PDA

View Full Version : dna in the British isles



tumi
13-04-13, 13:23
I have finished reading two books on this subject that has changed my assumptions about I1 and indeed other ystr groups origins in the UK and Ireland.The books are (the origin of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer and Blood of the Isles by Brian Sykes)they have seriously challenged a lot of preconcieved perceptions I have and from what little I have read on these forums eg anglo saxon and (celtic) migrations into the Isles including scandinavian that others hold about any british ancestry they have.
Now I have many nagging doubts about displacement of (celts) in england and indeed were there any here before the romans arrived?Also were the inhabitants of england pre roman of north western origin as opposed to Iberian celto atlantic coast migrants?

adamo
13-04-13, 17:34
Most English , Irish, welsh scots and Irish have R1b. These nations are Celtic powerhouses with Irish and welsh having 80-90% R1b and Scotland 75% with England nearby at 70%. These are the worlds highest frequencies of haplogroup R1b. They where there long before the Romans arrived, among the first waves of celts to arrive in fact. Irish have lots of L-21 which is a subclade particular to Ireland and western England. English also have lots of S-21(U-106) which is the Germanic subclade also found heavily n Dutch, Germans, Danes, r1b swedes and Norwegians, Austrians etc. the English also have by far the highest concentration of I1 In the British isles with 15-20% of English men being I1a , the Scandinavian/Nordic I

adamo
13-04-13, 17:36
It was brought to England by Viking coastal colonizations from Norwegians/swedes and also by certain Danes ( the highest I1a concentrations in England are on the eastern coast in the Danelaw regions.)

Anthro-inclined
13-04-13, 18:08
It was brought to England by Viking coastal colonizations from Norwegians/swedes and also by certain Danes ( the highest I1a concentrations in England are on the eastern coast in the Danelaw regions.)
Probably the largest percentage of I1 can be attributed to the Anglo Saxon migrations, and to a lesser extent the Norman invasions. There was more Scandinavian settlement
in Scotland I think, so attributing the majority of I1 in England to the Norse seems incorrect.

tumi
13-04-13, 18:44
What both books agree on is that I1 was already present in england even before the comparatively small anglo saxon invasion of the dark ages and that anglian as opposed to saxon were southern scandinavian iin origin and already were familiar with pre roman anglians which might explain why there is no archeological evidence for pre invasion genocide or ethnic cleansing also why they were easily able to blend in.There is no evidence of celtic culture in england to date and a marked difference in dna between one side of offas dyke and the other even allowing for y-gata h4.The runes used by anglians were of the scandinavian type whilst in saxon areas no rune evidence has been found.

MOESAN
13-04-13, 18:53
Oppenheimer??? curious way of thinking!
official History distords things but does not imagine them - I 'm a bit tired with the huge number of extravagant theories that come under light(with great regularity it's true) trying everytime to kill definitively "the father" and the official theories: we can try to correct them, but it is of no worth trying sweap them completely, the baby with the bath water...
for me it is evident that the most of the Y-I1, Y-R-U106 and Y-R1a came to the Isles with germanic tribes of any sort, and that the most of the most of the other Y-R1b are of celtic origin and maybe, some of them (it is debated) reached the Isles before the Celts - we can argue for details but the game is over, I think - even in details, we see a little bit more Y-R1a (and sometimes of Y-Q) in the Vikings settlements areas and more Y-R-U106 in the continental germanic areas - and England is not a block, no more than Scotland: and the regional distributions confirm and do not infirm these conclusions - as said by a forumer here, Y-I1 is very typical TOO of the continental germanic settlements, and not only of the Vikings ones - (the subclades confirm it) -
concerning Y-R1b-L21, it is now typical of Ireland, but is too very strong in other dense celtic settlements areas of the Isles
and it is yet strong enough in Brittany and N-W France, and present in some others areas of Europe, not only northern ones, but also in Basque Country (new surveys would give about 18% as a mean, but I don't know if it is the relative % witihin R1b or an absolute % in the total population, but knowing that Basques have almost 90% of R1b...) -
it is true that some North-Western I-Ean (see river old names) or nearly "germanic" small tribes could have put a foot in the Isles before La Tène Celts but they were not the providers of the whole eastern germanic population of Britain -
along with earlier Celts - as a whole all these Y-R1b don't show an ultime origin in Iberia, rather in E-France and around -

what is true also is that these %s concern only Y haplogroups that knew at evidence some super-evaluation by the fact they were the Y-HGs of the male elite - so the % of these Y HGs do not reflect genuinely the autosomals distributions, but here too, we can see that physical aspects reflect(ed) differences in distribution in the Isles, not surprising when looking at History - we have also the skeletons at different times in different places that show clearly the Isles were not an inaccessible sanctuarium -
(skeletons concerning 'Long Barrows', 'Bell-Beakers', 'Food vessels people', 'Urnfield Celts', 'La Tène' Celts and diverse Brittons, Roman Londoniers , Anglo-Saxon settlers, + ancient Y-HGs of Vikings settlements in the Liverpool Area and in other places) -

