PDA

View Full Version : Autosomal analysis of the genomes of Iron Age Britons and Anglo-Saxons



Maciamo
11-10-14, 10:37
Schiffels et al. (2014) tested two Iron Age Celtic samples and four early medieval Anglo-Saxon samples, all from Hixton in Cambridgeshire, East Anglia, England. The Iron Age Britond lived approximately 2,000 years ago, while the Anglo-Saxon individuals are dated to c. 1,300 years before present.

[N.B. Fire Haired started another thread on this subject here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30534-Genome-of-an-Iron-age-Briton), but I would like to post my own detailed analysis in a separate thread for the sake of clarity. In the other thread Motzart posted a comparison of the Iron Age Briton's genome using Eurogenes' K15 admixtures with other ancient European samples. Angela also posted the K12 (div3) and K12b admixtures for both the Celtic Briton and the Anglo-Saxon.]

Here is a summary of the data available, with an analysis under each category. I have coloured the admixtures using the same colours as on the maps (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml) I made, if there is a map for that admixture.



Hg

Celt 1
(ERS389798)
Celt 2
(ERS389799)
Anglo-Saxon 1
(ERS389795)
Anglo-Saxon 2
(ERS389796)
Anglo-Saxon 3
(ERS389797)










Y-DNA
R1b-L21 ?
(female)
R1b-L11
(female)
(female)


mtDNA
H1ag1
H2a2a1
K1a1b1b
H2a2b1
K1a4a1a2



Nothing very surprising here. Both Celtic and West Germanic people are predominantly R1b. Maternal haplogroups are all fairly common in north-west Europe.


Dodecad K12 admixtures



Admixture

Iron Age Celt 1

Anglo-Saxon 1
Modern Britons








West European
59.73%
41.46%
65%


East European
8.22%
24.44%
3.2%


Mediterranean
24.91%
17.31%
22.8%


West Asian
0%
1.70%
6.7%


Southwest Asian
0%
0.85%
1.2%


South Asian
0%
3.17%
0.5%


Southeast Asian
0%
0.99%
0.1%


Northeast Asian
0%
1.21%
0.1%


Northwest African

0.03%
5.55%
0.2%


East African

0%
0%
0%


Neo African

1.69%
0.63%
0.1%


Palaeo African

5.41%
2.69%
0%




The Anglo-Saxon individual is the biggest surprise. His admixtures do not match any modern population. If we look only at the the West European, East European and Mediterranean admixtures, he appears to lie somewhere in between East Germans and Poles, probably close to the modern population of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Brandenburg. However, he also has over 2% of East Asian admixture and virtually no West Asian or Southwest Asian admixture, which places him closer to modern Finnish people (as reported in the paper) or Northwest Russians. Another oddity is his nearly 9% of African admixture (see below), which shouldn't be there at all.

The Celtic Briton is closest to modern British people in the West European, East European and Mediterranean admixtures. The higher East European and lower West European of the ancient Briton makes them even closer to modern Belgians. This isn't unlikely considering that many Belgic tribes (Atrebates, Menapians) settled in Britain during the Iron Age.

One major difference between this ancient sample (perhaps unrepresentative) and modern Britons is the high percentage (>7%) of African admixture (and mostly Paleo African at that !) in the Iron Age individual on the one hand, and his complete lack of West Asian or Southwest Asian admixture. Modern Britons have practically the reverse proportion, with close to 8% of West/Southwest Asian and almost no African at all.

Unless the data was inverted, it is very hard to explain why Iron Age samples possessed such high African admixtures. Here are possible explanations:

A) The admixtures reported as African are in fact non-African, but do not correspond to any modern sample, or represent another regional group not included in the K12 admixtures.

B) Africans possess some admixture in common with North Europeans that came from a very ancient common source. This could be the Early Neolithic split between R1b-V88 (who migrated to Africa) and R1b-M269 (who migrated to Europe).

C) Some Paleo African could be the remainders of Palaeolithic African A1a lineages that are still found sporadically from the British Isles to Scandinavia. After all, the Mesolithic samples from Sweden, Luxembourg and Spain all had a few percent's of African admixture too.

D) The Northwest African in the Anglo-Saxon sample may actually be Germanic DNA that ended up in Northwest Africa when the Vandals settled there. Being more common in Northwest Africa today it may easily have been mislabled as Northwest African.


It is easier to explain the increase in West Asian and Southwest Asian admixtures among modern Britons. In Europe, these two admixtures are highest in Italy and Greece, and would have spread around Western Europe with the Roman colonisation. The Iron Age sample dates from 2,000 years before present, which is approximately the time the Romans first set foot in Britain - obviously not long enough for having any impact on the Celtic population.

A second source of West Asian DNA would have been the Norman conquest. France has the highest West Asian admixture in Western Europe after Italy, and the Normans, despite their partly Danish roots, had a lot of French blood. The Normans appear to have had a considerable genetic impact on the British population. That may be because of the Normans dominated the English aristocracy, and the upper classes had more surviving offspring in the long run.



Dodecad K12b admixtures



Admixture

Iron Age Celt 1

Anglo-Saxon 1
Modern Britons








North European
39.04%
49.89%
44.5%


Atlantic-Med
32.43%
30.08%
43%


Caucasus
9.12%
9.78%
1.8%


Gedrosia
5.96%
0.08%
10.4%


Southwest Asian
1.63%
0%
0.2%


South Asian
2.90%
0.07%
0.1%


Southeast Asian
0%
0%
0%


East Asian
0%
3.63%
0%


Siberian

0.02%
1.16%
0%


Northwest African
2.63%
1.31%
0%


East African
2.73%
0.79%
0%


Sub_Saharan
3.54%
3.19%
0%




The K12b shows a quite different picture, because the regional division was done very differently. Instead of splitting Europe in Northwest, Northeast and Mediterranean, the split in more on a dual North-Northeast to South-Southwest axis. Here we see that modern Britons fit nicely in between the ancient Celtic and Anglo-Saxon samples for the North European admixture. But for the rest there is hardly any match between the ancient and modern samples.

Oddly enough, the ancient and modern proportions of Caucasian and Gedrosian admixtures appear to be reversed. Both the Celtic Briton and the Anglo-Saxon individuals have about 10% of Caucasian, which is the same as modern Belgians and Germans, slightly more than modern French people (8.5%), but much more than modern English (3%), Scottish (0.5%), Irish (0.2%) and Orcadian (0%) people. The Caucasian component is similar to the West Asian in K12 in that the both peak in the Eastern Mediterranean and could have been spread by the Romans and the Alpine Celts (Hallstatt and La Tène, including Belgic tribes). That would explain why the English have some Caucasian, although less than the French, but the Scots and Irish almost don't have any. If that is the case, the Iron Age Celt would surely be of Belgic or at least Hallstatt descent.

The main difference between the Caucasian and West Asian admixtures is that the former is also very common among northern Slavs (Poles, Belarussians, Russians), while the latter is not. That explains why the Anglo-Saxon individual has 10% of Caucasian, once again an intermediary value between modern Poles and Germans.

The Gedrosian component is conversely absent from North Slavic people and is also nearly absent in the Anglo-Saxon individual. This is consistent with the K12 data showing the closest affinity to the present-day northeast German and northwest Polish populations. The Celtic Briton has 6% of Gedrosian, much less than the 10.5% found in modern English people, the 12% of the Irish and Orcadians, or the 13% of Argyll Scots. Once again, this Iron Age Briton has closer affinities with modern Belgians (6.8%) and Germans (7.3%) than with the modern Celtic populations of the British Isles.

One thing that remains to be explained is how modern Britons got more Gedrosian admixture than any other Europeans (even Southeast Europeans), and also more than these two ancient samples. I had hypothesised (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29002-New-map-of-Gedrosian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East) before that the Gedrosian admixture came with R1b people during the Bronze Age, and represents one of the original admixtures of R1b people before the crossed the Caucasus to settled as Neolithic cattle herders in the Pontic Steppe. If that is the case, then true ancient Britons (R1b-L21) should have at least as much Gedrosian admixture as modern Britons. The reason why this Iron Age guy didn't is that he was an immigrant from the continent (Belgium, southwest Germany or Switzerland).

The Southwest Asian admixture, which was completely absent in both samples in the K12, shows 1.6% in the Celt. Once again that is closer to modern Belgians (2.5%) and Germans (1.7%) than to modern Britons (0.2%). The Anglo-Saxon has 0% this time (instead of 0.85%), which is less than any modern population, but closer to the Scandinavians and Balts.

Modern Germanic people lack the South Asian admixture at the K12b, just like the Anglo-Saxon sample. However, modern British and Irish people also lack it, while the Iron Age Celt has a surprisingly high 2.9%. No modern European population has more than 1% of South Asian, and that is the Poles, Russians and Romanians. The original Bronze Age Proto-Indo-Europeans may have had higher percentages though, and this Celtic guy may be an isolated case of someone who ended up with more South Asian segments than average.

The really surprising data is the tremendous amount of African DNA in both samples and East Asian DNA in the Anglo-Saxon. This was already observed in the K12, but the regional breakdown in African admixtures is now very different, which reinforces my suspicion that something is wrong and that this may not be African DNA at all (see above).

The East Asian component in the Anglo-Saxon is clear though, and even more pronounced here (4.8% instead of 2.2%). The best explanation is that the Huns contributed a few percent's of the Anglo-Saxon gene pool, or that this individual came from a family with an especially high Hunnic ancestry. I had theorised before that the Huns were the ones who brought haplogroup Q (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml#history) to Central Europe and Scandinavia. It is also possible that the Anglo-Saxon got some Mongoloid admixture from the Finns or Lapps, but that seems more far-fetched because modern Finns have exclusively Siberian admixture at the K12b, while this Anglo-Saxon guy has three times more East Asian than Siberian, which is an even higher proportion of East Asian than modern Mongols (36% Siberian, 45% East Asian).



Conclusion

Of the two Iron Age samples from East England tested by Schiffels et al. (2014), the Celtic Briton individual displays the greatest affinity to modern Belgian, then German, then French people, indicating a probable Belgic/La Tène or Hallstatt origin.

The Anglo-Saxon genome fits in between the modern populations of northeast Germany and northwest Poland, which may indicate an East Germanic (Gothic ?) origin. This is further corroborated by the fact that this individual possess a substantial percentage (2-5%) of East Asian and Siberian admixture, present in a proportion that is consistent with an introgression of Hunnic (Mongol) genes.

Both individuals have unexplained level of African admixture using the Dodecad K12 and K12b (both between 5 and 9%), which are probably misclassified admixtures of unknown origin, some of which may be shared with some African populations. Note that the Eurogenes K15 admixtures show 0% for both the Northeast African and Sub-Saharan admixtures.

Finally, both samples are characterised by very low levels of West Asian and Southwest Asian admixtures compared to the modern British population. The higher modern percentage could be explained both by the Roman colonisation and the Norman conquest.


Below: Anglo-Saxon helmet from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, England.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Sutton_Hoo_helmet_reconstructed.jpg/361px-Sutton_Hoo_helmet_reconstructed.jpg

Wilhelm
11-10-14, 17:25
I don't think so, that he is closest to Belgians. On the PCA plot of David he is closest to modern British Isles :.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUTNBcUV0OWI3N0E/view

Also using the least-squares method here is the closest populations :

v3 K=12
Anglo-Saxon : Ukranian @ 12.07
Iron Age Briton : Orkney @ 9.9

K12b
Anglo-Saxon : German @ 9.7
Iron Age Briton: German @ 11.0


Eurogenes K13
Hinxton 1 : Irish @ 4.34
Hinxton 2 : West Scottish @7.23

Eurogens K15
Hinxton 1 : Orcadian @ 6.30
Hinxton 2 : Orcadian @ 6.56

Sile
11-10-14, 19:00
see link below for all the SNP's for each individual

enter google drive

http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html

Maciamo
11-10-14, 19:32
I don't think so, that he is closest to Belgians. On the PCA plot of David he is closest to modern British Isles :.


I don't like PCA plots. That's an old, outdated method of comparison that only uses two dimensions and is therefore unreliable. I prefer to compare each admixture one by one.


v3 K=12
Anglo-Saxon : Ukranian @ 12.07
Iron Age Briton : Orkney @ 9.9

K12b
Anglo-Saxon : German @ 9.7
Iron Age Briton: German @ 11.0


Eurogenes K13
Hinxton 1 : Irish @ 4.34
Hinxton 2 : West Scottish @7.23

Eurogens K15
Hinxton 1 : Orcadian @ 6.30
Hinxton 2 : Orcadian @ 6.56

A perfect illustration that the least-squares method isn't any good either. How can you get such different results across calculators, and get exactly the same closest population for two individuals as different as these Iron Age Celt and Anglo-Saxons ?

Fire Haired14
11-10-14, 19:36
Maciamo, check out what Davidski at Eurogenes is doing!

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/analysis-of-ancient-genome-from-hinxton.html

Hex 1 and 2 have several percentages higher of WHG and ANE than Irish(who have the highest in NW Europe besides Norse). They have about the same EEF/WHG/ANE ratio as Belorussians, Polish, and Scandinavians. Scandinavians though have much more eastern-like ancestry. Basically Hex 1 and 2 seem to be NW European to the extreme, more than any modern ones, with very little east European and Mediterranean affinities. Hex 2's kit # at GEDmatch is F999921.

Here are her Dodecade K12b results.

Gedrosia 10.69%
Siberian 0.76%
Northwest_African 0
Southeast_Asian 0
Atlantic_Med 35.86%
North_European 50.25%
South_Asian 0.11%
East_African 0.62%
Southwest_Asian 0
East_Asian 0
Caucasus 0.99%
Sub_Saharan 0.72%

She scores about 1% higher in Gedorsia than the highest score in west Europe today. Where did you get these admixture results from? Hex 1 and 2 have more from what changed in west Europe after the Neolithic than anyone around today.

Sile
11-10-14, 19:37
some people want to say that he has L151 and does not have L11, but because L151 is in the same branch as L11 , he should be noted as L11 .................I disagree with this summary...........he is R-L151 as its his only positive SNP on that branch with L11

this is what is found by others

YBrowse Build 37 at http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html downloading all of the Complete_Y.csv files from each run of ERS389795 .

ERS389795 has C allele at position 2657176 which is a positive marker for Page65.1/SRY1532.1/SRY10831.1 in haplogroup BT and not for R1a1-Page65.2/PF6234/SRY1532.2/SRY10831.2.

