PDA

View Full Version : UK...British...Celtic...?



Jon
10-24-2016, 06:36 PM
Just seen this posting from ancestry.co.uk. Very confusing. They equate 'British' with Anglo-Saxon, and then distinguish that from 'Irish (Celtic)'. I wonder which of these categories they fit L21 into, as in my my mind this could cover both 'British' (Brythnonic) and 'Irish/Celtic' (Goedelic) ancient populations. This seems very generalistic, to say the least...

http://blogs.ancestry.co.uk/cm/we-are-less-british-than-we-think/?o_xid=74115&o_lid=74115&o_sch=External+Paid+Media

A Norfolk L-M20
10-24-2016, 07:06 PM
Banging my head against the wall now! Remind me not to test with that company. So what about Scottish and Welsh?

10-24-2016, 07:26 PM
I still maintain my belief that the British should read (Ancient Briton), or Brythonic, or P-Celtic ( La Tene Migrations) and not Anglo Saxon Migrations.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-24-2016, 07:32 PM
I had a rant on on one of their Facebook posts. It is of course absolute nonsense. A primary school child would probably be better informed about British history than that. Even English people aren't entirely A/S. I think I've seen about 30% quoted?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-24-2016, 07:36 PM
I still maintain my belief that the British should read (Ancient Briton), or Brythonic, or P-Celtic ( La Tene Migrations) and not Anglo Saxon Migrations.

Yes, a good point. If they are talking about the earliest "British" dna, it needs to be identified as such and related to a time period - pre-Roman era or pre - A/S, Danes, Normans.

10-24-2016, 07:40 PM
Yes, a good point. If they are talking about the earliest "British" dna, it needs to be identified as such and related to a time period - pre-Roman era or pre - A/S, Danes, Normans.

Indeed..

Webb
10-24-2016, 08:01 PM
I have mentioned this before, but of the 41 Webb lineages at this surname project:

33 are R1b
4 U106
5 L21
1 DF27
1 U152
2 P312
Leaving 20 who are, as of now, M269. Interesting that the P312 rate is so high for an Old English Occupational Surname. In my opinion, one day weaving cloth for a Celtic Noble, the next day weaving cloth for a Saxon Noble.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
10-24-2016, 08:11 PM
I have mentioned this before, but of the 41 Webb lineages at this surname project:

33 are R1b
4 U106
5 L21
1 DF27
1 U152
2 P312
Leaving 20 who are, as of now, M269. Interesting that the P312 rate is so high for an Old English Occupational Surname. In my opinion, one day weaving cloth for a Celtic Noble, the next day weaving cloth for a Saxon Noble.

or a Norman noble. :)

Webb
10-24-2016, 08:15 PM
or a Norman noble. :)

:doh:

rms2
10-24-2016, 10:59 PM
I think the English are basically a mix of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic (duh), with the Celtic increasing as one goes north and west and the Anglo-Saxon increasing as one goes south and east. That seems pretty obvious to me.

My own ancestry is mostly Celtic, but I have some English, too. One of my third great grandfathers was East Anglian, and he was I-M253, which I know from some cousins.

Saetro
10-24-2016, 11:09 PM
"British" in modern history was invented after 1707 and the union with Scotland, to describe English, Welsh and Scots simultaneously.
As we know from YDNA at least, there is a very substantial proportion of pre-AngloSaxon descendants in "Britain" today - a majority in most areas.
Equating "British" with "AngloSaxon" is inaccurate.
The Roman use refers to the people who were there when they arrived - no AngloSaxons amongst them (pace U152).
That is certainly the sense in which this community understands "British" in regard to ethnicity.

The ordinary person in an American street (most customers) may need to be told a simple story, but simplification should not mean inaccuracy.
The recent expansion into the British Isles will not be well served by this inaccuracy.