Anthro-inclined
13-04-13, 19:02
What both books agree on is that I1 was already present in england even before the comparatively small anglo saxon invasion of the dark ages and that anglian as opposed to saxon were southern scandinavian iin origin and already were familiar with pre roman anglians which might explain why there is no archeological evidence for pre invasion genocide or ethnic cleansing also why they were easily able to blend in.There is no evidence of celtic culture in england to date and a marked difference in dna between one side of offas dyke and the other even allowing for y-gata h4.The runes used by anglians were of the scandinavian type whilst in saxon areas no rune evidence has been found.
The Saxons came from Saxony and the Angles came from a region in northern Germany or south Jutland, I can understand classifying the latter as Scandinavian but the Saxons were not. If the Anglo Saxon migration was minimal how come England pocesses almost 40% R1b-U106, usually a marker of Germanic peoples, and much lower frequencies of R1b-L21, which is found in its highest frequencies in Ireland. Also what do you mean there is no evidence of celtic culture in England, plenty of stones, and ruins with celtic inscriptions have been found, not to mention the Cornish language which still persists in South West England.

tumi
13-04-13, 20:52
The Saxons came from Saxony and the Angles came from a region in northern Germany or south Jutland, I can understand classifying the latter as Scandinavian but the Saxons were not. If the Anglo Saxon migration was minimal how come England pocesses almost 40% R1b-U106, usually a marker of Germanic peoples, and much lower frequencies of R1b-L21, which is found in its highest frequencies in Ireland. Also what do you mean there is no evidence of celtic culture in England, plenty of stones, and ruins with celtic inscriptions have been found, not to mention the Cornish language which still persists in South West England.
I,m sorry I have not put it very well.Cornwall was not in england realy untill the west saxons finally invaded and previously was known as west wales to anglosaxons.I dont know of celtic inscriptions in england but agree about standing stones and henges although in not in england as a whole,mainly in the south west.
Regarding the germanic subject.The minimal invasion I referred to was the dark age migration.These authors conclude that anglo saxon south scandinavian migration did not happen only after the legions left but had been happening well before the romans arrived and it is the celtic clerics Gildas and Nennius that stated that large numbers of saxons invaded and slaughtered the britons but there is no evidence ie mass graves most telling is Bede does not mention any slaughter.Gildas and Nennius had an agenda of their own as the invaders were pagan!

tumi
13-04-13, 21:23
Its a pity that you claim its a theory and extravagant I will only say read the books after all at one time it was heresy to suggest the earth is round and not flat and Darwins theory of evolution was rubbished!Who would have believed that dna could tell as much as it does now?When I was growing up nobody I knew even heard of it(I was born in 1946)
I will not add anymore to this subject on the forum I will only ask that people read the books as they are based on research by geneticists and conducted by the authors but judge for yourselves.

adamo
13-04-13, 21:31
Actually England has significantly more haplogroup I1a in Scotland, about twice as much 10% versus England's 17-20%. you may be correct that most of the Scottish I is from Vikings and most of the English I split off from the Scandinavian I in Germany and both started heading separate ways ( one branch to Scandinavia other branch to England) but its also a big possibility that the Danelaw region saw an influx of I from Denmark which has predominantly Scandinavian I. Much of British R1b is in fact Germanic celts of the u-106 Netherlands/Germany/Austria etc. regroup meant but some of it is , especially on England's west coast, is from the Irish celts to the west. As for my I theory, it's either one or the other, or a bit off both! : )

adamo
13-04-13, 21:32
Significantly more THAN Scotland wow sorry guys typo lol

adamo
13-04-13, 21:52
As for my haplogroup I theory going to England, another correction....

Anthro-inclined
13-04-13, 21:59
As for my haplogroup I theory going to England, another correction....
You can edit your posts, you dont need to keep posting new ones.

adamo
13-04-13, 22:00
Thanks I just saw that lol what a sorry ass moron I am

Anthro-inclined
13-04-13, 22:04
Thanks I just saw that lol what a sorry ass moron I am
Dont worry about it, not that big a deal. :cool-v:

nordicwarbler
14-04-13, 00:11
...I 'm a bit tired with the huge number of extravagant theories that come under light(with great regularity it's true) trying everytime to kill definitively "the father" and the official theories...

Well, there's one way to fix this problem you're having... take up another hobby.

Seriously that's what we do on these threads, some of us center around haplogroups or autosomal genetics and others focus on the facets of language.

Your statement make about as much sense as a gardener saying that he really doesn't like dealing with plants. Now drink a powerful beverage and lighten up! :)

spruithean
14-04-13, 00:12
Probably the largest percentage of I1 can be attributed to the Anglo Saxon migrations, and to a lesser extent the Norman invasions. There was more Scandinavian settlement
in Scotland I think, so attributing the majority of I1 in England to the Norse seems incorrect.

You can't ignore that plenty of I1 in Scotland can be attributed to Anglo-Saxons and Norsemen. The amount of refugees who fled the harrying of the north and the many Anglo-Saxons who were given lands in Scotland could also be contributing factors to the presence of I1 in Scotland. There were also some Angles present in Scotland long the harrying of the north. The Kingdom of Northumbria has an interesting history with that of the more northerly kingdoms in Britain at the time. But then again some of the people from the North of England undoubtedly had Norse ancestry.

adamo
14-04-13, 01:52
English have about twice the I1a as scots (17-20% versus 9-10% for scots.) so that's interesting also, considering that Scotland is to the north of England. Most of it in England pretty much is Scandinavian same for Scotland it's mostly I1a.