ERS389795 has the following -
R1b1 M415=rs9786194 9170545 C->A
R1b1a2 CTS8728/L1063/PF6480/S13=rs9786876 18167403 C->T
R1b1a2 L265/PF6431=rs9786882 8149348 A->G
R1b1a2a1a L151/PF6542=rs2082033 16492547 C->T

Sile
11-10-14, 19:57
http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html

for ERS389796



k23b seems to be the new "better" admixture test to do

Wilhelm
11-10-14, 20:27
A perfect illustration that the least-squares method isn't any good either. How can you get such different results across calculators, and get exactly the same closest population for two individuals as different as these Iron Age Celt and Anglo-Saxons ?
The least-squares method is just the best method to get the closest numerical populations. Just look at the spreadsheet, and you'll see that it makes sense, the closest population is the one that will look the most similar statistically. But you also have to take in account the distances, is not the same @11 than @3. Also, the reasons why there are such differences across different admixture runs is simply becaue of the different components in which Europe is divided (K=12 has East-Euro/West-Euro/Med, while Eurogens K13 has North Sea/Atlantic/Baltic, West-Med.). Also, the samples are different between Dodecad and Eurogenes. The K12b was much limitied in european samples, than is the Eurogenes K13/K15

Angela
11-10-14, 20:27
Transferred from the other thread so everything is together:
One of many questions that remains open for me is whether this ancient Briton is representative of all the Pre-Roman Iron Age inhabitants of the British Isles.

Once again, these are the results for what is probably a "Briton" or Iron Age Celt from what is now East Anglia:
K12b
39.04% North_European


32.43% Atlantic_Med
9.12% Caucasus
5.96% Gedrosia
3.54% Sub_Saharan
2.90% South_Asian
2.73% East_African
2.63% Northwest_African
1.63% Southwest_Asian
0.02% Siberian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian



Now let's look at the Cornish sample:
North European 42.8
Atlantic Med 43.8
Caucasus 2
Gedrosia 11.4

All the African and South Asian and South West Asian percentages have disappeared.

The North Euro component is only 3 points higher, which one could say might be the result of internal migration and intermarriage over the centuries.

However, how did the Cornish go from 32.43% Atlantic Med (if our ancient sample was representative of all the pre-Roman Iron Age Britons) to 43.8% Atlantic Med? Their Atlantic Med numbers are pretty "French" looking. Even the Argyl (41.2), English (41.5), and Orcadian (42.4) Atlantic Med numbers are substantially higher than those of our ancient Briton.

So, I'm still left wondering if there were populations in Britain at that time that were substantially more EEF than the sample we have, either because of differential gene flow over the centuries into the east coast that made them different, or because this sample also came from a relatively more recent migration, like perhaps the Belgae.

Angela
11-10-14, 21:40
The high African scores for the Iron Age Celt could be explained away by saying that it is a low coverage genome. However, the Anglo Saxon also scores some significant African. Any one of your explanations A,B, or C could be the answer. Also, through constant recombination, minority lineages can be lost.



As to your speculations about the Romans contributing to the increase in West Asian and SWAsian in modern British people, I’m not so sure.

I did mention in the prior post that there has been a decided increase in the Atlantic Med component when comparing the ancient Briton and the modern people of Britain in the K=12b analysis. I don't know how to explain it. L21 and U-106, which account for so much of Britain's y dna, are not "Roman" or even particularly "southern". I don't know if the J2, some G2a and the U-152 and perhaps a few upstream clades would be enough to explain it. The Normans may be a better bet, or this particular Iron Age Celt just may not be representative of the entire Pre-Roman Iron Age population of the British Isles.


For the sake of completion, since that run did not include a Belgian sample, here are the results for the French:

North European 36.5
Atlantic Med 44.4
Gedrosia 7.9
Caucasus 7.9
North West African 2

The results are pretty similar to those of the Iron Age Celt, except for the fact that the French have 12 points more Atlantic Med, very close to the figure for the modern Cornish.

As to the Anglo-Saxon, I think your placement of him is spot on. However, I think the explanation need not rest with the Huns. They were just as likely, in my opinion, to just be from an area that was higher in ANE, and had all those affinities.

Edited:
I tend to agree with your opinion of PCA plots. They are only very rough tools. Of course, in combination with other tools, they can be very helpful.

As for the least squared method, it can be informative when properly done. It all depends on the quality of the underlying admixture program. In the cited examples, the results, in some instances, are pretty good, while in others, because of the poor quality of the admixture run, you can get a situation where almost identical genetic distances to the same population can be produced when in fact the two ancient samples have significant differences.

motzart
11-10-14, 22:46
If you look at the k12b admixtures I did in the other thread for our other ancient samples, Loschbour/Labrana/ and Malta boy all have a trace of Sub Saharan (<0.2%). Motala and the Stuttgart(the LBK farmer) have none.

If I were to make a guess as to the origin of it in these samples I would sale a mid neolithic arrival of E1b in Europe.

Angela
11-10-14, 23:15
For some comparisons on the K-12 run:
The Iron Age Celt-I removed everything under 1% and the African numbers just so we can get a clearer picture.
dv3


48.72% West_European
23.25% Mediterranean
9.04% East_European
9.00% West_Asian
1.31% Northwest_African


The French:

West Euro: 52.1
East Euro: 3.9
Med: 33.9
NW African .4
West Asian 7.2
It’s a decent fit except for the fact that the French have 10 points more Med.

The Germans, except for their much higher East Euro, might be even closer.

West Euro 52.7
East Euro 16.9
Med 22
West Asian 6.5
S.W Asian 1.5

So, some of those FST numbers, the ones based on good admixture calculators, may not be so bad. An ancestral population close to the Germans if you take out some East European, and close to the French if you take out rather more Med might be on target.


That still doesn’t tell us if this ancient Brit was representative of all Britons of his time.


In that regard, these are the numbers for the modern British in this run-there isn’t an English population.

West Euro: 65.4
East Euro 2.6
Med 22.8

West Asian 6.7
SW Asian 1.4

The Med is the same for the Iron Age Celt, the modern Germans and the modern English. The West Asian for the Iron Age Celt is 9%, while the combined West Asian and SW Asian for the modern Germans and the modern British is about 8%.


So, upon further reflection, I am doubtful that there was any additional influx of specifically Mediterranean or SW Asian genes into Britain after this period.


The biggest change or difference is that the Iron Age Celt, the French and the Germans on this run are all about 50% “West European”.. The ancient Anglo-Saxon was even less West European, at 41.46%. The modern English are 65.4 West European.


It seems to me that somewhere in the British Isles there was a heavily “West European” population, and that our ancient Iron Age Celt from East Anglia is not totally representative of that group.

Ed. The fact that there is an increase in the Atlanto Med component in the modern British in the K-12b run may be related. It is an increase in the "Atlanto" portion of that component, not the "Med" portion of that component.

motzart
12-10-14, 02:55
Motzart says: October 11, 2014 at 4:59 am (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/analyses-of-an-ancient-english-genome/comment-page-1/#comment-612)
The Eurogenes blog is saying he is R1b L11+, but you are saying that he is R1b-, are we going to get another analysis of the Y DNA sometime soon?
Reply (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/analyses-of-an-ancient-english-genome/?replytocom=612#respond)
http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/dfaf158966e274d5a966c3d51516759c?s=90&d=identicon&r=G genetiker (http://genetiker.wordpress.com) says:
October 11, 2014 at 5:53 am (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/analyses-of-an-ancient-english-genome/comment-page-1/#comment-613)
Wesolowski also says that ERS389795 is Iron Age. Wrong.
And he says that ERS389795 is the high coverage genome. Also wrong.
Wesolowski got the idea that ERS389795 is R1b-L11 from Anthrogenica. The Y-SNP calls that they used are wrong. For example, the file they used shows R1a1-PF6234 as being positive. PF6234 is at the position 2657176, and ERS389795 had the ancestral C allele at position 2657176.
I’m not saying that I know that ERS389795 wasn’t R1b. I’m inferring that he wasn’t R1b, because he only had 0.08% of the Gedrosia component, and the Gedrosia component is strongly associated with R1b.
There’s no need to do another Y-DNA analysis. The calls are what they are.



@Sile

I'm editing my post, I cross referenced the "all Y SNPs" file against the ISOGG SNP index and also saw what you are talking about for the L 151+, I think the Anglo Saxon is definitely L151

polako
12-10-14, 03:16
I don't like PCA plots. That's an old, outdated method of comparison that only uses two dimensions and is therefore unreliable. I prefer to compare each admixture one by one.

The PCA results are backed up with f3 formal stats and UNBIASED admixture results.

The Dodecad results you used for your write up are biased. They're biased because of the calculator effect.

You can read about it here. Please try and understand it, because if you do, you'll be able to analyze these sorts of samples more accurately in the future.

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/beware-calculator-effect.html

polako
12-10-14, 03:25
For some comparisons on the K-12 run:
The Iron Age Celt-I removed everything under 1% and the African numbers just so we can get a clearer picture.
dv3


48.72% West_European
23.25% Mediterranean
9.04% East_European
9.00% West_Asian
1.31% Northwest_African


The French:

West Euro: 52.1
East Euro: 3.9
Med: 33.9
NW African .4
West Asian 7.2
It’s a decent fit except for the fact that the French have 10 points more Med.

The Germans, except for their much higher East Euro, might be even closer.

West Euro 52.7
East Euro 16.9
Med 22
West Asian 6.5
S.W Asian 1.5

So, some of those FST numbers, the ones based on good admixture calculators, may not be so bad. An ancestral population close to the Germans if you take out some East European, and close to the French if you take out rather more Med might be on target.


That still doesn’t tell us if this ancient Brit was representative of all Britons of his time.


In that regard, these are the numbers for the modern British in this run-there isn’t an English population.

West Euro: 65.4
East Euro 2.6
Med 22.8

West Asian 6.7
SW Asian 1.4

The Med is the same for the Iron Age Celt, the modern Germans and the modern English. The West Asian for the Iron Age Celt is 9%, while the combined West Asian and SW Asian for the modern Germans and the modern British is about 8%.


So, upon further reflection, I am doubtful that there was any additional influx of specifically Mediterranean or SW Asian genes into Britain after this period.


The biggest change or difference is that the Iron Age Celt, the French and the Germans on this run are all about 50% “West European”.. The ancient Anglo-Saxon was even less West European, at 41.46%. The modern English are 65.4 West European.


It seems to me that somewhere in the British Isles there was a heavily “West European” population, and that our ancient Iron Age Celt from East Anglia is not totally representative of that group.

Ed. The fact that there is an increase in the Atlanto Med component in the modern British in the K-12b run may be related. It is an increase in the "Atlanto" portion of that component, not the "Med" portion of that component.


Here's the problem; the ancient genomes aren't Dodecad samples, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

Please try and understand this. It's really not very complicated. This is the basic rule:

Unless samples are tested under exactly the same conditions, then their results can't be directly compared.

motzart
12-10-14, 04:09
Just a follow up post to my post above.

Genetiker's comment above states that the SNP's provided by Felix's analysis are incorrect because PF6234 shows up as positive.

If you actually go into the data and check the allele and cross reference that against the ISOGG Y DNA tree you will see that it says that the call is positive, but the listing for the Allele is Ancestral. I saw this with P126 as well.

For example P126 for ERS389795 has a C at its position and is listed as positive, but checking it against the ISOGG Y DNA tree shows that C is the ancestral position and G is derived.


The positive markers for R,R1,R1b, ect to R1b-L151 DO contain the correct allele in the data when they are marked as positive. (and there are many of them).

Anglo Saxon DNA = R1b1a2a1a L151

joeyc
12-10-14, 04:29
Using Dodecad is useless because of the calculator effect.

On the Eurogenes they are both closest to modern Orcadians but with less West Med, East Med, West Asian and Red Sea than modern Britons.

joeyc
12-10-14, 05:11
I've downloaded the excell spreadsheets with the Irisplex/Hirisplex macros. I will try to include these nacient genomes to see what it comes out.

ElHorsto
12-10-14, 13:41
The biggest change or difference is that the Iron Age Celt, the French and the Germans on this run are all about 50% “West European”.. The ancient Anglo-Saxon was even less West European, at 41.46%. The modern English are 65.4 West European.


It seems to me that somewhere in the British Isles there was a heavily “West European” population, and that our ancient Iron Age Celt from East Anglia is not totally representative of that group.


If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?

Angela
12-10-14, 17:39
Using Dodecad is useless because of the calculator effect.

On the Eurogenes they are both closest to modern Orcadians but with less West Med, East Med, West Asian and Red Sea than modern Britons.

Well, that's certainly a model of sophisticated analysis. Two samples, with significantly different percentages even on the seriously flawed Eurogenes runs, are both closest to modern Orcadians. Oh, and how does such a conclusion illuminate in any way the source or migration path of these two ancient groups? That is supposed to be the whole point, isn't it?

Wait a minute, what happened to the statement by the Eurogenes blogger that one of the samples had a perhaps West Germanic signature, and the other a northeastern Germanic, even Scandinavian signature? You know, that statement which is rather similar to my own conclusions? Isn't it still on that thread?

Don't bother answering. I will do better about not reading new posts without signing in, so my ignore block will be working.

Fire Haired14
12-10-14, 17:47
If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?

Why there is a west-east differentiation in admixtures is up to debate. It certainly isn't as simple as geography, and recent splits. Don't take admixture results to literally. Components aren't ancient populations they're just just clusters. If I was made into a component compared to east Asian components, you would probably score 100% in it, that doesn't mean I'm and ancient population and you're 100% me. Ancient samples of good quality don't score in exotic components. Have you seen updated Eurogenes K13-15 results for Loschbour, Stuttgart, Motala-12, La Brana-1, and Otzi? They literally score 0 in just about every non-west Eurasian components. The hunter gatherers don't score 0 in Mediterranean and near eastern components. Don't take HGs scores in regional clusters too seriously either, but do take note of them.

Angela
12-10-14, 18:35
If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?


I don't have the time right now to give your points the attention required, as I'm about to run out the door, so I may revisit this later. I just didn't want you to think I'm not going to respond to your post.

So, a quick note. I'm not sure that I would assume that "East" and "West European" are any more "pure" components than any of the others in admixture analyses, and that therefore they represent "pure" WHG groups.

I know you're aware of those 2012 threads on the Dienekes site which examined the components in terms of one another. I think we've even discussed them?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/inter-relationships-of-dodecad-k12b-and.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html

Southwest Asian is Caucasus
Atlantic Med is Caucasus and some North European
North Euro is Atlantic Med plus Gedrosia and a slice of North European
Atlantic Baltic on World 9 is not a "pure" WHG component either

These are geographical groupings and nothing more, not "pure" ancestral populations. Their only usefulness is in drawing comparisons between different populations and trying to infer clues from that about ancient populations.