Jessie
10-25-2016, 03:15 AM
Just seen this posting from ancestry.co.uk. Very confusing. They equate 'British' with Anglo-Saxon, and then distinguish that from 'Irish (Celtic)'. I wonder which of these categories they fit L21 into, as in my my mind this could cover both 'British' (Brythnonic) and 'Irish/Celtic' (Goedelic) ancient populations. This seems very generalistic, to say the least...

http://blogs.ancestry.co.uk/cm/we-are-less-british-than-we-think/?o_xid=74115&o_lid=74115&o_sch=External+Paid+Media

That's just the article's spin on things. I don't think Ancestry actually specifies "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon". The Ireland category is called that because it reaches a maximum in Ireland. Most Irish people get a significant amount as in Ancestry Blog they say the average Irish person gets 95%. The Great Britain category is more mixed and I've read somewhere on this forum that Ancestry was planning on combining it with Europe West as they were so similar.

Saetro
10-25-2016, 11:12 PM
That's just the article's spin on things. I don't think Ancestry actually specifies "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon". The Ireland category is called that because it reaches a maximum in Ireland. Most Irish people get a significant amount as in Ancestry Blog they say the average Irish person gets 95%. The Great Britain category is more mixed and I've read somewhere on this forum that Ancestry was planning on combining it with Europe West as they were so similar.

Wasn't that graph in the article straight from Ancestry? With a segment labelled "British (Anglo Saxon)"?

Combining "British" with "Europe West" would certainly be more correct, but is completely against what attracts potential customers. In the recent past, marketing considerations seem to have dominated. (Ref. "Are you a Viking?" TV ads.)

Jessie
10-26-2016, 02:42 AM
Wasn't that graph in the article straight from Ancestry? With a segment labelled "British (Anglo Saxon)"?

Combining "British" with "Europe West" would certainly be more correct, but is completely against what attracts potential customers. In the recent past, marketing considerations seem to have dominated. (Ref. "Are you a Viking?" TV ads.)

Yes it is actually from Ancestry. It's a spin to get people interested but a bit simplistic. It will be really interesting to see the results of Living DNA once they start coming through. I'm hopeful that dna testing will be even more accurate and refined in the future.

Dubhthach
10-26-2016, 12:39 PM
Assigning labels based on nation states (Well "West European" is at least broad) is always bound to cause problems. Given that they are gonna merge "British" and "West European" while hiving off the Germans into a "Central European" component in next major update, makes me think that their "British" component is probably a hybrid one which if anything represents good chunk of Brythonic speaking heritage.

Personally I'd be fine if they changed the "Irish" label to "North West Insular European" and than explained that this peaks in modern Irish population but probably reflects a wider older population component.

Jessie
10-26-2016, 01:01 PM
Assigning labels based on nation states (Well "West European" is at least broad) is always bound to cause problems. Given that they are gonna merge "British" and "West European" while hiving off the Germans into a "Central European" component in next major update, makes me think that their "British" component is probably a hybrid one which if anything represents good chunk of Brythonic speaking heritage.

Personally I'd be fine if they changed the "Irish" label to "North West Insular European" and than explained that this peaks in modern Irish population but probably reflects a wider older population component.

I think that is a great suggestion. So many people take the labels too literally. Some people are surprised they get Ireland in their results with no known Irish ancestry and I've seen people asking how they can trace their Irish ancestry when they get something like 5% Ireland in their results. Something like what you have suggested would be a much better descriptor.

Amerijoe
11-28-2016, 09:45 PM
There seems to be some uncertainty regarding, what makes a Brit. This is of great interest to me trying to narrow down dad's origin. Here is Ancestry's report on the British Islses makeup, it would be great if there was a perfect fit.

12781. 12782

Ancestry Results

Europe 100%
Ireland 49%
Great Britain 47%
Trace Regions 4%
European Jewish 1%
Italy/Greece < 1%
Europe West < 1%
Finland/Northwest Russia < 1%

FTDNA Results
European
98%
British Isles
98%

Middle Eastern
2%
Eastern Middle East
2%

23andMe
European
100%
Northwestern European
98.2%
British & Irish
90.8%
Scandinavian
1.4%
Broadly Northwestern European
6.0%
Southern European
0.8%
Italian
0.4%
Broadly Southern European
0.3%

All three testing companies have me at 90+% British. So, I can say with some conviction that I am British. Hopefully results from livingdna will help narrow my focus with portended regional results.