MOESAN
14-04-13, 23:39
Well, there's one way to fix this problem you're having... take up another hobby.

Seriously that's what we do on these threads, some of us center around haplogroups or autosomal genetics and others focus on the facets of language.

Your statement make about as much sense as a gardener saying that he really doesn't like dealing with plants. Now drink a powerful beverage and lighten up! :)

well, you have a point, because my post seems signifying I consider the story is said- I don't think so - but yes, someones go very far,taking in account only what please them - and yes, it is true that someones (a lot american) like the "scoop" aspect of science... it is my way of thinking, sorry - concerning powerful beverage, I take my potions regularly, no more, no less, thanks again!
I try to "focuse" on every source of knowledge: classical anthropology, genetic, linguistic and history - and I red old books; not only fresh surveys; sometimes, fresh surveys seem forgetting a lot of the facts established in older surveys, what is a pity; I find Science is rotted by "chapels" and dogmas, old and new...
so the physical remnants of Britain were studied at their time, and even if not so detailed and complete as I would have hoped, they seem showing differences in Britain according to places and times: we can see the differences between the "Long Barrows" period, the "Bell Beakers" period, the "Urnfields" period and the so called "Anglo-Saxons" and "Vikings" period - at anglo-saxon times, some cimeteries show clearly enough the mix of typical Anglo-Saxon males with females of different metric means more akin to precedent periods - a modification of population occurred more than a time in places of Scotland too, so...
We can see at present time the mixing and the evolution of british population, as we could see the same phenomenon before (not contradicting some new arrivals)- I'm a bit sceptical when I read that all the apparently "germanic" genes were yet in place before the Roman period in Britain: how could it be that the crossings and general mixture were not already in place after a so long time, and that the 1930/1950 regional differences (+ genetic ones) could mirror so well the received (accepted) history of the Isles, even if we could argue about some details ???
some metric facts have been studied on big samples of population, and helas, the genetic studies are a bit scarce compared to them and don't allow accurate comparisons, very often, between statistically valuable samples or if so, it is obtained by putting to much regions in a same bag (it is true that some" genealogies" can be traced precisely enough bu genetics but I prefer collective studies statistically sensible when speaking about "tribes" or "populations"...
it seems, according to Nordtvedt that the Y-I1 of the Isle should be rather on the Saxon or Frison side of the family - and the Vikings blood (of the West only? : Scotland, Ireland, Lancashire) appear based upon tiny populations of Vikings that underwent serious drift (no surprise) leading to a surprising lack of Y-I1, balanced by more Y-R1a and a little more Y-Q
I have no agenda, i'm just curious...
good evening

MOESAN
14-04-13, 23:44
Actually England has significantly more haplogroup I1a in Scotland, about twice as much 10% versus England's 17-20%. you may be correct that most of the Scottish I is from Vikings and most of the English I split off from the Scandinavian I in Germany and both started heading separate ways ( one branch to Scandinavia other branch to England) but its also a big possibility that the Danelaw region saw an influx of I from Denmark which has predominantly Scandinavian I. Much of British R1b is in fact Germanic celts of the u-106 Netherlands/Germany/Austria etc. regroup meant but some of it is , especially on England's west coast, is from the Irish celts to the west. As for my I theory, it's either one or the other, or a bit off both! : )

the question is: are (were) England or Scotland an homogenous human block??? Scotland, as small it is, can be divided into at least 5 parts! everyone of which knew a different history - History say us Scotland is more celtic and pre-celtic than germanic+viking as a whole (ture, but according to global means, the ones I dislike!)

adamo
15-04-13, 00:23
Yes that's correct, Scottish have a lot of R-L21, the Irish variety, they are more Irish subclade than the English they're more "insular Celtic" if you will, as you said more "Celtic". But they also do have the Germanic S-21 at much lower levels unlike men from Ireland who barely have S-21 and are dominantly L-21. English have about the same of the Germanic S-21 Clade found in highest frequencies in Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Denmark, England and such and also R-L21. But, especially on the west coast of England, they also have present of the L-21 Irish Clade. Both subgroups are present in both countries , just the English in total have more S-21 than scots while the scots have more L-21. Look up maps of haplogroup R1b subclades on this very website provided by what seems to me to be an information god, a user called maciamo. Or even google it and you'll find photos of r1b M269 subclades such as R-L21, R-S21 and R-S28 to see which countries have highest frequencies of which subclades! : ) but to answer the question yes, Scottish are more predominantly L-21' English are a 50-50 R-S21and R-L21 if we exclude other rarer but still found subgroups, these are the predominant Anglo ones.

nordicwarbler
15-04-13, 03:42
...I try to "focuse" on every source of knowledge: classical anthropology, genetic, linguistic and history - and I red old books; not only fresh surveys; ...