So, in the case of my example, all that I meant was that in order to reach the "West European" levels of the modern English, given the lower levels in both the ancient samples, one hypothesis might be that there was another, perhaps geographically more western population, which, had we an ancient sample, would score higher in "West European".

LeBrok
12-10-14, 20:56
I

These are geographical groupings and nothing more, not "pure" ancestral populations. Their only usefulness is in drawing comparisons between different populations and trying to infer clues from that about ancient populations.
This should be reminded to all from time to time. I always look at this as statistical averaging and classification of genome and population comparison-pooling (or was it pulling?)


So, in the case of my example, all that I meant was that in order to reach the "West European" levels of the modern English, given the lower levels in both the ancient samples, one hypothesis might be that there was another, perhaps geographically more western population, which, had we an ancient sample, would score higher in "West European". We also have to remember that populations in the past were not nicely mixed as of today. People were not very mobile, more insulated, more traditional, more inbred.
East Anglia is special place, it is one of first places to see more newcomers from continental Europe (celtic or germanic influence in this case) than the rest of British Isle. I'm sure we are going to find more populations of EEF Neolithic descendants in rest of Britain, who gave more Mediterranean, Atlantic and less East Euro admixture to modern English demographics.

ElHorsto
13-10-14, 02:45
@Angela,@FireHaired

No, that's not what I meant. To the contrary.
What I meant: There can be no ancient population which scores more "West-Euro" than modern Britons, because:
1. "East" and "West" are recent and non-"pure" categories
2. WHG is already the largest admixture in both
3. WHG (Loschbourg) scores equally in both, "East" and "West", so WHG can not be unique to either West or East, but at best must have drifted over time into "West" and "East", if at all.
4. If WHG differentiation is not responsible for most "East" and "West" differentiation, then it must be due to the minor admixtures. But they are too minor in order to increase "West-Euro" percentage up-to or above today Britain's. Hence I conclude that "East" and "West" separation is based on post-Loschbourg events. And if I recall correctly, north-western-like (f.i. "North-Sea") and north-eastern-like (f.i. Baltic, East-Euro, ...) are often very close in terms of FST distances (but I don't have them at hand to be sure right now).

So, if you Angela believe there once was a population scoring even higher in "West-Euro" than today West-Europeans, then I doubt this hypothesis. It is possible that one minor admixture is responsible for the emergence of a "West-Euro" cluster, but this admixture alone would never score higher in "West-Euro", but would be something different like Gedrosia+Atlantic_med (particular EEF+ANE-variant for instance) or something else.

Maciamo
13-10-14, 07:50
http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html

for ERS389796



k23b seems to be the new "better" admixture test to do

Really ? 1% of African Pygmy, 0.8% of Amerindian, 0.7% of Melano-Polynesian, and you think that's reliable ?

joeyc
13-10-14, 12:48
@Angela,@FireHaired

No, that's not what I meant. To the contrary.
What I meant: There can be no ancient population which scores more "West-Euro" than modern Britons, because:
1. "East" and "West" are recent and non-"pure" categories
2. WHG is already the largest admixture in both
3. WHG (Loschbourg) scores equally in both, "East" and "West", so WHG can not be unique to either West or East, but at best must have drifted over time into "West" and "East", if at all.
4. If WHG differentiation is not responsible for most "East" and "West" differentiation, then it must be due to the minor admixtures. But they are too minor in order to increase "West-Euro" percentage up-to or above today Britain's. Hence I conclude that "East" and "West" separation is based on post-Loschbourg events. And if I recall correctly, north-western-like (f.i. "North-Sea") and north-eastern-like (f.i. Baltic, East-Euro, ...) are often very close in terms of FST distances (but I don't have them at hand to be sure right now).

So, if you Angela believe there once was a population scoring even higher in "West-Euro" than today West-Europeans, then I doubt this hypothesis. It is possible that one minor admixture is responsible for the emergence of a "West-Euro" cluster, but this admixture alone would never score higher in "West-Euro", but would be something different like Gedrosia+Atlantic_med (particular EEF+ANE-variant for instance) or something else.

Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.

ElHorsto
13-10-14, 13:35
Hunther Gatherers were not a homogeneous bunch. The ones from Eastern Europe were more mixed with ANE and mongol shifted. Malt'a scores 40% Baltic, 30% Amerindian and 30% South Asian. La Brana scores 50% Baltic and 50% North Atlantic, but he was from Spain. The North Atlantic component is clearly more Mesolitich than the Baltic one, which is mixed with North Asian and Mongoloid elements.

I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.

ElHorsto
13-10-14, 15:56
Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.


I have to correct myself a bit: Maybe it is possible, if the Iron Age sample would have 0% Caucasus and instead 10% Gedrosian. This could result in similar "West European" scores like a modern Briton, but not significantly higher. The continental celtic origin idea make much sense afterall.

joeyc
13-10-14, 17:59
I'm not aware of any ancient sample which is "North Atlantic". AFAIK it is a calculated cluster based on contemporary peoples. Ancient categories I know are for instance WHG, ANE, EEF,...
Also the ANE admixture is not lower in contemporary North-West europeans, it's even a bit higher than in North-East europeans (except Saami and Finns). For instance compare Scotts with Belarussians in Lazaridis et al.
And it seems that you are confusing ANE with mongoloids.

Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.

I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.

ElHorsto
13-10-14, 18:42
Modern North Western Europeans are mixed with Indo Europeans (Corded Ware/Battle Axe). R* haplogroups are tied with the ANE like ancestry.


Yes, probably.



I was talking about Western and Eastern Hunther Gatherers anyway. You have misunderstood.

You were postulating that NW europeans are most mesolithic or are descentent from a different ancient HG-people. I said that evidence (WHG="West European Hunter Gatherer"; Loschbour, La Brana) so far does not support this claim. The possible sources of other admixtures like ANE is a different question. Finns and Saami have a peak ANE in Europe, but at the same time also peak in WHG, so they still are the most mesolithic people today, regardless of ANE (which is also mesolithic).

Maciamo
13-10-14, 19:23
Using Dodecad is useless because of the calculator effect.

On the Eurogenes they are both closest to modern Orcadians but with less West Med, East Med, West Asian and Red Sea than modern Britons.

Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.

Sile
13-10-14, 20:37
Really ? 1% of African Pygmy, 0.8% of Amerindian, 0.7% of Melano-Polynesian, and you think that's reliable ?

he uses k23b and the other because they are the most reliable. below is his summary on how

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/convert-ancient-dna-sequence-reads-to.html

Fire Haired14
13-10-14, 21:27
Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.

Felix and David show with admixture, F-statistics, and PCAs the two Hinxton samples are extreme NW Europeans, and closest to Orcadians, Irish, and west Norwegian. He could be Germanic(who fall under the same trend as British Celts) and maybe apart of an ethnic group who was beyond the modern NW extreme, and who later admixed with populations more eastern and SW.

John Doe
13-10-14, 21:38
he uses k23b and the other because they are the most reliable. below is his summary on how

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/convert-ancient-dna-sequence-reads-to.html

Reliable in determining what?

Sile
14-10-14, 07:07
Reliable in determining what?

because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.

John Doe
14-10-14, 07:34
because all others suffer from calculaor effect except the latest MDLP K23b, which was designed to get around this problem.

So what is it good at determining?

Sile
14-10-14, 08:30
So what is it good at determining?

I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069

John Doe
14-10-14, 08:46
I do not understand your question, but my K23b below is accurate as far as I know

MDLP K23b Oracle Rev 2014 Sep 16

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 29.03
2 Caucasian 27.88
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 25.56
4 South_Central_Asian 5.03
5 Near_East 4.22
6 North_African 4.16
7 Ancestral_Altaic 3.18


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Italian_North @ 1.625069
2 Italian_Piedmont @ 10.729018
3 German-Volga @ 10.739352
4 Kosovar @ 10.752990
5 Italian_Bergamo @ 11.048033
6 Greek_Northwest @ 11.196579
7 Italian_Tuscan @ 11.663836
8 French @ 12.118893
9 Bulgarian @ 13.362114
10 South_German @ 13.639461
11 Albanian_Tirana @ 13.643938
12 Greek_Thessaly @ 13.652842
13 Belgian @ 14.084169
14 Greek_Thessaloniki @ 14.171048
15 English_Cornwall_GBR @ 14.256066
16 English @ 14.320354
17 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 14.361881
18 English_Kent_GBR @ 14.460760
19 Irish @ 14.469301
20 Spanish_Baleares_IBS @ 14.495005

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian_North +50% Italian_North @ 1.625069

Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Caucasian
37.34


2
European_Early_Farmers
22.63


3
European_Hunters_Gatherers
13.20


4
Near_East
10.51


5
North_African
6.86


6
South_Central_Asian
6.36




Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458

Sile
14-10-14, 10:40
Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Caucasian
37.34


2
European_Early_Farmers
22.63


3
European_Hunters_Gatherers
13.20


4
Near_East
10.51


5
North_African
6.86


6
South_Central_Asian
6.36




Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458

write to this fellow Australian........with a little bit of luck he might help you out.

http://www.fc.id.au/search/label/Genealogy

John Doe
14-10-14, 10:44
write to this fellow Australian........with a little bit of luck he might help you out.

http://www.fc.id.au/search/label/Genealogy

Thanks mate.

Wilhelm
14-10-14, 13:35
Why on earth would an Anglo-Saxon be close to a modern Orcadian ? Modern Orcadians are the most Celtic/Brythonic looking population in the British Isles.

The Dodecad results make much more sense. I shows that the Anglo-Saxon is closer to assorted populations around the Baltic Sea, be them Scandinavians, northeast Germans, northern Poles, Balts or Finns. That is consistent with an ancient Germanic population.
First, we don't know if he was a racial anglo-saxon, or a cultural anglo-saxon. And second, Orcadian are not the "most Celtic" looking of the British Isles, au contraire, they are the most Nordic/Scandinavian of the British Isles.

Angela
14-10-14, 17:03
OK, if some people think that the MDLP K23b is better, because it's the only one that has no “calculator effect”, let’s look at K23b.


Sample ERS389795-What Genetiker calls the “Anglo-Saxon” sample?:

MDLP K23b


35.13% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.41% Caucasian
19.44% European_Early_Farmers
6.42% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
2.41% Ancestral-North-Indian
2.24% Archaic-Human
1.29% African-Pygmy
0.75% East-African
0.49% Near-East
0.22% East-Siberian
0.11% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.05% Archaic-African
0.04% North-African


Sample ERS389798-What Genetiker calls the Iron Age Sample?

MDLP K23b


32.46% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.80% European_Early_Farmers
13.98% Caucasian
6.77% Ancestral-North-Indian
6.56% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
4.69% Subsaharian
1.35% North-African
0.97% East-African
0.54% Arctic
0.29% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.22% Melano-Polinesian
0.16% Austroloid
0.09% Near-East
0.07% Paleo-Siberian


The two samples have approximately the same amount of WHG (although Sample 95-Anglo Saxon? is 3 points higher)


ERS389798-Iron Age Celt sample?- has quite a bit more EEF, 31.80 compared to 19.44 and it also has about 7% African, compared to about 2.5% for 95 Anglo Saxon?, and in addition it has more Ancestral North Indian, which might be associated with Gedrosia? at 6.77, compared to 2.41.


In terms of the Caucasus component it is reversed. Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? has 31.41 Caucasus compared to 13.98 for ERS389798 Iron Age Celt?


They have the same amount of ANE, at a low level of 6-7%


I think it’s noteworthy that the ANE percentages are extremely low(6-7%) compared to the levels in modern northern Europe, where the levels are around 14,15,16%


As for EEF, with Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? the EEF level is 30 points lower than that of modern English people (approximately 20% compared to approximately 50%), while Sample ERS389798 Celt? is about 18 points lower ( 32% versus 50%).


You do get close to 50% for the ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? sample if you add the EEF farmer and Caucasus components. For the ERS389798 Iron Age sample?, you get to 45%.


These are, once again, the WHG/EEF/ANE figures for modern English people:

WHG: .364
EEF: .495
ANE: .141

Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon?:

HG: 35.13
EEF + Caucasus: 50-51%
ANE: 6.42

Sample ERS389798-Iron Age Celt?:

WHG:32.46
EEF + Caucasus: 45.78
ANE:6.56

As I said, the ANE is off, and you have to combine EEF and Caucasus to get to the EEF levels of modern English people. (Perhaps the "Caucasus" component on this particular calculator is just an eastern drifted version of EEF?

(For those who still can't seem to grasp that EEF is a "set of genes" from a Stuttgart LBK woman used for comparison, and that according to Lazaridis et al the best estimate right now is probably something around 20% WHG picked up in Europe and 80% genetic material that arrived from the Near East, all I can suggest is a re-reading of Lazaridis et al and every page of the Supplementary material. )

Of the two samples, Sample ERS389795, what Genetiker calls the Anglo Saxon sample?, seems closer to modern English people in terms of the WHG/EEF/ANE formulation, but not by a whole lot. The abstract says the Anglo-Saxon sample is closer to the modern English. Make of it what you will. I’m just trying to think it through, just like everyone else.


Sample ERS389798, which Genetiker calls the Iron Age Celt sample?, has more “African” components, (7% vs. 2.5%) which might, along with 3% less WHG, mean a more Southern? Signature.


That’s what I can see so far. It seems as if Sample ERS389795 is more north, and, if you look at the Caucasus component, more east than the ERS389798 sample. So, aren't I basically where I was after analyzing the data through the prism of the Dodecad runs, only with quite a bit less specificity?

If I made any mistakes, please correct the record. After all the confusion I’m not even sure that I’m attributing Genetiker’s attribution of the samples correctly! Having only Sample numbers is maddening. Also, if anyone has different numbers for a K23b run of these ancient samples, that would be good to know, as would any Oracle results for these samples.


Now, I’m going to leave it until the paper comes out and we know the official attribution of these samples to specific times and archeological contexts.


Oh, and the fact that one or both of these samples might plot near the Orcadians on a PCA plot is singularly unhelpful in terms of figuring out the origins and migration paths of these two ancient samples, as Orcadians are just a mix of "Celt" and Scandinavian.

John Doe
14-10-14, 17:20
(For those who still can't seem to grasp that EEF is a "set of genes" from a Stuttgart LBK woman used for comparison, and that according to Lazaridis et al the best estimate right now is probably something around 20% WHG picked up in Europe and 80% genetic material that arrived from the Near East, all I can suggest is a re-reading of Lazaridis et al and every page of the Supplementary material. )

So what you're saying is that EEF is about 20% WHG and 80% material from the near east like basal Eurasian and unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer?

Angela
14-10-14, 19:18
So what you're saying is that EEF is about 20% WHG and 80% material from the near east like basal Eurasian and unknown west Eurasian hunter gatherer?