Native Brits, see how well you fit in Ancestry's regional breakdown. Does it agreed with your results? B)

A Norfolk L-M20
11-28-2016, 11:01 PM
I think the English are basically a mix of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic (duh), with the Celtic increasing as one goes north and west and the Anglo-Saxon increasing as one goes south and east. That seems pretty obvious to me.

My own ancestry is mostly Celtic, but I have some English, too. One of my third great grandfathers was East Anglian, and he was I-M253, which I know from some cousins.

.... and apparently a bit more. We have this slightly weird low hunter-gatherer, high early Neolithic farmer, low Ancient North Eurasian thing (in other words, Southern European) going on. POBI ascribes it to a Late Prehistoric unknown immigration event from the south - what is now France. Dienekes ascribes it to Norman and Medieval French admixture. I and my VERY East Anglian mother, appear to have oodles of it. According to http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/27/055855 we have more of it than either our Anglo Saxon ancestors or other local Northern populations. So still plenty to understand about the English!

Dubhthach
11-29-2016, 10:04 AM
I've been wondering if the "British" component in Ancestry might actually be a proxy for Brythonic and not Anglo-Saxon as some media types have been pushing, the fact that the "West European" peaks in East Anglia got me wondering.

We know in the upcoming revision of Ancestry that the "British" component will merge with the western part of "West European" (eg. French) whereas the German's will spilt off as "Central European". People have been saying that the "British" component anyways was always very close to pre-existing "West European".

Anyways this new "British-West European" component has me thinking of concept of "Gallo-Brythonic", if we consider the fact that before 400AD that the population of Roman Gallia and Britannia would have been quite similiar. Perhaps than the "British" component in Ancestry actually represents a hybrid Brythonic/AS component (with more emphasis on Brythonic)

I'm reminded somewhat of the PoBI study before they removed the Irish component (which basically mapped onto equivalent in Ancestry)

A Norfolk L-M20
11-29-2016, 12:12 PM
I've been wondering if the "British" component in Ancestry might actually be a proxy for Brythonic and not Anglo-Saxon as some media types have been pushing, the fact that the "West European" peaks in East Anglia got me wondering.

We know in the upcoming revision of Ancestry that the "British" component will merge with the western part of "West European" (eg. French) whereas the German's will spilt off as "Central European". People have been saying that the "British" component anyways was always very close to pre-existing "West European".

Anyways this new "British-West European" component has me thinking of concept of "Gallo-Brythonic", if we consider the fact that before 400AD that the population of Roman Gallia and Britannia would have been quite similiar. Perhaps than the "British" component in Ancestry actually represents a hybrid Brythonic/AS component (with more emphasis on Brythonic)

I'm reminded somewhat of the PoBI study before they removed the Irish component (which basically mapped onto equivalent in Ancestry)

The Gallic Empire of the Third Century AD. Where the Western Roman Empire fragmented, leaving Gaul and Britannia functioning as a single break away state. Yes, we probably have underplayed immigration in Roman Britain. I know pots are not people, but the trade with Gaul was immense. I've certainly found Samian and other Gallic pot sherds here.

Dienekes as I said, highlighted the above linked report that suggested the southern admixture occurred more recently, during the Medieval.

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI

Dubhthach
11-29-2016, 12:18 PM
The Gallic Empire of the Third Century AD. Where the Western Roman Empire fragmented, leaving Gaul and Britannia functioning as a single break away state. Yes, we probably have underplayed immigration in Roman Britain. I know pots are not people, but the trade with Gaul was immense. I've certainly found Samian and other Gallic pot sherds here.