Yes you do and I have learned very much from your writings. There is a bit of a language barrier between us, but that makes me research/review your ideas more slowly which is usually time well-spent.

adamo
15-04-13, 13:26
I really like MOESAN's way of doing things. But one must realize that within the homo sapien sapien branch of hominids anthropology can sometimes be incorrect or not precise enough such as claiming red hair men is all in the same subgroup or race of caucasoid men, vague conclusions, language families are no clear link between saying both linguistically similar groups are of the same genetics , considering things such as the victorious cultures influence over the defeated, for example Latin language in Romania because of the Roman Empire in a nation that is significantly genetically diverse from the original modern day Italians. ( original Romanians where referred to as Dacians). And even history, at times, is no good indicator of genetics because there are many exceptions to the rule, for example the I2a Ostrogoths passed through and set up the ostrogothic kingdom in Italy but barely, if even, genetically affected it. The Huns moved into Europe but there's literally almost no Y-DNA C and Q in Europe which would be their genetic marker under Attila the Hun. One must use excellent judgement when it comes to history for example yes, modern day Iraqis are very representative of their ancient Mesopotamian ( Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian) roots still harbouring much J2 and even J1 today. Movements of armies/people's didn't always affect/modify the genetic structures of nations they arrived in even in places where some invading groups stayed for hundreds of years....but genetics is very frequently a clear indicator of population affinities tat when further analyzed can yield detailed results. With dating techniques and the help of global hotspots for the particular haplogroup and migrational maps with links to prior haplogroups suggesting how this hg got there, or can even correctly estimate where a certain haplogroup first originated

Jackson
16-04-13, 04:12
Yes that's correct, Scottish have a lot of R-L21, the Irish variety, they are more Irish subclade than the English they're more "insular Celtic" if you will, as you said more "Celtic". But they also do have the Germanic S-21 at much lower levels unlike men from Ireland who barely have S-21 and are dominantly L-21. English have about the same of the Germanic S-21 Clade found in highest frequencies in Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Denmark, England and such and also R-L21. But, especially on the west coast of England, they also have present of the L-21 Irish Clade. Both subgroups are present in both countries , just the English in total have more S-21 than scots while the scots have more L-21. Look up maps of haplogroup R1b subclades on this very website provided by what seems to me to be an information god, a user called maciamo. Or even google it and you'll find photos of r1b M269 subclades such as R-L21, R-S21 and R-S28 to see which countries have highest frequencies of which subclades! : ) but to answer the question yes, Scottish are more predominantly L-21' English are a 50-50 R-S21and R-L21 if we exclude other rarer but still found subgroups, these are the predominant Anglo ones.

A good analysis, although the types of R1b vary a fair bit within England, for example in eastern England L21 is around 13-16% and R1b-U106 around 25%, while L21 is more like 30-40%+ in western England.

adamo
16-04-13, 04:15
Yes that is correct thank you for the minor correction, very good extra details : )

Balder
16-04-13, 14:15
Probably the largest percentage of I1 can be attributed to the Anglo Saxon migrations, and to a lesser extent the Norman invasions. There was more Scandinavian settlement
in Scotland I think, so attributing the majority of I1 in England to the Norse seems incorrect.
The Jutes and (to a certain extent the Angles) of whom had already moved centuries earlier were pretty much of the same stock of many Danish Vikings, centuries later. Also, some Danish Vikings in Britain were from what is now southern Sweden.

http://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/anglo-saxon_map.jpg?w=460&h=309

adamo
16-04-13, 15:09
Yeah but Denmark is 35-40% haplogroup I1a so I think its very safe to assume that some of those Danish men had Scandinavian I1a and brought it over to England along with R1b u106. Unless, a less likely theory to me considering I1a is only like 15-20% of English men, as I1a was in north Germany one branch split off continuing to southern Scandinavia while the other already began heading towards England but I doubt that.

nordicwarbler
16-04-13, 17:20
The Jutes and (to a certain extent the Angles) of whom had already moved centuries earlier were pretty much of the same stock of many Danish Vikings, centuries later. Also, some Danish Vikings in Britain were from what is now southern Sweden.

http://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/anglo-saxon_map.jpg?w=460&h=309

Balder I agree with everything you said. One minor little detail though... on the map it shows everyone sailing from the West coast of Jutland. I think they would have left from sheltered ports like Hedeby on the East side and then sailed up and over Jutland. Especially the Angles.

Balder
16-04-13, 20:16
Balder I agree with everything you said. One minor little detail though... on the map it shows everyone sailing from the West coast of Jutland. I think they would have left from sheltered ports like Hedeby on the East side and then sailed up and over Jutland. Especially the Angles.
Perhaps. I do not know, I have the impression that a bulk of them were coastal folks. The Frisians. We must not ignore them. They were a part important of that group of invaders, no other modern Germanic language has more similarity with the English than the Frisian.

Early historians described the 5th century continental migration to England as Frisian, while later historians chronicled it as Anglo-Saxon.

The Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Frisians and (the not-so-remembered Chauci) were all thought to be closely-related and largely indigenous Germanic populations from Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein plains. Their population would have had significant indigenous Haplogroup I1 components.

After all, I1 in Britain is in no way connected to Viking expansion there. It had already arrived centuries before.