We don't know for sure at this point because we don't have an ancient Near Eastern Neolithic sample, nor a hypothetical "UHG" or whatever, but given the extensive modeling in Lazaridis et al, and the uniparental markers, both Ydna, and mtDna studied by people like Haak, and papers like Paschou et al, the probability is that the majority of EEF ancestry is Near Eastern in origin.* (I'm not talking here about Basal Eurasian or any of that, nor do I want to get bogged down in that because we know even less about it.**)

Now whether, say, up to 20% of Stuttgart's ancestry was WHG picked up in Europe,( I believe that was the estimate from the preferred model) as was entertained by Lazaridis et al, we don't know. There's also still a slim chance, I suppose, that the EEF signature was present not only in the Near East but in far southeastern Europe, i.e. around the Aegean. We'll have to wait and see.

Regardless, when a test is done using Stuttgart, an LBK person, to represent EEF ancestry, which is what most of these tests do, to my knowledge, and a sample comes up X % EEF, that means that X% of that sample's genome "matches" that of the Stuttgart Neolithic farmer, and most of that Stuttgart person's ancestry probably came from the Near East.

At least, that's my understanding of the matter.

I'll just say again that these admixture components, like "East European", or "North European" or whatever, are just modern geographical clusters or groupings. They are not the actual ancestral populations. The percentages of the three ancient populations that we have are buried in the modern groupings in different proportions.

Ed.* In other words, the majority of the EEF genome is probably the same as that of the Neolithic Near Eastern farmers. Until we get a sample of a Near Eastern farmer we won't know for sure, though, and we won't know the percentage.
**Whether the Ancient Near Eastern farmers were all "Basal Eurasian" is unknown but I doubt it. So, they probably had some "UHG" while they were still in the Near East. Then, they may have picked up some WHG in Europe itself.

John Doe
14-10-14, 19:25
We don't know for sure at this point because we don't have an ancient Near Eastern Neolithic sample, nor a hypothetical "UHG" or whatever, but given the extensive modeling in Lazaridis et al, and the uniparental markers, both Ydna, and mtDna studied by people like Haak, and papers like Paschou et al, the probability is that the majority of EEF ancestry is Near Eastern in origin. (I'm not talking here about Basal Eurasian or any of that, nor do I want to get bogged down in that because we know even less about it.)

Now, whether, say, up to 20% of Stuttgart's ancestry was picked up in Europe, as was entertained by Lazaridis et al, we don't know. There's also still a slim chance, I suppose, that the EEF signature was present not only in the Near East but in far southeastern Europe, i.e. around the Aegean. We'll have to wait and see.

Regardless, when a test is done using Stuttgart, an LBK person, to represent EEF ancestry, which is what most of these tests do, and a sample comes up X % EEF, that means that X% of that sample's genome matches that of the Stuttgart Neolithic farmer, and most of that Stuttgart person's ancestry probably came from the Near East.

At least, that's my understanding of the matter.

I'll just say again that these admixture components, like "East European", or "North European" or whatever, are just modern geographical clusters or groupings. They are not the actual ancestral populations. The percentages of the three ancient populations that we have are buried in the modern groupings in different proportions.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'd like to ask another thing, the study says that Ashkenazis/Maltese/Sicilians lack WHG ancestry, but in another part of the study they say it's not entirely true, it's just that that WHG component is inside the EEF component, is that confirmed, or perhaps it's just part of their entertainment of the 20% of EEF that was picked up in Europe?


P.S So Gedmatch calculators are ultimately worthless and self defeating because they can't really answer questions of admixture and origin?

Angela
14-10-14, 19:52
[QUOTE=John Doe;441730]Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'd like to ask another thing, the study says that Ashkenazis/Maltese/Sicilians lack WHG ancestry, but in another part of the study they say it's not entirely true, it's just that that WHG component is inside the EEF component, is that confirmed, or perhaps it's just part of their entertainment of the 20% of EEF that was picked up in Europe?


You're basically saying the same thing twice. Also, they're saying they can be modeled that way. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic, yes?



P.S So Gedmatch calculators are ultimately worthless and self defeating because they can't really answer questions of admixture and origin?

I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. I never said they're worthless and I don't think they're worthless. For one thing they can be very valuable if you are comparing your results to someone else of your basic ethnicity. For example, I've found it very interesting and informative to compare my results with those of other people from different regions of Italy. Not, it must be said, my Dodecad results, as I'm part of the project population for that run. FWIW, my results on this K-23b aren't bad, although the FST distances are still quite large. However, at least all my top 5 results are northern and central Italian populations, and those of actual south central Italians and certainly southern Italian populations are quite different. It's informative the way that the 23andme results are informative for that purpose. For example, it was informative for me to compare my results with those of people of 100% Tuscan ancestry, or 100% Ligurian ancestry, or someone almost totally from Emilia etc. etc

I also think that if you're cautious you can get clues about origin of population movements by comparing the results of different samples. That's what I've been trying to do, in fact.

John Doe
14-10-14, 20:12
[QUOTE]


You're basically saying the same thing twice. Also, they're saying they can be modeled that way. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic, yes?



I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. I never said they're worthless and I don't think they're worthless. For one thing they can be very valuable if you are comparing your results to someone else of your basic ethnicity. For example, I've found it very interesting and informative to compare my results with those of other people from different regions of Italy. Not, it must be said, my Dodecad results, as I'm part of the project population for that run. FWIW, my results on this K-23b aren't bad, although the FST distances are still quite large. However, at least all my top 5 results are northern and central Italian populations, and those of actual south central Italians and certainly southern Italian populations are quite different. It's informative the way that the 23andme results are informative for that purpose. For example, it was informative for me to compare my results with those of people of 100% Tuscan ancestry, or 100% Ligurian ancestry, or someone almost totally from Emilia etc. etc

I also think that if you're cautious you can get clues about origin of population movements by comparing the results of different samples. That's what I've been trying to do, in fact.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Alright, thanks for the clarification. :)

Drac II
15-10-14, 11:35
First, we don't know if he was a racial anglo-saxon, or a cultural anglo-saxon. And second, Orcadian are not the "most Celtic" looking of the British Isles, au contraire, they are the most Nordic/Scandinavian of the British Isles.

In British anthropology the Orcadians have indeed usually been deemed to be the lightest pigmented and most Nordic/Germanic influenced people in Scotland.

joeyc
15-10-14, 16:05
Norwegian Vikings in UK

http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_article_l/public/article_images/200352731.jpg?itok=5gtZAcPQ

Viking Dna

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/10/article-2577003-1C26285800000578-560_634x898.jpg

REGIONS WITH HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF VIKING DESCENDANTS

1. Shetland - 29.2 per cent
2. Orkney - 25.2 per cent
3. Caithness - 17.5 per cent


4. Isle of Man - 12.3 per cent
5. Western Isles - 11.3 per cent
6. North West Scotland and Inner Hebrides - 9.9 per cent
7. Argyll - 5.8 per cent
8. Yorkshire - 5.6 per cent
9. North East Scotland - 4.9 per cent
10. North England - 4 per cent
11. East England - 3.6 per cent
12. South West Scotland - 3.2 per cent
13. South East Scotland - 2.7 per cent
14. Central England - 2.6 per cent
15. Central Scotland - 2.2 per cent
16. South East England - 1.9 per cent
17. South West England - 1.6 per cent
18. Ireland (Ulster) - 1.4 per cent
19. Ireland (Munster) - 1.3 per cent
20. Ireland (Connacht) - 1.2 per cent
21. Wales - 1 per cent
22. Ireland (Leinster) - 1 per cent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577003/A-million-Vikings-live-One-33-men-claim-direct-descendants-Norse-warriors.html

tjlowery87
16-10-14, 02:32
So what does all this mean about the extinct of the Anglo Saxon immigration?

Fire Haired14
16-10-14, 03:47
https://sites.google.com/site/lolaceituno2/map-custom-size-250-158.jpghttp://www.legion-fourteen.com/map.jpg

I want this to be the sole thread for now on for discussion about the Hinxton genomes, because it's getting way to disorganized and hard to stay updated. I'd also like to ask the moderators if they'd allow me to edit this thread beyond the time limit as new key information comes in the next few weeks.

There's been alot of confusion on whether Hinxton 1 and 2 are Iron age Celts or Medieval Anglo Saxons. As alot of you already know it's been learned through Davidski's analysis of Hinxton-3 that all three are the three Anglo Saxon samples. Some are theorizing that they're mostly descended of early-German speakers, who may have had less east European and Mediterranean-like ancestry than modern German-speakers and Northwest Europeans.

It's a very interesting idea that early Germans may have been very distinct from the Celtic and Eastern European people they encountered. The 1st century Roman historian Tacitus said in his short book "Germania" that the Germans "... appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves." Genetically speaking there would have been a huge gap in Tacitus's time between the French-like Gauls and Hinxton-like(?) Germans. People today sometimes laugh at ancient writers like Tacitus for being simplistic and suggesting a population might be something pure, but there may have been some truth in what Tacitus wrote, we can't see today because of later admixture.

Hinxton 1-2-3's results are in the Eurogenes K13 and K15 spreadsheets, which are in the links below. You'd have to dig through Eurogenes blog to find Davidski's analysis of Hinxton-3.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oz6P5-SVEJciPX1TciGe-zoqA5JtOGIMG7nh-rCOj0c/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19c_bZjUV_RouKyGyLHmMDw57WwAVabXFJOaso_gcuRE/edit?usp=sharing

Below is a Eurogenes PCA of west Eurasia including Hinxton 3

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQLWlWTzJpWDF2MXM/view?usp=sharing

There's more on the other two Hinxtons on this Eurogenes thread (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/analysis-of-ancient-genome-from-hinxton.html?commentPage=2), which will probably be updated. I only posted Davidski's analysis because I don't trust others like Geneticker.

If anyone has any information on analysis people besides Davidski are doing on the Hinxton genomes please post and discuss, if anyone has any information on the archaeology sites the samples are coming from please post and discuss, if anyone has any information on their cultural and ethnic-affinities please post and discuss.

Felix is the one who started this. His blogs are Felix's Thought logs (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fc.id.au%2F&ei=kSQ_VPHFPJCBygTEzILAAg&usg=AFQjCNFD2o7knMAYUMsk2s056KnqBKzcXA&sig2=RpMi8WjAC5fW4NwSw4EBZQ&bvm=bv.77648437,d.aWw) and Genetic Genealogy Tools (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.y-str.org%2F&ei=wCQ_VO-wI4y1yAT5vIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNHmlRN6satrjQfOMg2GvY5OAhcG3w&sig2=gY0BLW8bJJ5FAusVynqFfg&bvm=bv.77648437,d.aWw).

Angela
16-10-14, 04:50
Well, this is really exciting! You should have posted the news that you had been appointed a moderator with the power to determine where members could post. Have you told the owner of the site yet that you don't want anyone to post on his thread anymore? It might be the polite thing to do.

Oh, and you might want to correct that comment about Tacitus; he didn't know what he was talking about...there are no distinct unmixed races.

ED. I am truly glad all the confusion is over. I follow anthrogenica occasionally, and this is the last thing I saw:

Ok so this is where we stand now:

Hinxton 1 - ERS389795 - M - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Anglo-Saxon 1-4x

Hinxton 2 - ERS389796 - F - - H2a2b1 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 3 - ERS389797 - F - - K1a4a1a2 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 - M - R1b?-(L21?) - H1ag1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) High Coverage 12x

Hinxton 5 - ERS389799 - F - - H2a2a1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) low 1-4x

If there any errors (maybe the whole thing!) please correct.
Your information on ERS389795 contains information from two parties currently in disagreement.

Genetiker: ERS389795 - Unlikely to be R1b - K1a1 - Anglo Saxon - (Low Coverage)

Felix/Eurogenes: ERS389795 - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Iron Age - (High Coverage)

Fire Haired14
16-10-14, 06:04
Well, this is really exciting! You should have posted the news that you had been appointed a moderator with the power to determine where members could post. Have you told the owner of the site yet that you don't want anyone to post on his thread anymore? It might be the polite thing to do.

Oh, and you might want to correct that comment about Tacitus; he didn't know what he was talking about...there are no distinct unmixed races.

ED. I am truly glad all the confusion is over. I follow anthrogenica occasionally, and this is the last thing I saw:

Ok so this is where we stand now:

Hinxton 1 - ERS389795 - M - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Anglo-Saxon 1-4x

Hinxton 2 - ERS389796 - F - - H2a2b1 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 3 - ERS389797 - F - - K1a4a1a2 - Anglo-Saxon low 1-4x

Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 - M - R1b?-(L21?) - H1ag1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) High Coverage 12x

Hinxton 5 - ERS389799 - F - - H2a2a1 - Iron Age (Belgae?) low 1-4x

If there any errors (maybe the whole thing!) please correct.
Your information on ERS389795 contains information from two parties currently in disagreement.

Genetiker: ERS389795 - Unlikely to be R1b - K1a1 - Anglo Saxon - (Low Coverage)

Felix/Eurogenes: ERS389795 - R1b-L11 - K1a1b1b - Iron Age - (High Coverage)

I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I made this thread for several reasons none of them because I want to be the center of attention, with everyone on my thread. Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons. He probably won't change his title page. People are throwing out key information and then it gets lost in a jungle of comments and forums. I want a thread where all of the analyzers of Hinxton genomes can have their link at the first page, along with any other key information, where everyone knows where to find them.

Tacitus was an above-average intelligent man. It's very interesting to read his observance of ancient people and the Roman world he lived in. He never said the Germans were a pure-people, he just strongly suggested it. You have to understand that people of his time knew almost nothing about the distant past or how to research history, for all they knew humans had only been around for 2,000 years and the nations were all created separately by the Gods. In terms of 8,000 years sure the Germans had complex ancestry but in terms of 200 years or more they may have been totally pure, and an extreme in European genetics like Basque and Balts.

There's no debate about mtDNA, everyone's on the same page. I know as much as you do, and don't have the time to do the research right now(part of the reason I made this thread, I am tired of going to ten different forums).

Angela
16-10-14, 07:04
O.K. let's move beyond the original tone of the post. (I still think you should clear this with Maciamo and/or the moderators.)

I think the confusion still reigns. The post from Anthrogenica deals with mtDNA, yDNA, and general attribution of culture. Now, I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it states there, as you can see upthread, that Genetiker claimed that Hinxton 1, ERS389795, was an Anglo-Saxon, and that Felix/Eurogenes held that Hinxton 1 ERS389795 was Iron Age - Celt. I don't if that's correct.

I do know that we on this thread said a few days ago that ERS389795 was probably Anglo Saxon.

Ed. Also from the abstract, "We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples..."
So, some of those earlier papers based on the analysis of the y chromosome which posited very large amounts of gene flow from the Anglo Saxons into all the British Isles may indeed have been correct.


ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b
K12b



39.04% North_European
32.43% Atlantic_Med
9.12% Caucasus
5.96% Gedrosia
3.54% Sub_Saharan
2.90% South_Asian
2.73% East_African
2.63% Northwest_African
1.63% Southwest_Asian
0.02% Siberian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian



dv3



59.73% West_European
24.91% Mediterranean
8.22% East_European
5.41% Palaeo_African
1.69% Neo_African
0.03% Northwest_African
0.00% East_African
0.00% Northeast_Asian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% West_Asian



ERS389795-Anglo Saxon
K12b



49.89% North_European
30.08% Atlantic_Med
9.78% Caucasus
3.63% East_Asian
3.19% Sub_Saharan
1.31% Northwest_African
1.16% Siberian
0.79% East_African
0.08% Gedrosia
0.07% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian


dv3



41.46% West_European
24.44% East_European
17.31% Mediterranean
5.55% Northwest_African
3.17% South_Asian
2.69% Palaeo_African
1.70% West_Asian
1.21% Northeast_Asian
0.99% Southeast_Asian
0.85% Southwest_Asian
0.63% Neo_African
0.00% East_African
Ed. to change the K-12b results for the Iron Age Celt. While I can see why, in the abstract, the authors said the samples are all broadly north European, I think there are come significant differences.


I later went on to say:
As I said, it now seems pretty clear that ERS389797 and ERS389798 are Iron Age, and ERS389795, 389796 and 389799 are from the Anglo-Saxon period.The 798 Iron Age male was probably R1b, and possibly belonged to R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
There is some debate about the 795 Anglo Saxon period male, and Genetiker may have been wrong here. The Anglo-Saxon period male may have carried an upstream branch of R1b.

So, to recap:
ERS389798 -Iron Age Kelt R1b- L21, possibly R1b1a2a1a2c1g2-FGC3903/S5201/Y2890.T
K12b




39.04% North_European
32.43% Atlantic_Med
9.12% Caucasus
5.96% Gedrosia
3.54% Sub_Saharan
2.90% South_Asian
2.73% East_African
2.63% Northwest_African
1.63% Southwest_Asian
0.02% Siberian
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian



ERS389795-Anglo Saxon Period Male-possibly R1b L11+
K12b




49.89% North_European
30.08% Atlantic_Med
9.78% Caucasus
3.63% East_Asian
3.19% Sub_Saharan
1.31% Northwest_African
1.16% Siberian
0.79% East_African
0.08% Gedrosia
0.07% South_Asian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Southwest_Asian




The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

No wonder we can find the following statement in the abstract:
the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the Anglo-Saxon sample seems pretty clear.

I'm not comfortable with placing the Iron Age samples within a specific archaeological context until we get the paper. All that the abstract says is that the samples came from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), There seems to be some confusion about whether they are indeed Belgae related samples.

I would still like to see an EEF/WHG/ANE read on the Iron Age sample if anyone has it. Although I don't have a lot of confidence in that blogger calculator, it is at least based on actual ancient genomes. I have even less confidence in his later efforts.

Please correct if necessary...it seems to be a moving target. :)


On Maciamo's thread, I analyzed the data using the k-23b numbers from Genetiker:

OK, if some people think that the MDLP K23b is better, because it's the only one that has no “calculator effect”, let’s look at K23b.


Sample ERS389795-What Genetiker calls the “Anglo-Saxon” sample?:

MDLP K23b



35.13% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.41% Caucasian
19.44% European_Early_Farmers
6.42% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
2.41% Ancestral-North-Indian
2.24% Archaic-Human
1.29% African-Pygmy
0.75% East-African
0.49% Near-East
0.22% East-Siberian
0.11% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.05% Archaic-African
0.04% North-African



Sample ERS389798-What Genetiker calls the Iron Age Sample?

MDLP K23b



32.46% European_Hunters_Gatherers
31.80% European_Early_Farmers
13.98% Caucasian
6.77% Ancestral-North-Indian
6.56% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
4.69% Subsaharian
1.35% North-African
0.97% East-African
0.54% Arctic
0.29% Ancestral-South-Indian
0.22% Melano-Polinesian
0.16% Austroloid
0.09% Near-East
0.07% Paleo-Siberian



The two samples have approximately the same amount of WHG (although Sample 95-Anglo Saxon? is 3 points higher)


ERS389798-Iron Age Celt sample?- has quite a bit more EEF, 31.80 compared to 19.44 and it also has about 7% African, compared to about 2.5% for 95 Anglo Saxon?, and in addition it has more Ancestral North Indian, which might be associated with Gedrosia? at 6.77, compared to 2.41.


In terms of the Caucasus component it is reversed. Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? has 31.41 Caucasus compared to 13.98 for ERS389798 Iron Age Celt?


They have the same amount of ANE, at a low level of 6-7%


I think it’s noteworthy that the ANE percentages are extremely low(6-7%) compared to the levels in modern northern Europe, where the levels are around 14,15,16%


As for EEF, with Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? the EEF level is 30 points lower than that of modern English people (approximately 20% compared to approximately 50%), while Sample ERS389798 Celt? is about 18 points lower ( 32% versus 50%).


You do get close to 50% for the ERS389795-Anglo Saxon? sample if you add the EEF farmer and Caucasus components. For the ERS389798 Iron Age sample?, you get to 45%.


These are, once again, the WHG/EEF/ANE figures for modern English people:

WHG: .364
EEF: .495
ANE: .141

Sample ERS389795-Anglo Saxon?:

HG: 35.13
EEF + Caucasus: 50-51%
ANE: 6.42

Sample ERS389798-Iron Age Celt?:

WHG:32.46
EEF + Caucasus: 45.78
ANE:6.56

As I said, the ANE is off, and you have to combine EEF and Caucasus to get to the EEF levels of modern English people. (Perhaps the "Caucasus" component on this particular calculator is just an eastern drifted version of EEF?

(For those who still can't seem to grasp that EEF is a "set of genes" from a Stuttgart LBK woman used for comparison, and that according to Lazaridis et al the best estimate right now is probably something around 20% WHG picked up in Europe and 80% genetic material that arrived from the Near East, all I can suggest is a re-reading of Lazaridis et al and every page of the Supplementary material. )

Of the two samples, Sample ERS389795, what Genetiker calls the Anglo Saxon sample?, seems closer to modern English people in terms of the WHG/EEF/ANE formulation, but not by a whole lot. The abstract says the Anglo-Saxon sample is closer to the modern English. Make of it what you will. I’m just trying to think it through, just like everyone else.


Sample ERS389798, which Genetiker calls the Iron Age Celt sample?, has more “African” components, (7% vs. 2.5%) which might, along with 3% less WHG, mean a more Southern? Signature.


That’s what I can see so far. It seems as if Sample ERS389795 is more north, and, if you look at the Caucasus component, more east than the ERS389798 sample. So, aren't I basically where I was after analyzing the data through the prism of the Dodecad runs, only with quite a bit less specificity?

If I made any mistakes, please correct the record. After all the confusion I’m not even sure that I’m attributing Genetiker’s attribution of the samples correctly! Having only Sample numbers is maddening. Also, if anyone has different numbers for a K23b run of these ancient samples, that would be good to know, as would any Oracle results for these samples.


Now, I’m going to leave it until the paper comes out and we know the official attribution of these samples to specific times and archeological contexts.


Oh, and the fact that one or both of these samples might plot near the Orcadians on a PCA plot is singularly unhelpful in terms of figuring out the origins and migration paths of these two ancient samples, as Orcadians are just a mix of "Celt" and Scandinavian.






I'm too tired to go through all of the other analysis, but just from this, I think we did pretty well in attribuing ERS389795 to the Anglo Saxon period. not for genetics analysis.

My dear Fire Haired, I yield to none in my respect for the Roman authors; however, my point was precisely that they knew nothing of genetics, and so their comments about any group being a "pure, distinct, race" are useless. It's like expecting them to be right about the form of the universe. You read them for what they can contribute, not for genetics analysis.

Sile
16-10-14, 07:10
I didn't mean to come off as being arrogant. I made this thread for several reasons none of them because I want to be the center of attention, with everyone on my thread. Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons. He probably won't change his title page. People are throwing out key information and then it gets lost in a jungle of comments and forums. I want a thread where all of the analyzers of Hinxton genomes can have their link at the first page, along with any other key information, where everyone knows where to find them.

Tacitus was an above-average intelligent man. It's very interesting to read his observance of ancient people and the Roman world he lived in. He never said the Germans were a pure-people, he just strongly suggested it. You have to understand that people of his time knew almost nothing about the distant past or how to research history, for all they knew humans had only been around for 2,000 years and the nations were all created separately by the Gods. In terms of 8,000 years sure the Germans had complex ancestry but in terms of 200 years or more they may have been totally pure, and an extreme in European genetics like Basque and Balts.

There's no debate about mtDNA, everyone's on the same page. I know as much as you do, and don't have the time to do the research right now(part of the reason I made this thread, I am tired of going to ten different forums).

don't mix up arrogrant with direct..................I did not see it as arrogant

Angela
16-10-14, 18:33
Fire-haired: Maciamo's admixture results are probably full of noise and he falsely labeled one a Celt and one an Anglo Saxon, when now we know they're both Anglo Saxons.

To correct the record, I don't know if you came to this conclusion from reading Maciamo's thread, or you were told this, but it is absolutely incorrect, as any close reading of the thread would reveal.

Maciamo clearly attributed Sample ERS389798 to the Iron Age period (Celt).

It was ERS389795 (Hinxton 1) which he and others on this site attributed to the Anglo Saxon period.

You are now saying, if I understand you correctly, that everyone has come around to the conclusion that ERS389795 was probably Anglo-Saxon and that ERS389798 was probably Iron Age Celt. Well, that's great, but no one here ever reached any contrary conclusion.

Of course, the academics have still not spoken. I know we're all terribly brilliant, but perhaps we should wait to make any final judgments about these samples until we actually have the paper and any supplementary materials.

One final note, I have not myself analyzed the samples using the Eurogenes numbers. However, from what I can see of the analysis of others, it seems that the patterns are less obvious in them. I am not going to get sucked into another general discussion about them, but I will say that the clusters used in them are all so similar that it wouldn't at all surprise me if that is "confusing" rather than elucidating the patterns.

T101
17-10-14, 04:47
The Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 sample has been confirmed as positive for R1b-L21 by Felix Chandrakumar (Felix's Thought Logs.)

Other markers as follows: P312+ S424-, L746/S310-, L563-, L679-, Z2961-, Z2534-, S425-, L658-, CTS7030-.

Dubhthach
17-10-14, 11:16
Norwegian Vikings in UK

<---snip--->

REGIONS WITH HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF VIKING DESCENDANTS

1. Shetland - 29.2 per cent
2. Orkney - 25.2 per cent
3. Caithness - 17.5 per cent


4. Isle of Man - 12.3 per cent
5. Western Isles - 11.3 per cent
6. North West Scotland and Inner Hebrides - 9.9 per cent
7. Argyll - 5.8 per cent
8. Yorkshire - 5.6 per cent
9. North East Scotland - 4.9 per cent
10. North England - 4 per cent
11. East England - 3.6 per cent
12. South West Scotland - 3.2 per cent
13. South East Scotland - 2.7 per cent
14. Central England - 2.6 per cent
15. Central Scotland - 2.2 per cent
16. South East England - 1.9 per cent
17. South West England - 1.6 per cent
18. Ireland (Ulster) - 1.4 per cent
19. Ireland (Munster) - 1.3 per cent
20. Ireland (Connacht) - 1.2 per cent
21. Wales - 1 per cent
22. Ireland (Leinster) - 1 per cent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577003/A-million-Vikings-live-One-33-men-claim-direct-descendants-Norse-warriors.html

Here's another image from Scotlandsdna with regards to these precentages which are based on Y-Chromosome lineages only:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5994c989fda69d9d61b462a5f/images/c75e6d64-b463-4db6-9e6b-3f216a4daa89.png

I ask them over twitter what Haplogroups did they considered to be "Viking" in a Ireland/Britain context the answer was:

"R1a-S200, R1a-S201, R1a-S223*, R1a-S443*, R1b-S182 and R1b-S375*"

So going on that there is significant male lineage flow into northern Scotland (Caithness as well) from Scandinavia. Given that Norse survived in the form of Norn (closely related to Faroese) in Orkney/Shetland until the 18th century it's hardly surprising.

Aberdeen
17-10-14, 15:16
Any attempt to estimate the percentage of "Viking" DNA in modern British and Irish populations will be too low unless at least part of the folks with Y haplotype I1 are considered to be "Viking".

Dubhthach
17-10-14, 17:43
Any attempt to estimate the percentage of "Viking" DNA in modern British and Irish populations will be too low unless at least part of the folks with Y haplotype I1 are considered to be "Viking".

Indeed, well it was one of reasons I put the question to them, as you can see they only really cosidered clades of R1a and R1b, no doubt there are subclades of I1 that have quite localised scandinavian origin, adding these in would get a better picture.

MOESAN
17-10-14, 19:25
If "West European" and "East European" are defined by contemporary people and assuming that both categories are essentially descendants of the same old WHG, then it is impossible that there once was a heavily ancient "West European" population. The older a sample, the more evenenly his WHG will be divided in "West European" and "East European", because WE and EE are the result of recent differentiation due to geographic separation. The iron age sample is closer to Loschbour in terms of time scale and Loschbour is about equally East and West. Therefore I think it is generally impossible to find any ancient sample with such high "West European" percentage like contemporary west Europeans.

EDIT: Maybe the same reasoning can also explain the general tendency towards exotic admixtures in ancient samples (which is incomplete differentiation)!?

Hello! I'm late but I understand your reasoning even if it is not sure 100% two stocks already were present among the HG's of W-Europe -

Aberdeen
17-10-14, 19:26
Indeed, well it was one of reasons I put the question to them, as you can see they only really cosidered clades of R1a and R1b, no doubt there are subclades of I1 that have quite localised scandinavian origin, adding these in would get a better picture.

If they can decide which subclades of R1b they think are "Viking", they should be able to take the same in-depth approach to I1, considering how much work has been done on tracing the probable origins of various I1 subclades.

MOESAN
17-10-14, 19:40
Well, I suppose my question is, is it accurate? All 4 of my grandparents were AJs, and here are my results, should they be considered accurate?