Dienekes as I said, highlighted the above linked report that suggested the southern admixture occurred more recently, during the Medieval.

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI


Well my point was more to do with the fact that both Gaulish and Brythonic languages are often lumped together as Gallo-Brythonic, this is as the two share common features not found in Goidelic.

If you look at the likes of Scrhijver's classification of Celtic languages, he puts the above three into "North Celtic", leaving that aside we do of course know about late pre-historic Gaulish intrusion into southern Britian (as noted by the Roman's)

moesan
11-29-2016, 11:20 PM
Sincerely I think these kinds of namings and classifications disqualiifies this "workes" and don't serve to any clear understanding of our past.

JMcB
11-30-2016, 02:02 AM
Quote Originally Posted by A Norfolk L-M20

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI

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

That's an interesting lecture. I watched it a while back but after watching the portion you suggested, I think I'll watch it again.

One thing I've wonder about ever since my first viewing, is that their method for dating the Anglo Saxon migration comes in at a rather late 858 AD. They believe the discrepancy can be attributed to a delay in the time it took for the Anglo Saxons to intermarry with the indigenous population. However, I wonder if the continuing contribution of Danish DNA during the subsequent Viking invasions is skewing their numbers and pulling them up. So that they're getting an average of both events. From what I remember, the Anglo Saxons & the Danes are virtually indistinguishable genetically, as they both came from the same general area within a short time span.

(See the video at approximately 37:45 minutes in)

I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who knows more about the technicalities of these things.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
11-30-2016, 07:07 AM
Quote Originally Posted by A Norfolk L-M20

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI

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

That's an interesting lecture. I watched it a while back but after watching the portion you suggested, I think I'll watch it again.

One thing I've wonder about ever since my first viewing, is that their method for dating the Anglo Saxon migration comes in at a rather late 858 AD. They believe the discrepancy can be attributed to a delay in the time it took for the Anglo Saxons to intermarry with the indigenous population. However, I wonder if the continuing contribution of Danish DNA during the subsequent Viking invasions is skewing their numbers and pulling them up. So that they're getting an average of both events. From what I remember, the Anglo Saxons & the Danes are virtually indistinguishable genetically, as they both came from the same general area within a short time span.

(See the video at approximately 37:45 minutes in)

I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who knows more about the technicalities of these things.

I've wondered the same thing. In North West Scotland we can easily identify descendants of Norse settlers because there is nothing else to blur the picture ( no significant Anglo Saxon presence as I understand it).
Why then should the descendants of Norse settlers have entirely disappeared in the rest of the UK? One possible answer is the St. Brice's Day massacre, but it seems very unlikely they would have killed all the Norse and their descendants I would have thought? John

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFp43e8c_QAhVCDMAKHYlUBcEQFggxMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archaeology.org%2Fissues%2F10 9-1311%2Ffeatures%2F1421-viking-england-st-brices-daye&usg=AFQjCNG-ZpCxYEdagEUS9PBOK97VIkwZ1Q&sig2=knbkr6skDs6Dl1sOYN3_TQ

A Norfolk L-M20
11-30-2016, 11:42 AM
Quote Originally Posted by A Norfolk L-M20

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI

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

That's an interesting lecture. I watched it a while back but after watching the portion you suggested, I think I'll watch it again.

One thing I've wonder about ever since my first viewing, is that their method for dating the Anglo Saxon migration comes in at a rather late 858 AD. They believe the discrepancy can be attributed to a delay in the time it took for the Anglo Saxons to intermarry with the indigenous population. However, I wonder if the continuing contribution of Danish DNA during the subsequent Viking invasions is skewing their numbers and pulling them up. So that they're getting an average of both events. From what I remember, the Anglo Saxons & the Danes are virtually indistinguishable genetically, as they both came from the same general area within a short time span.

(See the video at approximately 37:45 minutes in)

I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who knows more about the technicalities of these things.

