles and Ireland.

On a side note, it is really tiresome to have to deal with this issue yet again, since it was hashed out years ago beginning almost immediately after L21 was discovered and among the very first derived test subjects were two Germans with no close British Isles or Irish haplotype neighbors, Dale Krueger and Thomas Krahn.

alan
07-22-2015, 03:46 PM
Indeed. But my main point was, that Continental Celts were not L21, but mostly other subclades and also other haplogroups.

L21 is only found in significant frequencies in Ireland, Britain, and in places where Insular Celts settled (like Bretagne or Iceland).

Its long been recognised that any yDNA correlation with Celtic speaking really requires all three main branches of P312 to explain it. However I think its not simple. I believe when P312 was spreading through future Celtic stages it was at most at the pre-proto-Celtic stage - the equivalent of the long pre-proto-German phase that is usually postulated to fit in the period 2500-500BC give or take a couple of centuries. I think people find it hard to get their heads around these pre-proto phases of languages. However, IMO the migration phases that spread most of P312 happened in the pre-proto-Celtic era and that further dialect changes that moved towards full proto-Celtic were dont over a wide area of interaction almost like a lingua franca dialect rather than by migration. People got too used to nice maps with a core circled and arrows coming out of it for Celtic when its probably massively complex. The lattice of contacts seen in metalwork in the Bronze Age was complex and multi-directional. There is probably an element of dialect convergence involved. To be honest I am not very bothered about this - we are talking about gradual linguistic shifts among already existing peoples. As I have said, proto-Celtic or any proto language is just a snapshot in time before divergence started to set in. That divergence probably started with the Bronze Age network collapse when convergence was weakened and some areas became peripheral. Proto languages are useful concepts but they are just snapshots of a constant process and we should not get hung up on it.

avalon
07-22-2015, 03:56 PM
Not having seen Leslie's paper, can anyone tell me if they address the question of cremations and how the data lost to the genetic record may affect the estimate?

I don't think they mentioned cremations in the Leslie paper. You make a good point though, this is a general limitation with the use of ancientDNA. How can we be sure that the human remains that are available for sequencing are statistically representative of a population?

rms2
07-22-2015, 03:58 PM
It is worth noting that the two Hinxton R1b-L21 males from the report that is the topic of this thread were recovered from within the territory inhabited at the time they lived by the Catuvellauni tribe, which has been classed as Belgic.

Of course, all we know about these two men, aside from their rc dates and SNP results, is that they undoubtedly spoke the mysterious language known only as "Iron Age". ;)

Tomenable
07-22-2015, 04:20 PM
I don't think that's plausible either, it's a math error. Averaging 2,000 a year, not 20,000, for 100 years.

Yes indeed, I posted one excess 0. That was of course 2,000 per year, in 100 years. Not 20,000 per year in 10 years.

GoldenHind
07-23-2015, 05:38 PM
By the way, "Saxons" was an umbrella term for all Germanic-speaking newcomers to Britain, rather than a specific tribe.

"Saxons" was probably how local Celts called them (just like "Welsh" is how Britons were called by Germanic newcomers).

There were also Frisians and other ethnic groups migrating to Britain under that umbrella term "Saxons" (check the link):



In his book The Anglo-Saxons, James Campbell wrote, "ït is certain that men came to Britain from many parts of the German world, from Norway to south Germany."

Caratacus
07-23-2015, 05:39 PM
That 30% anglo-saxon estimate is consistent with the number from the POBI study.

Yes, but the estimate of 20% AngloSaxon for the Scots and Welsh is far higher than what PotBI said - about 3% to 6% for the Welsh and 2-13% for the Scots (that's the DNA from Denmark and NW Germany) Can we explain that or does it cast great doubt on the validity of the whole study?

Chad Rohlfsen
07-23-2015, 08:35 PM
Things are going to be wild in Britain, for some time. They should do many more samples of Britons. There's going to be some odd-balls. Remember, the Bronze Age grave in Kent, from about 1000BCE, had many foreigners. Of the 25 people, 9 came from around Southern Norway/Sweden, and five came from the Western Mediterranean.

Reith
07-23-2015, 09:03 PM
I think as time goes on you will see more Continental L-21 as people get tested.

I for one think I am a descendant of L-21 that stayed on the continent.

The Celts were everywhere back in the iron age, they had to leave some genes behind as well.