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Caucasian
37.34


2
European_Early_Farmers
22.63


3
European_Hunters_Gatherers
13.20


4
Near_East
10.51


5
North_African
6.86


6
South_Central_Asian
6.36




Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 2.929181
2 Sicilian_East @ 3.546232
3 Sicilian_West @ 3.845939
4 Sicilian_Siracusa @ 3.939226
5 Ashkenazi @ 4.350750
6 Sicilian_Trapani @ 5.250281
7 Sicilian_Agrigento @ 5.379285
8 Romanian_Jew @ 5.465404
9 Maltese @ 6.141469
10 Cretan @ 6.226387
11 Italian_South @ 6.639791
12 Sicilian_Center @ 6.905343
13 French_Jew @ 6.983124
14 Greek_Athens @ 7.279214
15 Greek @ 7.755960
16 Central_Greek @ 8.582447
17 Greek_Phokaia @ 8.734240
18 Greek_Peloponnesos @ 8.993840
19 Italian_Abruzzo @ 9.110687
20 Greek_Smyrna @ 9.649567

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_Thessaloniki +50% Sephardic_Jew @ 2.126260


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French_Jew +25% Gagauz +25% Sicilian_West @ 1.580894


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.525548
2 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.550738
3 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_West @ 1.580894
4 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Montenegrian + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.606388
5 Bulgarian + French_Jew + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.619343
6 Kosovar + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Syrian_Jew @ 1.620502
7 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Moroccan_Jew @ 1.645095
8 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.648538
9 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_East @ 1.667099
10 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.681815
11 French_Jew + Gagauz + Sephardic_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.692104
12 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Maltese + Sephardic_Jew @ 1.719078
13 Greek_Smyrna + Macedonian + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.749767
14 Bulgarian + Greek_Smyrna + Libyan_Jew + Sicilian_Trapani @ 1.789046
15 French_Jew + Greek_Smyrna + Moroccan_Jew + Serb_Serbia @ 1.797865
16 Cretan + Kosovar + Moroccan_Jew + Sicilian_West @ 1.803889
17 Greek + Sicilian_East + Sicilian_West + Sicilian_West @ 1.804704
18 Bulgarian + French_Jew + French_Jew + French_Jew @ 1.805862
19 French_Jew + French_Jew + Gagauz + Sicilian_Agrigento @ 1.820195
20 Italian_North + Italian_South + Sicilian_East + Syrian_Jew @ 1.824458

it is not the very center of this thread but yes, I find these results sensible (in Britain DNA Askhenaze are very close to greeks and Southern Italians, Sicilians, a bit more remote from Cyprians and Armenians what can reflect their European admixture ?)

John Doe
17-10-14, 19:42
it is not the very center of this thread but yes, I find these results sensible (in Britain DNA Askhenaze are very close to greeks and Southern Italians, Sicilians, a bit more remote from Cyprians and Armenians
That makes sense.


what can reflect their European admixture ?)

I'm not certain, I suppose it would mainly be southeastern European, Greek like.

Angela
18-10-14, 04:02
It's difficult to know how seriously to take all the various figures that are floating around, but...

I saw this breakdown for Hinxton 4: (It would be nice if people kept the sample numbers so there is no confusion, but I am assuming this is the tentatively attributed Iron Age sample.)

Hinxton 4: 44.8%EEF 39.6%WHG 15.6%ANE

Now for the Scottish and English numbers from the Lazaridis paper:
Scottish: .39EEF/.428WHG/.18ANE
English: .495EEF/.364/WHG/.14ANE

Hinxton 4 Iron Age male seems to be right in between the Scots and the English.

I do realize the sample from the Iron Age was tested using a different calculator than the one used by Lazaridis et al, but I don't have the calculator averages for the two national groups from the program used to analyze Hinxton 4. Still, the general pattern may be correct. I'm sure people are checking it.

T101
18-10-14, 17:55
The Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 sample has been confirmed as positive for R1b-L21 by Felix Chandrakumar (Felix's Thought Logs.)

Other markers as follows: P312+ S424-, L746/S310-, L563-, L679-, Z2961-, Z2534-, S425-, L658-, CTS7030-.

Now also confirmed as DF21+, Z246+, and DF25+.

Angela
20-10-14, 04:18
"Felix" has given his version of the percentages for Hinxton 4 ERS389798 for Dodecad v3, VVK23b and one of the Eurogenes runs.
K23b:
Ancient Altaic 8.50
South Central Asian 6.92
Arctic .91
Caucasus 19.49
EEF 27.86
Hunter Gatherer
SSA .69

Altaic, S.C.Asian, Arctic 16.33
EEF + Caucasus 47.35
Hunter Gatherer 35.64

On the Dodecad v3
E.Euro 10.62
W.Euro 53.13
Med 25.96
W.Asian 6.95
S.Asian 2.19
NWAfrican .29
Paleo, Neo, E.African .86

I never bothered to load this new computer with the Oracle program, but I'm sure people are doing it or have done it. Just eyeballing the v3 Spreadsheet, this sample isn't far from the Argyl one or the Orcadian one. It's just a little more Med and a little less West European. Interestingly enough, CEU looks like an even better fit, which you could describe I suppose as general British Isles with some German?At least I think that's how you could describe the Mormons.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyN nc&authkey=COCa89AJ&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0

I would take a shot at the Eurogenes run but I don't have any idea where the national averages are to be found. I'm sure someone is doing it.

Now we'll see what the paper says...

LeBrok
20-10-14, 05:34
I would take a shot at the Eurogenes run but I don't have any idea where the national averages are to be found. I'm sure someone is doing it.

Now we'll see what the paper says...Angela, you are in avant garde with these runs. Just patiently explain (as you usually do) what it means to the rest of us otherwise we are lost with these numbers.

Angela
20-10-14, 20:28
Both "Genetiker" and "Felix" and perhaps "Eurogenes" have run the ancient genomes in question through various calculators and programs including Oracle to get a handle on the similarity of these genomes to modern populations.

Predictably enough, the percentages differ depending on who did the analysis. Instead of trying to come to some degree of consensus, they just seem to be engaging in a *******contest.

Using the percentages for the K23b and v3 (Dodecad K-12) runs provided by Genetiker (along with the results from the Dodecad K12b run) Maciamo analyzed the data and concluded that ERS389798, Hinxton 4, was more likely to be one of the Iron Age "Celts", and Hinxton 1 was more likely to be from the Anglo-Saxon period.

On the thread started by Fire Haired I took the attribution given in other places, looked at the same percentages that Maciamo had looked at, and concluded that those percentages supported an attribution of Hinxton 4 to the Iron Age Celtic period more so than did the data for Hinxton 1.

I said the following:
"The more northern, more northeastern "tilt" of the "Anglo-Saxon" sample seems pretty clear."

I also said that I would find it surprising that the AngloSaxons would turn out to be the more western and southern shifted group.
This was my reasoning based on those runs:

"The Anglo-Saxon period male has approximately the same amount of "Caucasus" as the Iron Age Celt, and only 2.5 points less Atlantic Med. However, he is 11 points more "North European". He also has 3.63% East Asian, and 1.16% Siberian, none of which show up in the Iron Age Celt.

The Iron Age Celt has 2.63% Northwest African, compared to 1.31%, he has 2.73% East African, compared to .79%, and he has 5.96% Gedrosia and 2.90% South Asian, compared to virtually none for the Anglo-Saxon.

So, once again, of the two, and taking into account the abstract of the paper, the Hinxton 4 sample seemed to be the likelier candidate for an Iron Age Celt.

Who knows, maybe they were both from the Iron Age. The authors will tell us. Maybe Hinxton 1 was of mixed ancestry. I don't know.

That's it...that's what drew the fire storm. Apparently, just using a Dodecad calculator is enough to draw the ire and insults of a certain group of posters, even to the point of calling this site a joke.

As I stated upthread, new percentages have now been provided by "Felix" for Hinxton 4. I don't have the data for Hinxton 1 so I can't do the same kind of comparison. What I can do, and did, is look at the percentages in the v3 spreadsheet. (As I said, I no longer have DIY or the Oracle set up on my computer.) Anyone can do the same by clicking on the link. So far as I can see, the ancient sample is pretty close to the western Scots (Argyle and Orkney), except that it is 2-3% more Med than the modern populations, and 2-3% less West Euro. Considering the documented population movements into those areas since the Iron Age, I don't think that's surprising.

Since then I've seen a post on another site to the effect that the sample is closest to the Irish. That may or may not be an accurate description of the results. I also don't know if that's based on an Oracle run or shared drift analysis. I have no way of knowing. This must be from a Eurogenes analysis, because in the Dodecad runs, the Irish do not seem to be as close to the ancient sample as the Scots, probably because they have less "Eastern European." (3% to 11%, with the sample having 11%) I don't know what the population averages for these modern groups are in the Eurogenes K-13 run which does have Western European and Eastern European clusters.

I also think that I saw a Eurogenes K13 analysis of some of these ancient samples, perhaps on Anthrogenica, but I don't remember precisely where. If I have time I will check to see how much Eastern Euro each one had.

At any rate, what I don't understand is why the abstract implied that the Anglo Saxon period people were more like modern Brits than the Iron Age people. If Hinxton 4 is indeed Iron Age, he looks pretty darn close to modern Brits, at least of the Scots variety.

Ed. Using the K23b percentages provided by "Felix", which are different than the ones provided by "Genetiker", and if you add what he calls EEF and Caucasus together, (Caucasus being, perhaps an eastern drifted from of EEF) you get an EEF/WHG/ANE set of numbers for Hinxton 4 which are only a few points off from the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. (For example, you get an EEF approximation of 47% compared to 49.5%) It would be nice if the authors used the Lazaridis algorithm on these samples so we can make a real comparison.

T101
20-10-14, 21:39
Charleston Chiang (@cwkchiang) reports from ASHG 2014 the following:

Schiffels: Older Iron age samples more like present British samples, while younger AS samples left little imprint on modern GBR. #ASHG14

Angela
20-10-14, 22:11
Charleston Chiang (@cwkchiang) reports from ASHG 2014 the following:

Schiffels: Older Iron age samples more like present British samples, while younger AS samples left little imprint on modern GBR. #ASHG14

My dear T101, thank you, but I think we both have to turn off our phones.

I just got this set of re-tweets from Razib Khan:

#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) Britain Finland diverges 6k BP. iron age clusters with modern Britains anglosaxon different. sounds like little German pop movement

#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) Cornwall less Finnish. Saxon cline

#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) modern British more rare variant with Spanish affinity vs Finn. Anglo Saxon more with Finn. Iron Age more affinity Spanish

#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) modern British more rare variant with Spanish affinity vs Finn. Anglo Saxon more with Finn. Iron Age more affinity Spanish
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) old samples cluster sort of with modern British. anglosaxon Finn shifted iron age Spain shiftef


I particularly like the "sort of". :) Of course, we then have the abstract, which says that " We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples,."It's all about as clear as mud.

Hopefully, the full paper makes everything as clear as the water from a fresh, bubbling stream...:)

Sile
20-10-14, 22:39
confirmed markers for these ancients



Hinxton-1 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
Male
R-L151
K1a1b1b
2500-1800 years






Hinxton-2 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999921
Female

H2a2b1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-2 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html)


Hinxton-3 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999922
Female

K1a4a1a2b
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-3 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-3-analysis.html)


Hinxton-4 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999925
Male
R-DF25
H1ag1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-4 DNA Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-4-dna-analysis.html)


Hinxton-5 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK



H2a2a1
2500-1800 years
Pending

Aaron1981
20-10-14, 23:51
Since then I've seen a post on another site to the effect that the sample is closest to the Irish. That may or may not be an accurate description of the results. I also don't know if that's based on an Oracle run or shared drift analysis. I have no way of knowing. This must be from a Eurogenes analysis, because in the Dodecad runs, the Irish do not seem to be as close to the ancient sample as the Scots, probably because they have less "Eastern European." (3% to 11%, with the sample having 11%) I don't know what the population averages for these modern groups are in the Eurogenes K-13 run which does have Western European and Eastern European clusters.


Angela, I believe the data supplied by Kit #F999925 at Gedmatch (loaded by Felix Chandrakumar), and independently by Eurogenes/Davidski on his K=15 calculator point to the closest population being Irish. The tweets are bloody confusing and we need to wait and see what additional information can be provided.

T101
21-10-14, 00:09
My dear T101, thank you, but I think we both have to turn off our phones.

Haha... You are so right!!


I particularly like the "sort of". :) Of course, we then have the abstract, which says that " We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples,."It's all about as clear as mud.

Hopefully, the full paper makes everything as clear as the water from a fresh, bubbling stream...:)

Yeah, I can't believe they would contradict their abstract like that. I haven't seen confusion like this since... I don't know when! Can you remember anything like this? Wow...

tjlowery87
21-10-14, 04:50
If there gonna compare them to all of britain then of course the iron age Celt is going to be closer to britain...UK is mostly Celtic countries and england is a celto Germanic country DNA wise.the Anglo Saxon would have more in common with Finland,not the mostly Celtic UK,with celto Germanic england.take care

T101
22-10-14, 15:59
ScienceNews reports:

Britons might not be Anglo-Saxons, a genetic analysis of five ancient skeletons hints.

When archaeological digs revealed ancient graves on the grounds of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, researchers there took it as a sign that they should analyze the ancient people’s DNA. Two skeletons were from men who were buried about 2,000 years ago. The other three skeletons were from women who died about 1,300 years ago, not long after the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.
The researchers were surprised to find that the older Iron Age men were genetically more similar to people living in Britain today than the Anglo-Saxon women were. Stephan Schiffels of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute reported the results October 20 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics.

“It doesn’t look like these Anglo-Saxon immigrants left a big impact on the genetic makeup of modern-day Britain,” Schiffels said.

The finding raises an intriguing possibility that indigenous people in Britain may have repelled the Anglo-Saxons but adopted the invaders’ language and culture, says Eimear Kenny, a population geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who was not involved in the work. More ancient samples from other times and parts of Britain should give a clearer picture of that episode of history, she said.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons

Aberdeen
22-10-14, 18:25
ScienceNews reports:

...............


The finding raises an intriguing possibility that indigenous people in Britain may have repelled the Anglo-Saxons but adopted the invaders’ language and culture, says Eimear Kenny, a population geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who was not involved in the work. More ancient samples from other times and parts of Britain should give a clearer picture of that episode of history, she said.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons


Really? "Let's adopt the language and culture of the invaders we successfully repelled." Someone isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. If more research shows that the Anglo-Saxons didn't greatly affect the autosomal structure of British DNA, that simply shows that they were a small conquering elite, just as the Normans were later.

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 19:17
So what does all this mean about the extinct of the Anglo Saxon immigration?