I totally agree with you. The place-name evidence in places such as East Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and East Norfolk are so suggestive of significant Danish immigration during C9 - C10 AD. Here is a map of an area in East Norfolk called Flegg:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12805&d=1480505296

(modified image from OpenStreetMap.org Copyright attribution-sharealike 2.0 generic.). You see this cluster of -by parishes? Flegg was pretty much a salt-marsh island during C4 AD. The hypothesis is that as sea levels dropped slightly from the 7th Century, and drainage systems improved, new migrants arriving would have seen this as new land where they could settle. They founded the new settlements, in their own dialects. even the name Flegg is said to be Old Danish. The surrounding areas of East Norfolk have relatively fewer Danish place-names, and more Anglo-Saxon. It doesn't mean that Danish didn't settle there - but the settlements already had firmly established Anglo-Saxon placenames. However, East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have many more -by settlements. Was East Anglia a harder place to settle, where they were squeezed onto drained marshlands?

So I think that some people have misinterpreted POBI as saying that there was no Danish settlement. What they were seeing was that they couldn't distinguish DNA evidence of a Danish settlement - from some Anglo-Saxon. I totally agree also - that presentation was excellent. Everyone with an interest in British population genetics should watch it.

JMcB
11-30-2016, 03:54 PM
I've wondered the same thing. In North West Scotland we can easily identify descendants of Norse settlers because there is nothing else to blur the picture ( no significant Anglo Saxon presence as I understand it).
Why then should the descendants of Norse settlers have entirely disappeared in the rest of the UK? One possible answer is the St. Brice's Day massacre, but it seems very unlikely they would have killed all the Norse and their descendants I would have thought? John

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFp43e8c_QAhVCDMAKHYlUBcEQFggxMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archaeology.org%2Fissues%2F10 9-1311%2Ffeatures%2F1421-viking-england-st-brices-daye&usg=AFQjCNG-ZpCxYEdagEUS9PBOK97VIkwZ1Q&sig2=knbkr6skDs6Dl1sOYN3_TQ

Yes, I agree. I don't think the St. Brice's Day massacre would account for it. As it was probably limited in it's effect and wouldn't have extended to the Danelaw, where it would have been frowned upon. And it was followed soon thereafter by a successful Viking invasion that led to the Danish rule of England for 28 years. A situation that would have been ripe for more Danish settlement, one would imagine.

JMcB
11-30-2016, 08:26 PM
I've been re-reading the POBI paper to refresh my memory and thought I'd post some of the pertinent excerpts for anyone who's interested.


A more general conclusion of our analyses is that while many of the historical migration events leave signals in our data, they have had a smaller effect on the genetic composition of UK populations than has sometimes been argued. In particular, we see no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region (cf. Orkney), or in estimated ancestry profiles, suggesting a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings and subsequent mixing with nearby regions, and clear evidence for only a minority Norse contribution (about 25%) to the current Orkney population.

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

For Cent./ S England the method also detected an admixture event, with a contribution of ~35% of DNA from GER3, the group in north-western Germany, and an estimated date of 38 generations (95% CI: 36-40 generations), corresponding to year 858 (95% CI: 802-914) (Extended Data Fig. 10).

The GLOBETROTTER analyses detect likely source populations for the known historical migrations (Norse Vikings and Saxons respectively) with the estimated proportion contributed by these sources close to that estimated in the ancestry profiles. Note that a migration event is likely to precede any subsequent population admixture, possibly substantially so, if the migrants mate largely within the migrant group for some time after their migration. Further, admixture is likely to be a gradual process, so that using a model of a single pulse of admixture in GLOBETROTTER is likely to estimate a time after the commencement of admixture. For these reasons, the admixture dates estimated by GLOBETROTTER should provide upper bounds on the dates of the migrations, as for both examples here **, where the estimated dates are 200 or more years after the known dates of the migrations, suggesting that the mixing was indeed a gradual process.

