Upcoming paper on Anglo-Saxon migration period??

[Straboo]

To speed along; rather than editing the photo and rearranging the bars, I just created a bar chart in excel with the results from eyeballing it.


Map


Interpolation map

To speed along; rather than editing the photo and rearranging the bars, I just created a bar chart in excel with the results from eyeballing it.


Map


Interpolation map

Excellent work. However the maps are little misleading. For example the Forest of Dean is (unfortunately) not in Wales. They should have done it by geographic regions (i.e. Severn Valley, Thames Valley etc) as AS colonization went by Rivers and the Coast. Also, some regions of counties might have had British holdouts in wilderness areas such as the Wield etc.

Overall I'm kinda shocked at how low the AS percentages are on a county level. I know over all its a whopping 76% according to their interpretation, but even at the highest 48% in Sussex. that still leaves 52% native British (or rather native British + pre-Roman Belgae + Roman era migrants) BEFORE French IA arrives (for those who believe it came with Normans).

If it came with the Franks, then sadly 52% British in Sussex was probably more like 20% British, 80% AS, followed by 33% Frankish later on to get to 48% AS, 33% Frankish, 19% British.

I wonder if France IA suppressed CNE or British IA more. So do we subtract 33% France IA from British IA 52%, or from a higher then 48% AS (I gave 80% as an example)?

Also fascinating that the modern CNE remnant in English hovers around +-45%, and how even in the AS era on a county level it does not exceed 48% (that is only if France IA is Frankish era, so contemporary with AS)

Most likely if France IA is not Roman era related, it either arrived with AS, and so the 76% replacement figure is not actually pure Germanic, but CNE+France_IA (which lessons the Germanic impact) OR France IA arrives primarily after 1066 (with the Norman & Plantagenet dynasties), meaning that indeed CNE genocided the local British and were dominant for 600 years OR France IA arrives with both Frankish era AND Norman era, so instead of one or the other, France IA slowly trickles into Britain from 450AD all the way to the end of the English empire in France, + add in Hugenots, French Revolution exiles, Flemish etc

[Straboo]

remember though that the gallic autosomal genetic infusion (which curiously had a far lesser effect on yDNA) was only southern Britain (south england, english midlands and wales). It didn’t much effect Scotland and most of northern england. So Ireland did resemble the northern half of Britain. Also need to be aware that there are almost no unburderned formal burials in Ireland from 1500BC-0 and still very few in the first few centuries AD (and they may well ne migrants). So we don’t really get anything like a decent sample from later bronze age, iron age or even the early Roman era (in Neighbouring Britain). It’s only really around the early christian era that a large sample of the irish population becomes available for the first time since the early bronze age. Given the collapse of the elite that ruled ireland c. 1200-700BC and their near total it’s of cremation, we could be missing evidence of geneflow into the elite in that era. That elite and its potentially distinct genetics was gone c. 700BC and it may have left little trace

The paper does not make a distinction between Ireland and Britain Celtic ancestry, let alone northern and southern Britain. Its all grouped into 1 monolithic block i.e. "Celtic ancestry". And if you were to read that Ireland has full continuity between Beakers and moderns, then you'd naturally assume that for Britain as well, which is not the case as we know. The paper is Britain centric, so that leads me to conclude that Ireland is grouped with Britain rather Britain with Ireland, meaning that Gallicised Britain is projected onto Ireland, meaning that Ireland received gene flow from Gaul that was previously not detected or overlooked and made up significant ancestry in Iron age Ireland. Whether it played a part in, or ended the LB golden age in Ireland is hard to detect, but it could have been involved in both, with several waves of migration not easily detectable due to very similar genetic profiles (if not the same) after 1200BC.

[sktibo]

This is why I wanted MitchellSince to supply these percentages.. I had a lot of fun making this just now.

Thank you @MitchellSince1893 for doing that.

SKTIBO 3-Way Estimate Chart.png

[Cartographer]

Excellent work. However the maps are little misleading. For example the Forest of Dean is (unfortunately) not in Wales. They should have done it by geographic regions (i.e. Severn Valley, Thames Valley etc) as AS colonization went by Rivers and the Coast. Also, some regions of counties might have had British holdouts in wilderness areas such as the Wield etc.

Overall I'm kinda shocked at how low the AS percentages are on a county level. I know over all its a whopping 76% according to their interpretation, but even at the highest 48% in Sussex. that still leaves 52% native British (or rather native British + pre-Roman Belgae + Roman era migrants) BEFORE French IA arrives (for those who believe it came with Normans).

If it came with the Franks, then sadly 52% British in Sussex was probably more like 20% British, 80% AS, followed by 33% Frankish later on to get to 48% AS, 33% Frankish, 19% British.

I wonder if France IA suppressed CNE or British IA more. So do we subtract 33% France IA from British IA 52%, or from a higher then 48% AS (I gave 80% as an example)?