It's going to go back and forth for a while as different samples from different regions clarify and cloud but in the end i think it'll come down to something like:

English ~ 1/2 German + 1/2 Welsh

i.e. multiple waves (Belgae, Saxons, Danes etc) of similar northern populations coming from a northern/eastern direction via the north sea combined with multiple waves (HGs, Megalith, BB) of more southern populations from a southern/western direction via the Atlantic coast.

nb remote parts of the north Wales mountains have up to 30% E1b

tjlowery87
23-10-14, 22:12
Funny how they keep comparing it to all of Britain and not just england,I'm pretty sure the welsh will agree that they are not Saxons.

tjlowery87
23-10-14, 22:14
Isn't there an east vs west difference in england when it come to to DNA?

sparkey
23-10-14, 23:47
Isn't there an east vs west difference in england when it come to to DNA?

According to the People of the British Isles project, there are detectable differences between people in certain western regions of England compared to the rest of England. For example, the people of the Welsh Marches cluster with people of East Wales rather than the rest of England, and people from Devon and Somerset cluster in-between the rest of England and the Cornish (who are even farther away). However, there's also a big chunk of England that is fairly genetically uniform nowadays. In the south it goes all the way from Kent to Dorset, and from East Anglia to eastern Gloucestershire. It also extends up north a bit, but the North is more tricky because there is also a north vs. south difference in England. See the red dots here (http://sse.royalsociety.org/2012/exhibits/genetic-maps/).

MOESAN
23-10-14, 23:50
[QUOTE=T101;442273]Charleston Chiang (@cwkchiang) reports from ASHG 2014 the following:

Schiffels: Older Iron age samples more like present British samples, while younger AS samples left little imprint on modern GBR. #ASHG14[/QUOTEOK but "british" is a poor labelling, I think - there are some differences I think between genuine men of the Black Country near Wales or the Cornwall, and genuine men from Lincoln, East-Anglia and East Yorkshire...I already said that today european British population has been partly "receltized" by immigration and difference in demography - Also, already COON had pointed to the 'mediterranean' resurgence in the Glasgow Area (Celts + Pre-Celtes) - populations are not always everduring steady

MOESAN
23-10-14, 23:52
Sorry I didn't wait to have red all the posts - Sharkey had made an interesting complement

MOESAN
23-10-14, 23:55
just a naive question
why the two threads "HINXTON GENOMES" and "AUTOSOMALS ANALYSIS IRON AGE BRITONS AND ANGLO-SAXONS have not been put in the same bag???

LeBrok
24-10-14, 00:23
just a naive question
why the two threads "HINXTON GENOMES" and "AUTOSOMALS ANALYSIS IRON AGE BRITONS AND ANGLO-SAXONS have not been put in the same bag???
Good idea, done.

tjlowery87
24-10-14, 00:55
Then I wonder why they always want to group all the isles countries together?

Greying Wanderer
24-10-14, 12:00
Funny how they keep comparing it to all of Britain and not just england,I'm pretty sure the welsh will agree that they are not Saxons.

Well i think the two parts are pretty mixed now in most of Britain hence the confusion. It's only the edges: North Wales, the east coast of England and Scotland where it's easy to see the physical distinction.

Also it's probably more accurate to replace:

German -> North Sea
Welsh -> Atlantic Coastal (kinda Iberian but not precisely so)

so

North Wales = 1/4 North Sea + 3/4 Atlantic Coastal
England, South Wales, parts of Scotland = 1/2 North Sea + 1/2 Atlantic Coastal
Scotland = 3/4 North Sea + 1/4 Atlantic Coastal


not exactly or anything but something along those lines

(i think views are skewed by thinking of the "Celts" (Welsh, Irish, part the Scots) as all one group separate from the "Germanics" (English and part of the Scots) when it's obvious the Welsh are different.)

epoch
24-10-14, 13:55
According to Gildas the Anglo-Saxons conquered parts of Great-Britain until the battle at Mons Badonis (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Battle_of_Mons_Badonicus.html). He called it the last great battle of the Saxons with the Brits, thus indicating that a long lasting peace or truce followed it. Very little is known about the location and date. But this could indicate that around 500 the island was divided in two: A Anglo-Saxon and a British part. Later, when the fights between Saxon and British kingdoms resumed a number of celtic names appear in the names of the kings of Wessex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex#cite_note-20). So, I assume that Norfolk and Suffolk, Sussex and Essex, Kent and the area around the new forest and the isle of Wight was substantially more Anglo-Saxon than Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badon

JS Bach
25-10-14, 05:08
I suspect Hinxton1 and Hinxton4 were the Iron Age Celts and the other three were Anglo-Saxons. For one thing, Hinxton 1 and 4 were both on the Y-dna R-DF25 branch, which looks very Celtic from what I've seen on the web. And for another, they tended to have lower North Sea scores on Eurogenes15 - the exception being that Hinxton1 was higher than Hinxton5 there.

MOESAN
26-10-14, 18:03
Well i think the two parts are pretty mixed now in most of Britain hence the confusion. It's only the edges: North Wales, the east coast of England and Scotland where it's easy to see the physical distinction.

Also it's probably more accurate to replace:

German -> North Sea
Welsh -> Atlantic Coastal (kinda Iberian but not precisely so)

so

North Wales = 1/4 North Sea + 3/4 Atlantic Coastal
England, South Wales, parts of Scotland = 1/2 North Sea + 1/2 Atlantic Coastal
Scotland = 3/4 North Sea + 1/4 Atlantic Coastal


not exactly or anything but something along those lines

(i think views are skewed by thinking of the "Celts" (Welsh, Irish, part the Scots) as all one group separate from the "Germanics" (English and part of the Scots) when it's obvious the Welsh are different.)

not so: as awhole England is more North-Sea I suppose, than Scotland
and as England, Scotland is (or WERE) variated according to regions - Scots (roughly said) have more Vikings imput but very less Anglo-Saxon-Frisian imput -
and when I spoke of Wales, even in Wales subregions were seen, wtih more blond hairs in central-eastern Wales (and as an hazard: more Y-I1! so surely more Y-R1b-U106)
Y-E1b in some points of North Wales is an exception we have yet to explain
I think precise studies of East Anglia and Centra England would show some autosomals differences too -
Belgae were not Germans, it's shown by their skeletons and the relative rupture in the Netherlands in the SNPs and STRs within Y-R1b South or North Rhine river - the less "germanic" qality of Southerners is evident - they have maybe a little bit more of 'north-sea' but not too much I suppose -


concerning autosomals of the 5 Hinxton people, analysis are not concordant for every small components and we are obligad to "translate" polings to polings but a sa whole
it is easy enough to tell between the 3 first ones: 389795/96/97 from the 2 last ones: 389798/99 (last: "celtic")
more North Sea or very more North Euro among "Saxons", more West-Euro, more Meds among "Celts"
what is a problem is the Eurogenes showing more Baltic among "Celts" (13,90 / 16,17 >< 6,42 / 3,38 / 7,00) AND less EastEuro (5,70 / 7,47 >< 12,73 / 8,57 / 12,41) but a total Baltic+East Euro equivalent (roughly said) when dv3 shows very less East-Euro among "Celts" -
but it's true 'baltic' is not 'eastern-euro': more ancient, more Hrs-Grs I think, 'eastern-euro' would have been reinforced by Indo-Europeans of later waves in Germanics AND/OR less erazed by Western autochtones... the 'baltic' (IF CORRECT) could have been picked up by first Y-R1b coming through North, or found in original Britain among females, by the Celt males? uneasy to tell - by the way, the "Atlantic" population was more a 'cromagnoid'-'capelloid' (mesolithic) + 'mediterranean' (not so heavy by Cardial agricultors, rather by maritime Megalithers) mix than a pure 'mediterranean' - but the Abglo-Saxons of subsequent centuries were maybe no more the "pure" Anglo-Saxons -
Coon shew some cemetaries in East England had more Anglo-Saxon males but a good hint of Breton females, and these Bretons at this times maybe too had some taste of other Europeans components after Roma Empire?

it is very exciting but we need more and more old DNA (as all of us know)

have a good Sunday

tjlowery87
27-10-14, 00:05
I agree that different parts of england would have more celto Germanic mix than other parts would be more Celt.in my opinion

motzart
28-10-14, 01:24
Wow, so R1b U106 is Pre Anglo Saxon in the British isles now?

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 15:01
not so: as awhole England is more North-Sea I suppose, than Scotland
and as England, Scotland is (or WERE) variated according to regions - Scots (roughly said) have more Vikings imput but very less Anglo-Saxon-Frisian imput -
and when I spoke of Wales, even in Wales subregions were seen, wtih more blond hairs in central-eastern Wales (and as an hazard: more Y-I1! so surely more Y-R1b-U106)
Y-E1b in some points of North Wales is an exception we have yet to explain
I think precise studies of East Anglia and Centra England would show some autosomals differences too -
Belgae were not Germans, it's shown by their skeletons and the relative rupture in the Netherlands in the SNPs and STRs within Y-R1b South or North Rhine river - the less "germanic" qality of Southerners is evident - they have maybe a little bit more of 'north-sea' but not too much I suppose -


concerning autosomals of the 5 Hinxton people, analysis are not concordant for every small components and we are obligad to "translate" polings to polings but a sa whole
it is easy enough to tell between the 3 first ones: 389795/96/97 from the 2 last ones: 389798/99 (last: "celtic")
more North Sea or very more North Euro among "Saxons", more West-Euro, more Meds among "Celts"
what is a problem is the Eurogenes showing more Baltic among "Celts" (13,90 / 16,17 >< 6,42 / 3,38 / 7,00) AND less EastEuro (5,70 / 7,47 >< 12,73 / 8,57 / 12,41) but a total Baltic+East Euro equivalent (roughly said) when dv3 shows very less East-Euro among "Celts" -
but it's true 'baltic' is not 'eastern-euro': more ancient, more Hrs-Grs I think, 'eastern-euro' would have been reinforced by Indo-Europeans of later waves in Germanics AND/OR less erazed by Western autochtones... the 'baltic' (IF CORRECT) could have been picked up by first Y-R1b coming through North, or found in original Britain among females, by the Celt males? uneasy to tell - by the way, the "Atlantic" population was more a 'cromagnoid'-'capelloid' (mesolithic) + 'mediterranean' (not so heavy by Cardial agricultors, rather by maritime Megalithers) mix than a pure 'mediterranean' - but the Abglo-Saxons of subsequent centuries were maybe no more the "pure" Anglo-Saxons -
Coon shew some cemetaries in East England had more Anglo-Saxon males but a good hint of Breton females, and these Bretons at this times maybe too had some taste of other Europeans components after Roma Empire?

it is very exciting but we need more and more old DNA (as all of us know)

have a good Sunday

Some of this is me being sloppy with labeling.

.

"as awhole England is more North-Sea I suppose, than Scotland"

I probably shouldn't use "north sea" and "atlantic coast" as they are too close to the names of actual population components. I use those labels to indicate *direction of flow* so the *flow* from the north includes "north sea", "baltic" and "eastern euro" components.

.

"and as England, Scotland is (or WERE) variated according to regions - Scots (roughly said) have more Vikings imput but very less Anglo-Saxon-Frisian imput"

Well the east coast of Scotland and the lowlands were settled by Saxons and the Scots language is a Saxon dialect etc with Gaels in the west and Norse in the north but that's a quibble to my main point which is that despite the cultural differences I think the various waves of the northern flow (northern Celtic, Saxons, Vikings etc) were genetically similar.

.

"and when I spoke of Wales, even in Wales subregions were seen, wtih more blond hairs in central-eastern Wales (and as an hazard: more Y-I1! so surely more Y-R1b-U106)"

Yes, south and central Wales have a lot more English mixture. North wales is the interesting anomaly. My theory is if there was a specifically north_wales component included in the admixture runs they would show that different parts of the Isles can be modeled as varying proportions of two components: a north_wales component representing the HG and Atlantic Megalith people and a second component representing the various waves that came from the direction of the north sea and if correct the sequence of the proportions of the two components would roughly be:

north Wales
south Wales
most of England
east coast of England
Scotland
Ireland

.

"Belgae were not Germans"

I'm sloppy with labeling. What I mean is a maritime-centric region comprising modern Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Scandinavia and the Baltic which over time pushed west in numerous coastal mediated waves (possibly being pushed from the east and thus including an eastern euro component that increased over time).

So not Germans but people who Romans would think *looked like* Germans.

.

happy tuesday :)

epoch
28-10-14, 16:10
"Belgae were not Germans"



Some Belgian tribes - to wit the Nervians - claimed Germanic decent. And Caesar wrote about the Germani Cisrhenani. There might have been a large and wide contact zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervii#Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani

Taranis
28-10-14, 16:34
Some Belgian tribes - to wit the Nervians - claimed Germanic decent. And Caesar wrote about the Germani Cisrhenani. There might have been a large and wide contact zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervii#Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani_cisrhenani

I commented on this over in linguistics in a recent thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30588-Celtic-family-tree?p=442943&viewfull=1#post442943).

Virtually all of the so-called "Germanic" tribes of Belgic Gaul (such as the Eburones, Nervii, Nemetes) have exclusively Celtic tribal, personal, place and deity names. The only exception from this is the Rhine delta region. Likewise, and I know that there's a lot of people out there who still believe what Stephen Oppenheimer said back in "Origins of the British", but there's no evidence for Germanic settlement in Britain prior to the migration period.


In my opinion, people get that "Germanic" connotation the wrong way. The word "Germani" itself is probably of Celtic origin ("neighbours" or "near ones"), and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator.

Back to genetics, I don't think its a contradiction at all that U106 may have been in Britain long before the Anglo-Saxons. Considering that the split between P312 and U106 is rather ancient (relatively shortly after the arrival of R1b in Central/Western Europe as a whole), it could easily have arrived in Britain considerably earlier.

tjlowery87
28-10-14, 18:36
Most r1b u106,r1b df19 and i1 most likely came withe Germanic tribes,Anglo Saxons and vikings.if there was some in england prior to the Anglo Saxon invasion I don't think it was a lot.

Greying Wanderer
29-10-14, 11:52
ScienceNews reports:

Britons might not be Anglo-Saxons, a genetic analysis of five ancient skeletons hints.

When archaeological digs revealed ancient graves on the grounds of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, researchers there took it as a sign that they should analyze the ancient people’s DNA. Two skeletons were from men who were buried about 2,000 years ago. The other three skeletons were from women who died about 1,300 years ago, not long after the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.
The researchers were surprised to find that the older Iron Age men were genetically more similar to people living in Britain today than the Anglo-Saxon women were. Stephan Schiffels of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute reported the results October 20 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics.

“It doesn’t look like these Anglo-Saxon immigrants left a big impact on the genetic makeup of modern-day Britain,” Schiffels said.