** The other being Orkney.

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

Estimating the proportion of Saxon ancestry in central and southern England

It is of interest to estimate the proportion of Saxon ancestry in our Cent./ S England cluster. We have undertaken two separate analyses which bear on this, namely our estimated ancestry profiles and the GLOBETROTTER analysis. One challenge is that various distinct modern European groups may carry DNA which descends from the Saxons (or their ancestors), and hence be informative about the contribution of Saxon DNA to the UK. The pattern of contributions to UK clusters from GER3, and its location in Europe in northern Germany, make it very likely to capture ancestry brought to the UK by Saxon migrants (see Discussion). As noted in the discussion in the Supplementary Note, some of the ancestry shared with the group DEN18 from modern Denmark could also reflect ancestry brought to the UK by the Saxon migrants. Ancestry shared with DEN18 could also have reached the UK in early migrations by land or sea, or in later migrations of the Danish Vikings. The fact that this group contributes some ancestry to all UK clusters is evidence that some of this ancestry sharing may indeed result from early migrations. The increased contribution of this group to the ancestry profiles of all the English clusters further suggests that some part also came to the UK with the Saxons.

The contribution to the ancestry of the UK clusters from FRA17, now spread throughout France, is also correlated with the contribution of GER3 and DEN18. One possible explanation for this pattern is that FRA17 also captures Saxon ancestry. Another explanation is that it represents ancestry that spread into the UK at a different time, but into many of the same parts of the UK as the DNA from the later Saxon migrations. The Saxon migrations did not directly involve people from what is now France. There were movements of Germanic peoples, notably the Franks, into France around the time of the Saxon migration into England. The Germanic ancestry these migrations brought to what is now France would have been Frankish rather than Saxon, and it would have been diluted through mixing with the already substantial local populations. It thus seems unlikely that ancestry in the UK arising from the Saxon migrations would be better captured by FRA17 than by people now living near the homeland of the Saxons (represented by GER3) – the contribution of FRA17 is about threefold that of GER3. Further, the geographic pattern of FRA17 contributions differs from that of GER3 (which we see as very likely Saxon), in being relatively much higher in the Scottish and Orkney clusters. This is difficult to reconcile with ancestry from both groups arriving as part of the same migration event, and the substantial contribution of FRA17 in Scotland and Orkney, relative to GER3, is more likely to reflect an earlier influx into the UK, and increased time to spread geographically. Also, FRA17 did not figure as one of the source populations for the admixture event in Cent./ S England estimated by the GLOBETROTTER analysis. We thus conclude that the contribution to the UK clusters from FRA17 is unlikely to reflect the Saxon migrations.

In the ancestry profile approach, we thus argue that the proportion of DNA in modern Cent./ S England inherited from the Saxons is best captured by GER3 and some of DEN18, which would suggest a range of ~10% (assuming only GER3 reflected the Saxon migrations) to ~20% (assuming GER3 and all of DEN18 reflected the Saxon migrations). If we were wrong in concluding that the FRA17 contribution does not result from DNA which arrived with the Saxon migrations, so that some or all of it did reflect Saxon DNA, then the proportion of Saxon ancestry could be substantially higher (up to ~50%).

The GLOBETROTTER analysis of Cent./ S England detected an admixture event, with a contribution of ~35% of DNA from GER3, with estimated dates for admixture somewhat after, but consistent with (see Discussion above), the known historical dates of the Saxon migrations (Extended Data Fig. 10).

There are inevitable uncertainties in both analyses due to the nature of the data – we are trying to estimate admixture proportions for events ~1,200-1,500 years ago on the basis of DNA from modern populations. Nonetheless we feel it is safe to conclude from our analyses that the proportion of Saxon ancestry in Cent./ S England is very likely to be under 50%, and most likely in the range 10%-40%.