Reith

avalon
07-23-2015, 09:17 PM
Yes, but the estimate of 20% AngloSaxon for the Scots and Welsh is far higher than what PotBI said - about 3% to 6% for the Welsh and 2-13% for the Scots (that's the DNA from Denmark and NW Germany) Can we explain that or does it cast great doubt on the validity of the whole study?

I believe Dubhthach mentioned earlier in the thread that this Hinxton study only had 10 modern Welsh and 10 modern Scottish samples to compare to. So, a) the samples are tiny, and b) we don't know where the samples were taken from. Depending on where the samples were taken the 20% figure for Wales is easily explained by the large scale migration of English people to Wales within the last 200 years. Wales underwent a major transition in industrial times, the population went from being an estimated 80% Welsh speaking in the early 1800s to just 20% today - the major catalyst being the arrival of English speakers.

We also have to consider Anglo-Norman and Tudor period migration to Wales but this affected some parts of Wales and not others - hence the importance of knowing where precisely samples are collected.

We know that the POBI project on the other hand took their North Wales samples largely from Gwynedd/Anglesey which is about the "Welshest" part of Wales and stronghold of the language, so I would expect low Anglo-Saxon or English ancestry in these areas. I would also expect much more Anglo-Saxon/English ancestry in Eastern Wales than in Western Wales.

rossa
07-23-2015, 09:20 PM
It is worth noting that the two Hinxton R1b-L21 males from the report that is the topic of this thread were recovered from within the territory inhabited at the time they lived by the Catuvellauni tribe, which has been classed as Belgic.

Of course, all we know about these two men, aside from their rc dates and SNP results, is that they undoubtedly spoke the mysterious language known only as "Iron Age". ;)

Here is another article where they use the "I" word a lot.
http://news.yahoo.com/weird-horse-cows-6-legged-sheep-found-iron-124136647.html

GoldenHind
07-23-2015, 09:28 PM
I believe Dubhthach mentioned earlier in the thread that this Hinxton study only had 10 modern Welsh and 10 modern Scottish samples to compare to. So, a) the samples are tiny, and b) we don't know where the samples were taken from. Depending on where the samples were taken the 20% figure for Wales is easily explained by the large scale migration of English people to Wales within the last 200 years. Wales underwent a major transition in industrial times, the population went from being an estimated 80% Welsh speaking in the early 1800s to just 20% today - the major catalyst being the arrival of English speakers.

We also have to consider Anglo-Norman and Tudor period migration to Wales but this affected some parts of Wales and not others - hence the importance of knowing where precisely samples are collected.

We know that the POBI project on the other hand took their North Wales samples largely from Gwynedd/Anglesey which is about the "Welshest" part of Wales and stronghold of the language, so I would expect low Anglo-Saxon or English ancestry in these areas. I would also expect much more Anglo-Saxon/English ancestry in Eastern Wales than in Western Wales.

I note that Busby found 9.2% [11] U106 in a sample of 120 in North Wales, whatever conclusions one cares to draw from that.

avalon
07-23-2015, 09:58 PM
I note that Busby found 9.2% [11] U106 in a sample of 120 in North Wales, whatever conclusions one cares to draw from that.

It may depend on precisely where the samples were taken. The Anglo-Normans did establish boroughs in certain parts of North Wales after the conquest of Gwynedd 1282 - Beaumaris, Conwy, Ruthin, spring to mind but other areas were left alone - mainly the isolated farmsteads in the hills. The Anglo-Normans has their castles and their towns but that was it really.

Then in modern times the NE coast of Wales from Prestatyn to Conwy has been heavily anglicised since Victorian times. Even today towns on the north coast such as Llandudno and Rhyl seem much more English than "Welshier" towns such as Caernarfon, Bala and Blaenau Ffestioniog.

Assuming U106 is anglo-saxon then my guess would be a modern arrival on the North Wales coast but I could be wrong, it may just as easily be a medieval arrival, or a combination of both.

rms2
07-24-2015, 08:44 PM
It may depend on precisely where the samples were taken. The Anglo-Normans did establish boroughs in certain parts of North Wales after the conquest of Gwynedd 1282 - Beaumaris, Conwy, Ruthin, spring to mind but other areas were left alone - mainly the isolated farmsteads in the hills. The Anglo-Normans has their castles and their towns but that was it really.

Then in modern times the NE coast of Wales from Prestatyn to Conwy has been heavily anglicised since Victorian times. Even today towns on the north coast such as Llandudno and Rhyl seem much more English than "Welshier" towns such as Caernarfon, Bala and Blaenau Ffestioniog.