Balder
16-04-13, 20:19
On the Chauci:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci

The Chauci were one of the most prominent early Germanic sea raiders. They are probable participants in the Germanic flotilla that was destroyed by Drusus in 12 BC.

They were raiding the coasts of Roman Belgica in AD 41, long before they participated in further raids of the same coasts under Gannascus in AD 47.

It is likely that their raiding was endemic over the years, as the few surviving accounts probably do not reflect all occurrences.
Apparently they were a kind of 'pre-Vikings'. One of the first Germanic confederations to engage in long distance navigation.

Jackson
16-04-13, 20:28
Balder I agree with everything you said. One minor little detail though... on the map it shows everyone sailing from the West coast of Jutland. I think they would have left from sheltered ports like Hedeby on the East side and then sailed up and over Jutland. Especially the Angles.

And also i think there is a good amount of evidence for suggesting that a fair amount of the immigration came from all along the north-sea shore in what is now northern Germany and the Netherlands, and perhaps more inland too. Place-names tie us to North-west Germany and the Netherlands better than they do to the Jutland peninsula, although i think it is sensible to assume there was a large amount of immigration from there. Also R1b-U106 in Eastern and south-eastern England is higher than it is in Denmark, but lower than it is in the Netherlands, so it is almost a requirement that a substantial proportion of the immigration in these areas must have come from there in order to explain that away.

Also we have to remember that Bede most likely simplified the situation somewhat, and that archaeologically it looks relatively unorganised in the early days, so refugees and colonisers from along the north-sea coast and somewhat inland would explain the R1b situation and the linguistic situation.

Just for interests sake, i found these videos of local people from Friesland, and also some of regional low German. Sounds very familiar, the way they speak mainly though. Also included one video about the black country dialect, first two sound very similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQdsL2OTTLY

Jackson
16-04-13, 20:29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb4MknMqwmA

Balder
16-04-13, 20:51
And also i think there is a good amount of evidence for suggesting that a fair amount of the immigration came from all along the north-sea shore in what is now northern Germany and the Netherlands, and perhaps more inland too.And also i think there is a good amount of evidence for suggesting that a fair amount of the immigration came from all along the north-sea shore in what is now northern Germany and the Netherlands, and perhaps more inland too. Place-names tie us to North-west Germany and the Netherlands better than they do to the Jutland peninsula, although i think it is sensible to assume there was a large amount of immigration from there. Also R1b-U106 in Eastern and south-eastern England is higher than it is in Denmark, but lower than it is in the Netherlands, so it is almost a requirement that a substantial proportion of the immigration in these areas must have come from there in order to explain that away.
I do not know, nor am I an expert. Perhaps the explanation of greater presence of R1b-U106 balancing the equation has to do with the 'Belgae' (mercenaires/immigrants) invited by the Romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae#Britain

Jackson
16-04-13, 21:03
Perhaps the explanation has to do with the first Belgae mercenaires/immigrants invited by the Romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae#Britain

In that case subsequent invasions from Denmark will have lowered the U106 in these areas, and seeing as they typically have around 25% R1b-U106, the Belgae must have had a minimum of around 30-35%+, which is only comparable in the Dutch and Frisians. However, i think you are right to bring up the Belgae, as POBI showed that in lowland Britain (and especially in Cornwall) about half the 'Celtic' DNA there is French-like, rather than Irish-like, and the Belgae most likely played a significant part in that although it is probably older than them too. Also P312* and U152 are higher in south-east England, and although a very small amount of U152 and a smallish amount of P312* likely came from Scandinavia, i think the bulk of that, or at least a large part, is due to this continental admixture. L21 sits at around 13-16% or so in South-east and East England, which is only a bit higher than in Denmark and Norway, however going back to the Belgae. I think Normandy now is probably a fairly close estimate to what south-east Britain would have been like in the immediate post-Roman period, although we have to bear in mind Normandy has had a small amount of Danish settlement, but it has around 8% R1b-U106, and much higher P312* and U152, and reasonable levels of L21. I would have thought that U106 would not have exceeded 10% maximum, and was probably closer to 5% in south-east Britain, and P312, U152 would have made up about one half of the rest of the R1b, and L21 the other half. It would certainly explain why L21 is so much lower in eastern England. And also factor in it has probably increased by some amount over the last 1500 years, as we have had more contact with the west of England (and Britain) than the continent generally speaking.

adamo
16-04-13, 21:53
I agree with Jackson that some if not most of the U-106 must have arrived via holland also as this is literally the nation with the highest u-106 on a national levels and its just across from England divided by Atlantic. But I disagree with the Belgae having brought u106 to southern England since the Belgic Belgae as the Belgian remi tribe where almost certainly high in u152 nor do I think any u152 came from Scandinavia to England, at all. At all.

Jackson
17-04-13, 00:01
I agree with Jackson that some if not most of the U-106 must have arrived via holland also as this is literally the nation with the highest u-106 on a national levels and its just across from England divided by Atlantic. But I disagree with the Belgae having brought u106 to southern England since the Belgic Belgae as the Belgian remi tribe where almost certainly high in u152 nor do I think any u152 came from Scandinavia to England, at all. At all.