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

We repeated the analysis on the Orcadian samples using the Eastern set instead of Norway. This comparison showed a lower admixture from the East for the local than the non-local samples, especially using the less stringent criteria. This may well be because the non-local samples are ‘contaminated' with some Viking admixture, although possibly mainly from the Danish Vikings, who must have been very closely related to the Anglo-Saxons as they came from essentially the same geographical area.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260910/#__abstractid892280title

fridurich
12-01-2016, 03:29 AM
Quote Originally Posted by A Norfolk L-M20

The POBI study though, pointed at more than one unrecorded migration from what is now France, Germany, and Belgium. Either Romano-British, or Late Prehistoric. Scrolling to 30 minutes on the below linked video about POBI explains their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANNHMzmxlI

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

That's an interesting lecture. I watched it a while back but after watching the portion you suggested, I think I'll watch it again.

One thing I've wonder about ever since my first viewing, is that their method for dating the Anglo Saxon migration comes in at a rather late 858 AD. They believe the discrepancy can be attributed to a delay in the time it took for the Anglo Saxons to intermarry with the indigenous population. However, I wonder if the continuing contribution of Danish DNA during the subsequent Viking invasions is skewing their numbers and pulling them up. So that they're getting an average of both events. From what I remember, the Anglo Saxons & the Danes are virtually indistinguishable genetically, as they both came from the same general area within a short time span.

(See the video at approximately 37:45 minutes in)

I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who knows more about the technicalities of these things.

That was an extremely interesting video. I had seen it before. Something else interesting to me is on the surname aspect. I also have some German ancestry and one time I was looking at a book on German surnames. I was kind of surprised to find that in northern Germany (the author may have meant the northern most segment of Germany), some of the German surnames were names like Ericson, Svenson, Larson, etc. Some of these German surnames may have been spelled with the -sen ending. These surnames are also found in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, often times with a -sen ending.

A Norfolk L-M20
12-01-2016, 11:24 AM
Surnames in my tree that "could be" considered Anglo-Danish in origin include: Daynes, Hagon, Ginby, Thacker, and Tovell. The Danish immigration to East Anglia was long before any of those surnames formed, so all that they might be, are echoes of some surviving place names and local dialect surviving locally until the Later Medieval.

"Charles Dickens undoubtedly had some grasp of the Norfolk accent which he utilised in the speech of the Yarmouth fishermen, Ham and Daniel Peggoty in David Copperfield. Patricia Poussa analyses the speech of these characters in her article Dickens as Sociolinguist.[29] She makes connections between Scandinavian languages and the particular variant of Norfolk dialect spoken in the Flegg area around Great Yarmouth, a place of known Viking settlement. Significantly, the use of 'that' meaning 'it', described in the grammar section below, is used as an example of this apparent connection." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_dialect

"He added: ôSome of the Norfolk dialect words came from the continent such as dwile, the Norfolk word for floorcloth, from the Dutch word dweil and if there was a heavy dew on the grass in the morning my uncle used to say it was dag, which is a Scandanavian word." http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/dew_yew_keep_talking_norfolk_dialect_1_954686

JMcB
12-04-2016, 05:13 AM
Duplicate, please see the following post.

JMcB
12-04-2016, 05:13 AM
I'm wondering if someone might venture an opinion and tell me if I'm missing something here. I've been reading one of the POBI reports and they say the following:

The most obvious contribution representing the Anglo-Saxons is EU3 (pink) from North and North West Germany. That is consistent with the lack of evidence for Anglo-Saxon incursions into Wales. Denmark (EU18 dark red) is another clear candidate for an Anglo-Saxon contribution. Based on these two contributions, the best estimates for the proportion of presumed Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the large eastern, central and southern England cluster (red squares) are a maximum of 40% and could be as little as 10%. This is strong evidence against an Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of the resident ancient British population, but clearly indicates extensive admixture between the incoming invaders and the indigenous people. The difference between Devon and Cornwall is most probably due to the greater Saxon influence in Devon, this being consistent with the slightly greater contributions of EU3 (pink) and EU18(dark red) to the makeup of the Devon cluster as compared to that in Cornwall.