Assuming U106 is anglo-saxon then my guess would be a modern arrival on the North Wales coast but I could be wrong, it may just as easily be a medieval arrival, or a combination of both.

Busby's North Wales sample location was Abergele. Recall that it was in Abergele that E-V13 was found at close to 39%, so it seems an odd spot.

Gray Fox
07-24-2015, 09:06 PM
Busby's North Wales sample location was Abergele. Recall that it was in Abergele that E-V13 was found at close to 39%, so it seems an odd spot.

I always forget that figure, then see it again and am equally amazed as I was the first time I seen it :crazy::lol:

avalon
07-26-2015, 08:43 AM
Busby's North Wales sample location was Abergele. Recall that it was in Abergele that E-V13 was found at close to 39%, so it seems an odd spot.

Going way off topic here but looking at the Abergele census for 1901 most of the surnames are Welsh but there is a significant minority of English surnames too. Abergele like much of the North East Welsh coast has been heavily anglicised/urbanised since the 19th century so this needs to be considered when looking at the y-dna of modern Welsh people.

I think for U106, and E-V13 for that matter it would be very useful to see a breakdown of surnames in North Wales? I think the guy who was doing a study for the University of Sheffield on N Wales sometimes posts at anthrogenica so maybe that study will shed some light on E-V13.

rms2
07-26-2015, 04:34 PM
Apparently Pensarn is regarded as part of Abergele, and Belgrano is called a "satellite village" of Abergele. Here is what the Wikipedia article on Abergele (for what it's worth) says about them:



Pensarn and Belgrano are significantly less Welsh than the rest of town, with 47.7 of people identifying themselves as English in the 2011 census.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergele

rms2
07-26-2015, 05:27 PM
Going way off topic here but looking at the Abergele census for 1901 most of the surnames are Welsh but there is a significant minority of English surnames too. Abergele like much of the North East Welsh coast has been heavily anglicised/urbanised since the 19th century so this needs to be considered when looking at the y-dna of modern Welsh people.

I think for U106, and E-V13 for that matter it would be very useful to see a breakdown of surnames in North Wales? I think the guy who was doing a study for the University of Sheffield on N Wales sometimes posts at anthrogenica so maybe that study will shed some light on E-V13.

I doubt much if any of the R1b-U106 in Wales predates the arrival of the English, under which rubric I include the Anglo-Saxons. The two Iron Age Celts from Hinxton, recovered from a site in the very heart of what is today U106 country, were neither of them U106. Instead, they were both R1b-L21. The only ancient R1b-U106 find to date comes from Bronze Age Sweden, which is in keeping with that y haplogroup's essentially Germanic distribution.

The E-V13 in Abergele, however, is a genuine enigma. Someone suggested a connection to Roman troops and merchants in the Abergele vicinity, and that might be right. Wikipedia says the sample population that yielded that big E-V13 result was small though: just 18. That means 7 of the 18 were E-V13. That is still a pretty startling result, even given the small sample size, but obviously a bigger sample would yield a more accurate picture.

Dubhthach
07-26-2015, 05:41 PM
It would be nice to have large scale sampling from Walsh with breakdown of major Haplogroups, here's snapshot from the Welsh language show which Andy Grierson had some involvement in:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/wales-l21-u106.png

It would be nice to have breakdown of composition of "white" (eg. L21-, U106-)

rms2
07-26-2015, 06:10 PM
Judging from Busby's North Wales sample (again, from Abergele), at least half of the white in those pie charts should be other forms of R1b-P312. P312xL21,U152 was 17.5% of the North Wales sample, and U152 was 7.5% of it. I'm guessing most of that P312xL21,U152 is probably DF27, but not all of it. Some of it could be DF19 and DF99.

Of the remaining quarter, some of it is probably I2a, a little I1, and who knows what else.

avalon
07-26-2015, 07:27 PM
I doubt much if any of the R1b-U106 in Wales predates the arrival of the English, under which rubric I include the Anglo-Saxons. The two Iron Age Celts from Hinxton, recovered from a site in the very heart of what is today U106 country, were neither of them U106. Instead, they were both R1b-L21. The only ancient R1b-U106 find to date comes from Bronze Age Sweden, which is in keeping with that y haplogroup's essentially Germanic distribution.

The E-V13 in Abergele, however, is a genuine enigma. Someone suggested a connection to Roman troops and merchants in the Abergele vicinity, and that might be right. Wikipedia says the sample population that yielded that big E-V13 result was small though: just 18. That means 7 of the 18 were E-V13. That is still a pretty startling result, even given the small sample size, but obviously a bigger sample would yield a more accurate picture.