I agree on all points, i only kept the possibility for U152 open because we can't disprove it as far as i know, although i'd bet that almost all of the U152 there got there in more recent time, or the vast majority of it at least.

adamo
17-04-13, 00:12
Other than that minor detail looks to me like a perfect elaboration : )

nordicwarbler
17-04-13, 02:53
We can't forget the Danes (Dane Law) which would have been considered Vikings, albiet from Jutland and not Norway. Do you find there is an identifiable accent or speech pattern in what was considered the Danelaw territory Jackson?

By the way those videos are greatly appreciated-- definitely a language linkage between those two regions.

And the Chauci are one of my favorite "old-school" tribes that seem to get lost in the mix. Nice to give them some credit Balder.

spruithean
17-04-13, 04:36
We can't forget the Danes (Dane Law) which would have been considered Vikings, albiet from Jutland and not Norway. Do you find there is an identifiable accent or speech pattern in what was considered the Danelaw territory Jackson?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNZVSbQcpCI

This video features a lot of the Norse names in Northern England.

The Danes definitely should be considered. The Anglo-Saxons called the northmen "Danes", the Danes still spoke an Old Norse language at the time.


By the way those videos are greatly appreciated-- definitely a language linkage between those two regions.

And the Chauci are one of my favorite "old-school" tribes that seem to get lost in the mix. Nice to give them some credit Balder.

Those videos are interesting.

The Chauci are indeed an interesting tribe.

nordicwarbler
17-04-13, 05:16
Spruithean, that video was so chock full of goodness I'm going to have to watch it about three more times to absorb everything! Nice find. :)

spruithean
17-04-13, 18:53
There are quite a few videos about the history of English on youtube. Fairly interesting if you ask me!

Jackson
17-04-13, 19:52
We can't forget the Danes (Dane Law) which would have been considered Vikings, albiet from Jutland and not Norway. Do you find there is an identifiable accent or speech pattern in what was considered the Danelaw territory Jackson?

By the way those videos are greatly appreciated-- definitely a language linkage between those two regions.

And the Chauci are one of my favorite "old-school" tribes that seem to get lost in the mix. Nice to give them some credit Balder.

Well, other people who know more about regional dialects will be able to tell you more, but dialects in Yorkshire still use a lot of Danish vocabulary alongside the English.

The thing i find really interesting about are language that a lot of people seem to overlook is that what we know as modern English has only become spoken across most of the country in fairly recent times, go back a couple of centuries or more and most regions had a large number of 'dialect' speakers, these typically retain a lot more vocabulary, ways of speaking (I forget the technical term for it, devices maybe?) and even accents from older times. The core of the Danelaw runs through most of Yorkshire down through Lincolnshire into parts of the East Midlands, and also in parts of Norfolk and Suffolk - The Danelaw extended beyond this but there doesn't seem to have been much Danish settlement beyond these areas.

Jackson
17-04-13, 19:56
Licnolnshire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsTA04UKEnU

Jackson
17-04-13, 20:35
I love the sung version of Beowulf early on in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuyEXotPRxM

spruithean
20-04-13, 17:03
I love the sung version of Beowulf early on in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuyEXotPRxM

Old English is a very cool language. The sung version of Beowulf is nice!

MOESAN
20-04-13, 17:54
I really like MOESAN's way of doing things. But one must realize that within the homo sapien sapien branch of hominids anthropology can sometimes be incorrect or not precise enough such as claiming red hair men is all in the same subgroup or race of caucasoid men, vague conclusions, language families are no clear link between saying both linguistically similar groups are of the same genetics , considering things such as the victorious cultures influence over the defeated, for example Latin language in Romania because of the Roman Empire in a nation that is significantly genetically diverse from the original modern day Italians. ( original Romanians where referred to as Dacians). And even history, at times, is no good indicator of genetics because there are many exceptions to the rule, for example the I2a Ostrogoths passed through and set up the ostrogothic kingdom in Italy but barely, if even, genetically affected it. The Huns moved into Europe but there's literally almost no Y-DNA C and Q in Europe which would be their genetic marker under Attila the Hun. One must use excellent judgement when it comes to history for example yes, modern day Iraqis are very representative of their ancient Mesopotamian ( Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian) roots still harbouring much J2 and even J1 today. Movements of armies/people's didn't always affect/modify the genetic structures of nations they arrived in even in places where some invading groups stayed for hundreds of years....but genetics is very frequently a clear indicator of population affinities tat when further analyzed can yield detailed results. With dating techniques and the help of global hotspots for the particular haplogroup and migrational maps with links to prior haplogroups suggesting how this hg got there, or can even correctly estimate where a certain haplogroup first originated