The homogeneity of the east, central and southern British cluster (red squares) with no obvious differences in the Danish contribution (EU18 dark red) between them and the more northern English populations, strongly suggests that the Danish Vikings, in spite of their major influence through the “Danelaw’ and many place names of Danish origin, contributed little of their DNA to the English population.

12880

Now when I look at the map they're correct in saying that the Danish EU18 (dark red) seems to stay fairly consistant as you move north. On the other hand, the other component of their Anglo Saxon model N/NW German EU3 (pink) drops off noticeably. So what is it that's holding EU18 (dark red) steady, while EU3 (pink) drops off?

Is it because Angles - who were presumably more Danish - settled in the North East & the Saxons settled in the South? If that's the case, why is there so much Danish EU18 in the South when the Angles didn't settle there? And genetically, who can tell the difference between the Angles and the Saxons anyway?

Perhaps, it's late and I'm missing something but it doesn't seem to add up.

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/nl6.pdf

A Norfolk L-M20
12-04-2016, 12:10 PM
I'm wondering if someone might venture an opinion and tell me if I'm missing something here. I've been reading one of the POBI reports and they say the following:

The most obvious contribution representing the Anglo-Saxons is EU3 (pink) from North and North West Germany. That is consistent with the lack of evidence for Anglo-Saxon incursions into Wales. Denmark (EU18 dark red) is another clear candidate for an Anglo-Saxon contribution. Based on these two contributions, the best estimates for the proportion of presumed Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the large eastern, central and southern England cluster (red squares) are a maximum of 40% and could be as little as 10%. This is strong evidence against an Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of the resident ancient British population, but clearly indicates extensive admixture between the incoming invaders and the indigenous people. The difference between Devon and Cornwall is most probably due to the greater Saxon influence in Devon, this being consistent with the slightly greater contributions of EU3 (pink) and EU18(dark red) to the makeup of the Devon cluster as compared to that in Cornwall.

The homogeneity of the east, central and southern British cluster (red squares) with no obvious differences in the Danish contribution (EU18 dark red) between them and the more northern English populations, strongly suggests that the Danish Vikings, in spite of their major influence through the “Danelaw’ and many place names of Danish origin, contributed little of their DNA to the English population.

12880

Now when I look at the map they're correct in saying that the Danish EU18 (dark red) seems to stay fairly consistant as you move north. On the other hand, the other component of their Anglo Saxon model N/NW German EU3 (pink) drops off noticeably. So what is it that's holding EU18 (dark red) steady, while EU3 (pink) drops off?

Is it because Angles - who were presumably more Danish - settled in the North East & the Saxons settled in the South? If that's the case, why is there so much Danish EU18 in the South when the Angles didn't settle there? And genetically, who can tell the difference between the Angles and the Saxons anyway?

Perhaps, it's late and I'm missing something but it doesn't seem to add up.

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/nl6.pdf

I quite agree. I just find it incredibly difficult to accept that the Danes didn't provide significant admixture to the English during the early Medieval - with history and place-name evidence. However, if we accept traditional Bedes / Gildas history, that the Angles were a significant contribution to the Anglo-Saxon immigration event a few centuries earlier, and also that the Angles did come from Angeln, in northern Schleswig-Holstein, then their homeland was right up on the present day border of Denmark. Can POBI really distinguish such populations?

fridurich
12-05-2016, 03:17 AM
I quite agree. I just find it incredibly difficult to accept that the Danes didn't provide significant admixture to the English during the early Medieval - with history and place-name evidence. However, if we accept traditional Bedes / Gildas history, that the Angles were a significant contribution to the Anglo-Saxon immigration event a few centuries earlier, and also that the Angles did come from Angeln, in northern Schleswig-Holstein, then their homeland was right up on the present day border of Denmark. Can POBI really distinguish such populations?

I think that the autosomal and probably a lot of the YDNA of the Germans on the Schleswig-Holstein peninsula and the Danes is probably pretty similar. They certainly seem to share a lot of surnames. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a lot of similarity between the autosomal and YDNA of Denmark and the whole northernmost one quarter, or one third of Germany.