I am open minded about U106 in North Wales. I suspect that it probably first arrived with English settlers following the conquest of Gwynedd in 1282. English settlers were given land in places like Vale of Clwyd, Bromfield and Yale and castle-towns such as Beaumaris, Conwy, Ruthin and Denbigh also drew settlers, usually from the English estates of whichever lord had been granted Welsh land. U106 frequencies must also have been augmented in modern times by English migrants to Wales.

I agree about E-V13, it is a mystery. I have a vague recollection though from a thread here that it has been found in other parts of North Wales, not just Abergele.

Dubhthach
07-26-2015, 08:29 PM
What's interesting when we look at the PoBI clusters is way Wales spilts in two clusters fairly early on. It makes me wonder if this is reflective of the isogloss boundary in Welsh.

avalon
07-27-2015, 08:23 PM
What's interesting when we look at the PoBI clusters is way Wales spilts in two clusters fairly early on. It makes me wonder if this is reflective of the isogloss boundary in Welsh.

I think you're probably right. You can see from this map that the different Welsh dialect areas very closely match the medieval kingdoms of Wales so I think the POBI clusters largely reflect these geographic and linguistic boundaries.

Historically, due to its hilly terrain and west flowing rivers, it was not easy to travel from north to south and I have heard it said that the best place for a North Walian and South Walian to meet was in Shrewsbury. :)

http://i.imgur.com/RFnqLn5.jpg

https://www.wrexham.gov.uk/images/culture_heritage/medieval_exhibition/map_wales_large.jpg

Tomenable
07-28-2015, 12:32 AM
My post about the "red cluster" from PoBI paper:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history&p=97109&viewfull=1#post97109

Here user Sparkey reached a similar conclusion:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31001-Fine-Scale-Population-Structure-in-the-British-Population?p=461344&viewfull=1#post461344


One of the more thoroughly addressed points in the PotBI paper is the correspondence of clusters to one another and to continental populations. It's tough to argue that the red cluster is much more than 50% Anglo-Saxon when it matches more closely to certain other British populations than it does to continental populations. Based on this study, it does indeed seem that there was a large group of relatively homogenous Celts in southern Britain, which I don't think should be that surprising, considering that the geography of those parts of southern Britain allows a lot of population movement. So, we see a large, relatively homogenous Celtic substratum spanning the red cluster, as well as the Devon cluster, Cornish cluster, Welsh Marches cluster, etc; the differences between those being partly the amount of Anglo-Saxon influence.

rms2
07-28-2015, 12:41 AM
I think you're probably right. You can see from this map that the different Welsh dialect areas very closely match the medieval kingdoms of Wales so I think the POBI clusters largely reflect these geographic and linguistic boundaries.

Historically, due to its hilly terrain and west flowing rivers, it was not easy to travel from north to south and I have heard it said that the best place for a North Walian and South Walian to meet was in Shrewsbury. :)

http://i.imgur.com/RFnqLn5.jpg

https://www.wrexham.gov.uk/images/culture_heritage/medieval_exhibition/map_wales_large.jpg

Whoa! Really nice maps! Now that I have actually been there and driven all over Wales, that has a lot more meaning for me.

Krefter
07-28-2015, 01:20 AM
Any ideas when the new genomes will be available online?

Tomenable
07-28-2015, 01:57 AM
Anglo-Saxons were similar to modern Dutch, but modern Dutch are not homogeneous (so to which part were they similar?):

"Dutch: single or dual population?" - https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/dutch-single-or-dual-population/

A north-south divide is most striking, with southern Netherlands dominated by pink component and northern part by yellow component:

https://forwhattheywereweare.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/netherlands-f4.png

Pink component seems to correlate with Ingaevonic (red color below) languages and yellow with Istvaeonic (orange) languages:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png

Caratacus
08-02-2015, 09:43 PM
Anglo-Saxons were similar to modern Dutch, but modern Dutch are not homogeneous (so to which part were they similar?):

This study http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n8/full/ng.3021.html has found fine scale differences between N & S Dutch but you can see from the cluster map they are all still pretty tight.

Peccavi
08-03-2015, 11:45 AM
Busby's North Wales sample location was Abergele. Recall that it was in Abergele that E-V13 was found at close to 39%, so it seems an odd spot.

Don't know if it is relevant but Abergele was the centre of a very extensive and large copper mining area in the Bronze Age. Could migrants associated with this activity explain the Genetics?