Your post is not without sense so I agree but I like going further in details: so I believe linguistic (don't confuse offical language classifications with phonetical/structural discrepancies in dialects that learn us very more than official language alone, at least for substrata) and genetics can help to "correct" history, in first place official written history -
but what I was defending is that, as a whole, the scientists (not everytime official) traditional history doesn ' t tell us a to much lies! and by example, I see rather a confirmation of history and linguistic in the genetical makeup of the Great Isles (and Jackson gave you some useful pecisions about R1b) - in recent past we saw changings of languages, as you say, in the new romance speaking countries, but here history confirms it to us - and the very very diverging results of latinized population is too a confirmation of this linguistic changes (I leare a lot by giving a glance to dialects, in every language I could) -
concerning HGs, they are an indication, not the Bible, but they keep some worth about male elites!
&: by the way, i'm a bit amazed by the link you put between Ostrogoths and Y-I2a: on what ground do you base that? what kind of data have we to imagine that - if you have some "food" for me, i thank you beofrehand - &: for the Huns we knew yet they were a mix of steppes tribes where europoids germanic, slavic, iranic and turkic speaking people had a big weight... true history knew that - the same for Avars -

adamo
21-04-13, 04:52
I heard on these very threads people saying they where very sure the Ostrogoths where i2a, how I do not know but I ended up taking their word for it somehow lol

MOESAN
23-04-13, 00:21
I cannot be sure but I bet they have a lot of Y-I1 and Y-R1a, plus some taste of Y-R1b-U106 - surely on the road they took some Y-I2a1b and I2ab and other but not too much ...? the only reliable way to know is ancient DNA surveys, as ever -

MOESAN
23-04-13, 00:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb4MknMqwmA

thanks
some morphologic traits seems archaic germanic ones compared to modern official english (according to what it is said in the document) but for general phonetics, I was amazed to find some affinities with irish (south) english!

SvenHayden
20-07-13, 02:54
Man, this is all so fascinating!
So I would love to start a conversation of hypotheses. I am doing genealogical research, of which has included a LOT of personal genetic research. Ken Nordtvedt and I have emailing back & forth for a while now. He has been patient enough to answer my endless list of questions about my ydna results. So I am i1, Z58+, Z139+, Z2541+. Ken has said that most carriers of Z2541 are confined to the British Isles, more specifically Eastern Scotland. The weird curve ball in all this is that the estimated time of mutation of subclade Z2541 was 2000 years ago! So We're talking the Roman era. What are your ideas on the presence of i1 in Eastern Scotland 2000 yrs ago? Are there any well-known historical explanations for this?
Some of you have already touched on this, but I would love to hear your further theories. Could this be Chauci?
-Sven

Aberdeen
12-11-13, 04:56
I have finished reading two books on this subject that has changed my assumptions about I1 and indeed other ystr groups origins in the UK and Ireland.The books are (the origin of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer and Blood of the Isles by Brian Sykes)they have seriously challenged a lot of preconcieved perceptions I have and from what little I have read on these forums eg anglo saxon and (celtic) migrations into the Isles including scandinavian that others hold about any british ancestry they have.
Now I have many nagging doubts about displacement of (celts) in england and indeed were there any here before the romans arrived?Also were the inhabitants of england pre roman of north western origin as opposed to Iberian celto atlantic coast migrants?

Sorry to reply to an old post, but I've just joined the forum, and am interested in Y haplotype I1 in Scotland, and I found your comments interesting. I haven't read either book, but book reviews suggest that both authors are trying to draw conclusions about the language and culture of ancient Britain on the basis of contemporary DNA, but I think that's definitely the wrong approach to take in an island that has had as much to-ing and fro-ing as Britain. People can and do change their language and culture, as one can see from the continued disappearance of Gaelic from the Scottish highlands, and DNA percentages also change over time where you have a dynamic population. I personally think it's important to try to relate genetics to history and archeology before trying to draw any conclusions.

Aberdeen
12-11-13, 05:05
What both books agree on is that I1 was already present in england even before the comparatively small anglo saxon invasion of the dark ages and that anglian as opposed to saxon were southern scandinavian iin origin and already were familiar with pre roman anglians which might explain why there is no archeological evidence for pre invasion genocide or ethnic cleansing also why they were easily able to blend in.There is no evidence of celtic culture in england to date and a marked difference in dna between one side of offas dyke and the other even allowing for y-gata h4.The runes used by anglians were of the scandinavian type whilst in saxon areas no rune evidence has been found.

Actually, archeologist such as Miranda Green describe plenty of evidence of Celtic material culture and iconography and, from during the period of the Roman occupation, some inscriptions written using the Roman alphabet to write in proto-Welsh. And Roman writers such as Julius Caesar and Tacitus describe a Celtic population in Britain. I'm not aware of them describing any groups that appeared to be Germanic. Even within the last century, Cumbrian shepherds counted sheep using numbers that seemed to be related to Welsh, although I know that's in northeastern England. But I seem to remember some historian referring to a Celtic dialect in central England that only died out in Shakepearian times - sorry I don't remember the source - I'll try to find it. But maybe you could clarify your comment that there's no evidence of Celtic culture in England to date. That statement doesn't seem to me to fit with the archeological or historical material that I've read.

adamo
12-11-13, 11:35
I1 is found in only about 10% of Scottish males; it isn't frequent. It is probably due to minor Viking colonization; the overwhelming majority of Scottish men have a Celtic y-DNA marker (R1b is found in 70-80% of Scottish males) and not a Nordic/Scandinav marker as yours is (if you test positive for I1a). You are a rarity within your country but the Irish have even less I1 (5-7% I believe, minor highs of 10%). The English though have about 15-20% I1 on a national level, meaning that southeastern England near the Danelaw region has the highest I1 frequencies in the British isles.