Also fascinating that the modern CNE remnant in English hovers around +-45%, and how even in the AS era on a county level it does not exceed 48% (that is only if France IA is Frankish era, so contemporary with AS)

Most likely if France IA is not Roman era related, it either arrived with AS, and so the 76% replacement figure is not actually pure Germanic, but CNE+France_IA (which lessons the Germanic impact) OR France IA arrives primarily after 1066 (with the Norman & Plantagenet dynasties), meaning that indeed CNE genocided the local British and were dominant for 600 years OR France IA arrives with both Frankish era AND Norman era, so instead of one or the other, France IA slowly trickles into Britain from 450AD all the way to the end of the English empire in France, + add in Hugenots, French Revolution exiles, Flemish etc

I'm pretty sure these figures refer to the Anglo-Saxon/NWE percentages in the modern English population, though. In the actual AS period, a lot of the graves sites are 80+% NWE, just from eyeballing the original chart (although there are a couple which are mainly IA British).

[Straboo]

I'm pretty sure these figures refer to the Anglo-Saxon/NWE percentages in the modern English population, though. In the actual AS period, a lot of the graves sites are 80+% NWE, just from eyeballing the original chart (although there are a couple which are mainly IA British).

Perhaps. But the chart is literally called England_Early_Middle_Ages. Your suggestion only works if France IA arrived after 1066, which even some scholars involved in this study have doubts about.

[Cartographer]

Perhaps. But the chart is literally called England_Early_Middle_Ages. Your suggestion only works if France IA arrived after 1066, which even some scholars involved in this study have doubts about.

I know, that's why I believe most of France IA arrived after 1066.

MitchellSince1893's first chart focused on the percentage of France IA in the modern population and, title aside, the same is true of his chart focused on the NWE ancestry component. The modern populations are the only groups for which we have county-level breakdowns like this. No Scottish or Welsh grave sites from the Anglo-Saxon era seem to have even been sampled.

The ancestry breakdowns in the actual Anglo Saxon-era graves were in the original image provided by JonikW a couple of days ago and which I re-uploaded below:

Screenshot_20220625-124202_copy_612x304.png

[MitchellSince1893]

This is why I wanted MitchellSince to supply these percentages.. I had a lot of fun making this just now.

Thank you @MitchellSince1893 for doing that.

SKTIBO 3-Way Estimate Chart.png

So based on your pie chart, genetically, you are most similar to a person from Lancashire

[MitchellSince1893]

I know, that's why I believe most of France IA arrived after 1066.

MitchellSince1893's first chart focused on the percentage of France IA in the modern population and, title aside, the same is true of his chart focused on the NWE ancestry component. The modern populations are the only groups for which we have county-level breakdowns like this. No Scottish or Welsh grave sites from the Anglo-Saxon era seem to have even been sampled.

The ancestry breakdowns in the actual Anglo Saxon-era graves were in the original image provided by JonikW a couple of days ago and which I re-uploaded below:

Screenshot_20220625-124202_copy_612x304.png

The areas covered on that Iron Age map, match the areas covered by the Patterson study. So that may be their only source for Iron Age samples. That's too bad.

[Molfish]

This is why I wanted MitchellSince to supply these percentages.. I had a lot of fun making this just now.

Thank you @MitchellSince1893 for doing that.

SKTIBO 3-Way Estimate Chart.png

A bit premature but a nice idea!

My inferred ancestral percentages (using Derbyshire for my English proxy): 51.5% WBI, 31% CNE, 17.5% French IA. Closest to the percentages of Orkney & NE England from what I can glean - Orkney is my closest population in G25 so that fits nicely.

[alan]

As I mentioned in another thread, Patterson had 0 male samples from most of England


So I don't think we can draw widespread conclusions based on Patterson.

If I was a betting man i’d say Norman but my outside bet would be that French iron age may relate to the ‘missing’ more Latinised Roman-Britons. These Latinate Romano Britons would have originally been focussed in the larger Roman towns and Colonia. It has been hypothesised by linguists that post Roman British Celtic was radically impacted by British speaking groups absorbing Latinate Britons fleeing from eastern and southern Britain into the more un-Romanised more Celtic west in the 5th and earlier 6th centuries.

It stands to reason that these more Latinate britons has a higher iron age French component than the bulk of the population as many of the ‘Romans’ were ftom Gaul. Add to that that some of the most heavily Romanised areas of britain were in former Belgic british territories then that might add to it too.

If such a population with higher iron age French type signal did not exist then it’s strange becatse we are being asked to believe that 400 years in the Roman empire - particularly linked to Gaul - left no genetic impact at all or somehow the Latinate heavily Romanised element of lowland Britain just disappeared. We know they didn’t because Latinate elements had a profound impact on the post-Roman British Celtic language. So, latinate britons -some remaining under the Anglo-Saxons , some fleeing west to be absorbed into the sun-Roman British Celtic populations, could be responsible for this mysterious French signal partly.

why can’t we see them in ancient DNA of the Roman era or post-Roman era? Quite possibly partly due to cremation in some eras but also becatse the hypothetical Latinate population may have originally had a pretty specific very patchy distribution and been super concentrated in large Roman centres in Britain.