adamo
12-11-13, 11:48
The countries with the world's highest I1 frequencies of course are; Sweden and Norway, where 40% of men belong to it, and Denmark has 35% as well. I would say precisely that 45% of swedish men and 40% of Norwegian men are I1 whereas 30% of Danes have it and Germany, England have 15-20%; depending on studies the French have between 8-16% (it is a rare but present substratum among them that maxes out at 15%) and is found in about 10% of czech's; whereas being found in an eight to a fifth of English and German men, it is more of a "present" substratum among them.

adamo
12-11-13, 13:30
Ah yes, I forgot to mention the Finns who have 25-30% I1 as well.

Jackson
12-11-13, 14:15
Actually, archeologist such as Miranda Green describe plenty of evidence of Celtic material culture and iconography and, from during the period of the Roman occupation, some inscriptions written using the Roman alphabet to write in proto-Welsh. And Roman writers such as Julius Caesar and Tacitus describe a Celtic population in Britain. I'm not aware of them describing any groups that appeared to be Germanic. Even within the last century, Cumbrian shepherds counted sheep using numbers that seemed to be related to Welsh, although I know that's in northeastern England. But I seem to remember some historian referring to a Celtic dialect in central England that only died out in Shakepearian times - sorry I don't remember the source - I'll try to find it. But maybe you could clarify your comment that there's no evidence of Celtic culture in England to date. That statement doesn't seem to me to fit with the archeological or historical material that I've read.

It seems pretty possible that low levels of I1 were present in Britain in the pre-Roman period, even if it was not much. The cut off line between Celtic and Germanic populations for I1 is somewhat less severe than for U106 it seems.

Aberdeen
12-11-13, 16:32
It seems pretty possible that low levels of I1 were present in Britain in the pre-Roman period, even if it was not much. The cut off line between Celtic and Germanic populations for I1 is somewhat less severe than for U106 it seems.

I think you have a valid point, but I also think that a lot of I1 comes from the Normans, and that it would be a mistake to underestimate how much their DNA contribution increased in various parts of Britain over the centuries. In my own case, my Y haplotype is I1 and my genealogical research indicates that my ancestors were Anglo-Normans who were invited into northeastern Scotland by a king who wanted to increase his control over the area. Almost 1000 years ago, King David 1 started the trend of encouraging Anglo-Normans to settle in Scotland and become feudal lords, and that practice continued under various Scottish monarchs for centuries. And, while Danish settlers in the Danelaw must have contributed I1 to the English population, I suspect that the Normans did their share - they were, after all, descended from Scandinavians who settled in France, and their descendents pretty much filled the ranks of both the aristocracy and the gentry for centuries after they arrived in England.

sparkey
12-11-13, 17:33
Even within the last century, Cumbrian shepherds counted sheep using numbers that seemed to be related to Welsh, although I know that's in northeastern England.

Northwestern! Otherwise, good post. Looks like we're delving into the sorts of claims made by proto-english (see this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28895-English-was-not-imported-by-the-Anglo-Saxons)).


I think you have a valid point, but I also think that a lot of I1 comes from the Normans, and that it would be a mistake to underestimate how much their DNA contribution increased in various parts of Britain over the centuries. In my own case, my Y haplotype is I1 and my genealogical research indicates that my ancestors were Anglo-Normans who were invited into northeastern Scotland by a king who wanted to increase his control over the area.

The trouble with the Normans is that they were likely as mixed as the Anglo-Saxon/Briton blend they conquered. They may have had more R1b-U152 and less R1b-L21 or something, but it's hard to say exactly how much, and that goes for I1 as well. I don't doubt that some I1 in Britain comes from the Normans, but I doubt that, for any given British I1 sample, Norman is a good first guess. In your case, do you have French matches?

Aberdeen
12-11-13, 19:01
Northwestern! Otherwise, good post. Looks like we're delving into the sorts of claims made by proto-english ... .



The trouble with the Normans is that they were likely as mixed as the Anglo-Saxon/Briton blend they conquered. They may have had more R1b-U152 and less R1b-L21 or something, but it's hard to say exactly how much, and that goes for I1 as well. I don't doubt that some I1 in Britain comes from the Normans, but I doubt that, for any given British I1 sample, Norman is a good first guess. In your case, do you have French matches?

Yes, I meant northwest, that was a typo, probably caused by my thinking as I wrote it that since Cumbria is to the north and east of Wales and just south of Scotland, some folks would argue that it isn't typical of England. That's why I threw in the bit about a Celtic dialect in central England lasting until the Shakespearean period, even though I can't back that up until I remember where I read it.

And I probably didn't phrase things all that clearly with respect to folks from Normandy and the I haplotype - I'm aware that there's more R1b than I in Normandy but the amount of I is significant, so I don't think the Norman contribution to I in England and Scotland should be completely ignored. As for my own roots, the earliest traceable ancestor (assuming the research is correct) is in fact from Normandy.