The finding raises an intriguing possibility that indigenous people in Britain may have repelled the Anglo-Saxons but adopted the invaders’ language and culture, says Eimear Kenny, a population geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who was not involved in the work. More ancient samples from other times and parts of Britain should give a clearer picture of that episode of history, she said.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons


for the sake of argument imagine this model:
1) a vasconic substrate with a center of gravity in the southwest (where there used to be lots of gold, silver and copper mines)
2) waves of invaders from roughly the same source region from roughly the northeasterly direction
3) a modern population which is a mix of the two

Then the remains of people from each invader wave from soon after they arrived would not match the modern population but samples from 500 years later after some mixing with the substrate would match better.

Then a second invader wave arrives and samples taken from remains from soon after they arrived wouldn't match but samples from 500 years later after some mixing with the substrate would match better.

Then a third invader wave arrives from the northeast ... etc.

If this model is correct then you'd expect the remains to swing between "not like modern" and "like modern" with each wave.

Sile
29-10-14, 11:57
I commented on this over in linguistics in a recent thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30588-Celtic-family-tree?p=442943&viewfull=1#post442943).

Virtually all of the so-called "Germanic" tribes of Belgic Gaul (such as the Eburones, Nervii, Nemetes) have exclusively Celtic tribal, personal, place and deity names. The only exception from this is the Rhine delta region. Likewise, and I know that there's a lot of people out there who still believe what Stephen Oppenheimer said back in "Origins of the British", but there's no evidence for Germanic settlement in Britain prior to the migration period.


not me, I believe the Belgae where a gaulish-germanic mix and represent the first germanic ( part of ) in britain


In my opinion, people get that "Germanic" connotation the wrong way. The word "Germani" itself is probably of Celtic origin ("neighbours" or "near ones"), and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator.


or spear people ...........or Romans state IIRC, the pure ones
Back to genetics, I don't think its a contradiction at all that U106 may have been in Britain long before the Anglo-Saxons. Considering that the split between P312 and U106 is rather ancient (relatively shortly after the arrival of R1b in Central/Western Europe as a whole), it could easily have arrived in Britain considerably earlier.[/QUOTE]

Greying Wanderer
29-10-14, 12:01
I commented on this over in linguistics in a recent thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30588-Celtic-family-tree?p=442943&viewfull=1#post442943).

Virtually all of the so-called "Germanic" tribes of Belgic Gaul (such as the Eburones, Nervii, Nemetes) have exclusively Celtic tribal, personal, place and deity names. The only exception from this is the Rhine delta region. Likewise, and I know that there's a lot of people out there who still believe what Stephen Oppenheimer said back in "Origins of the British", but there's no evidence for Germanic settlement in Britain prior to the migration period.


In my opinion, people get that "Germanic" connotation the wrong way. The word "Germani" itself is probably of Celtic origin ("neighbours" or "near ones"), and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator.

Back to genetics, I don't think its a contradiction at all that U106 may have been in Britain long before the Anglo-Saxons. Considering that the split between P312 and U106 is rather ancient (relatively shortly after the arrival of R1b in Central/Western Europe as a whole), it could easily have arrived in Britain considerably earlier.

"and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator"

I'd say the context was pretty clear he meant they looked different to Vascones and Gauls and similar to Germans - but I agree that doesn't mean they were Germans by language or culture just that there was a northern population which looked alike because they came from the same source region.

Mars
29-10-14, 13:26
Really? "Let's adopt the language and culture of the invaders we successfully repelled." Someone isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. If more research shows that the Anglo-Saxons didn't greatly affect the autosomal structure of British DNA, that simply shows that they were a small conquering elite, just as the Normans were later.
:grin::grin: I thought the same, too. Anglo-saxons were maybe a ruling minority, it occured several times in human history. In the areas closer to the roman "heartland", barbarians were gradually assimilated into the culture and ethnic groups of the roman/romanized conquered populations (the Franks in France, Longobards and Goths in Italy, Visigoths in Iberia). Britain was fairly far from the centre of the Empire to undergo the exactly opposite process, I guess.

epoch
29-10-14, 16:44
I commented on this over in linguistics in a recent thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30588-Celtic-family-tree?p=442943&viewfull=1#post442943).

Virtually all of the so-called "Germanic" tribes of Belgic Gaul (such as the Eburones, Nervii, Nemetes) have exclusively Celtic tribal, personal, place and deity names.


Eburones could possibly be derived from German "Eber", boar. That was an animal associated with warriors - Take for instance Germanic names and boar crested helmets mentioned in Beowulf and found at sites. The Eburones were "destroyed" by Caesar, and afterwards a tribe called Tungri was mentioned in the area. Now, that name certainly is Germanic. Interestingly enough they left a number of votive steles celebrating a goddess with a Celtic name with a Germanic twist: Viradecdis. While her name is undoubtedly Celtic, having the suffix -es or -is rather than -a is probably of germanic origin.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viradecdis

Mind you, this is everything but conclusive evidence.



In my opinion, people get that "Germanic" connotation the wrong way. The word "Germani" itself is probably of Celtic origin ("neighbours" or "near ones"), and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator.


Caesar also mentioned the Germani Cisrhenani came from the other side of the Rhine.

Taranis
29-10-14, 17:42
Eburones could possibly be derived from German "Eber", boar. That was an animal associated with warriors - Take for instance Germanic names and boar crested helmets mentioned in Beowulf and found at sites. The Eburones were "destroyed" by Caesar, and afterwards a tribe called Tungri was mentioned in the area. Now, that name certainly is Germanic. Interestingly enough they left a number of votive steles celebrating a goddess with a Celtic name with a Germanic twist: Viradecdis. While her name is undoubtedly Celtic, having the suffix -es or -is rather than -a is probably of germanic origin.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viradecdis


I disagree, *eburo- is clearly Celtic, meaning "yew", and there's plenty of parallels there: "Eburacum" (York), "Ebora" (Evora in Portugal), the "Eburovices" of Gaul (around Evreux) and two towns named "Eburodunum" in the Alps (today Embrun and Yverdon-les-Bains). Further, the augmentative "-on-" is distinctly Celtic (e.g. "Senones", "Dumnones", etc.). Furthermore, Julius Caesar himself gives the connection to yews by pointing out that one of the chieftains (Catuvolcus) commits suicide using the "poisonous juice" made of yew (Bello Gallico 6.31). The Germanic word for "boar" is impossible because the cognate in Latin is "aper", and the *e in Germanic is unexplainable (in my opinion) except through the shift produced by the Germanic umlaut, which only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic. So, the Proto-Germanic cognate of "Eber" would have been *aβuraz, not *eβuraz.


I also disgaree on the "Tungri": you have an analogue in Old Irish "tongaid" ('to swear', 'to take an oath'). To add to that, the chieftains of the Eburones have clearly Celtic names: "Catuvolcus" and "Ambiorix". Granted you have parallels in Germanic (German "hadern", "um-" :smile: ), but its clear that these are Celtic renderings, not Germanic ones.


Mind you, this is everything but conclusive evidence.

As I said, you have to go the the vicinity of the Rhine to find actual Germanic names, (for example, "Asciburgium" - "ash (tree) fortification").


Caesar also mentioned the Germani Cisrhenani came from the other side of the Rhine.

And yet they have ethnic names like "Nemetes", and place names ending with "-magus" and "-dunum".


"and the way Caesar used it, it should be understood as a geographic origin, rather than as an ethnic or linguistic indicator"

I'd say the context was pretty clear he meant they looked different to Vascones and Gauls and similar to Germans - but I agree that doesn't mean they were Germans by language or culture just that there was a northern population which looked alike because they came from the same source region.

This I can actually agree on. There is the interesting anecdote by Tacitus (in "Agricola") who thinks that the British Caledonii look "Germanic" because of their red hair. He likewise links the dark, curly hair of the Silures to the Iberians... :laughing:

Sile
29-10-14, 19:55
I do not know why people are still mentioning Anglo-saxon for these Hinxton finds. :banghead:
They are recorded between 900 and 400 Years before the anglo-saxon migration occurred.
the only Germanic trace if any, was with the belgae migration in Britain, but that was only in the kentish area, IIRC these Hinxton people moved south from yorkshire/nottingham area to cambridge area ( i think it's still anglia )
This anglo-saxon theory is a waste of time for these people, they where born and bred in Britain

Greying Wanderer
30-10-14, 14:29
I disagree, *eburo- is clearly Celtic, meaning "yew", and there's plenty of parallels there: "Eburacum" (York), "Ebora" (Evora in Portugal), the "Eburovices" of Gaul (around Evreux) and two towns named "Eburodunum" in the Alps (today Embrun and Yverdon-les-Bains). Further, the augmentative "-on-" is distinctly Celtic (e.g. "Senones", "Dumnones", etc.). Furthermore, Julius Caesar himself gives the connection to yews by pointing out that one of the chieftains (Catuvolcus) commits suicide using the "poisonous juice" made of yew (Bello Gallico 6.31). The Germanic word for "boar" is impossible because the cognate in Latin is "aper", and the *e in Germanic is unexplainable (in my opinion) except through the shift produced by the Germanic umlaut, which only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic. So, the Proto-Germanic cognate of "Eber" would have been *aβuraz, not *eβuraz.


I also disgaree on the "Tungri": you have an analogue in Old Irish "tongaid" ('to swear', 'to take an oath'). To add to that, the chieftains of the Eburones have clearly Celtic names: "Catuvolcus" and "Ambiorix". Granted you have parallels in Germanic (German "hadern", "um-" :smile: ), but its clear that these are Celtic renderings, not Germanic ones.



As I said, you have to go the the vicinity of the Rhine to find actual Germanic names, (for example, "Asciburgium" - "ash (tree) fortification").



And yet they have ethnic names like "Nemetes", and place names ending with "-magus" and "-dunum".



This I can actually agree on. There is the interesting anecdote by Tacitus (in "Agricola") who thinks that the British Caledonii look "Germanic" because of their red hair. He likewise links the dark, curly hair of the Silures to the Iberians... :laughing:

"He likewise links the dark, curly hair of the Silures to the Iberians"

Indeed. There are still some areas of North Wales where the people look like Basques but that doesn't mean both groups are at least partially descended from a similar source population who originally came up the Atlantic coast a very long time ago - although maybe they are.

MOESAN
31-10-14, 00:34
Some of this is me being sloppy with labeling.

.


I probably shouldn't use "north sea" and "atlantic coast" as they are too close to the names of actual population components. I use those labels to indicate *direction of flow* so the *flow* from the north includes "north sea", "baltic" and "eastern euro" components.

Well the east coast of Scotland and the lowlands were settled by Saxons and the Scots language is a Saxon dialect etc with Gaels in the west and Norse in the north but that's a quibble to my main point which is that despite the cultural differences I think the various waves of the northern flow (northern Celtic, Saxons, Vikings etc) were genetically similar.


Yes, south and central Wales have a lot more English mixture. North wales is the interesting anomaly. My theory is if there was a specifically north_wales component included in the admixture runs they would show that different parts of the Isles can be modeled as varying proportions of two components: a north_wales component representing the HG and Atlantic Megalith people and a second component representing the various waves that came from the direction of the north sea and if correct the sequence of the proportions of the two components would roughly be:

north Wales
south Wales
most of England
east coast of England
Scotland
Ireland

.
"Belgae were not Germans"

I'm sloppy with labeling. What I mean is a maritime-centric region comprising modern Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Scandinavia and the Baltic which over time pushed west in numerous coastal mediated waves (possibly being pushed from the east and thus including an eastern euro component that increased over time).

So not Germans but people who Romans would think *looked like* Germans.




Britain/Ireland, Celts and Germanics


concerning labellings or namings :when I speak about 'north-sea' (Eurogenes) I speak about people ofNorth (currently) but commoner among Germanics (and partly amongCelts), I suppose bearing so called 'nordic' types, so distinct insome part from the 'baltic' component where ancient HuntGaths seem tome heavier, as all the 'brünn' partly derived people, 'borreby B'and 'east-baltic' types on the physical side – the Eurogenes'east-euro' seems to me distinct enough from 'baltic' and less« autochtonous » in North with some southeasterncomponent (but 'nordic' for me is not more autochtonous, maybe comefrom Center-West Eurasia, for the most with certain steppicIndo-Europeans, just a bet) -
to come back to Scotland and England,yes I say England a sa whole is more « northern »likephysically than Scotland as a whole -
we agree concerning heterogeneity ofbritish populations according to places – but the Scotland more« northern »like regions of North and North-West andIslands owe more to Scandinavians Germanics than to continental ones– the same for Isle of Man and some parts of Western England (withless imput) - the most of England, even East, and southeasternScotland owe more to continental Germanics – northeastern Scotland(NE Grampians) and Yorks are between -


Lowlands, East and Central, are veryless « saxon » that believed and said : the ancientinhabitants of Strathclyde (Britons+Gaels+ pre-Celts) and Highlanders(more Gaels) emigrated heavily into the industrial areas of Scotland(physical aspect and personal names tell it) and presently they arenot more 'northern' than « English » of the Black CountryWest the Midlands or people of Devon, Dorset... Argyle shows acurious mix of more pre-Celts and Celts (often dark haired) but witha strong autosomal 'baltic' component for one of the Isles due toexclusive Viking inheritage. But we cannot exclude previousintrogression from North-East in Britain ?


Celts surely send a part of the'northsea component' in very less proportions – whatever the remoteorigin of Celts, they spent as distinct population form the commonwestern indo-european group a lot of time in Baviera, France,Belgium, Southern Netherlands, maybe too Switzerland, Austria, S-WBohemia – they had contacts with precedant populations very lessnorthern, and very variated I think, even if they did not miximmediatly nor completely – they surely took the Danau way toprogress westwards as the Baltic shores were yet populated I think(Celts were part of a tumuli bearer populations, I think, distinctfrom the Corded people) – at Hallstatt period it seems they were« boosted » by a new elite, perhaps Illyrians but whoknows ?, of brutal type surely parlty akin to the 'baltic'component, type which counted until 25% of the skeletons, physicallyeasily distinguished from the ordinary Celtic elite mix – but theynever became an important component of the overall Celts and theCelts put in movement occidental tribes of today Switzerland andEastern France of precedent populations, without speak of theircontacts with the Atlantic populations of other stocks -


under the names 'Belgae' and 'Germans'Caesar and others ancients put a lot of tribes of N-E Gaul,W-Germany and Belgium: some of their « Germanic » tribeswere in fact Celtic ones, even if some of the « Belgian »ones were maybe truly germanic in the cultural sense – Belgianlanguage is unknown to us for I know but they wore for the mostCeltic individual names ; it recall me the Cimbers and Teutonsand the question of their appartenance : physically the meantypes of most of Belgae was the same as other Celts (an elite atleast), Gauls or not, and the type of Iron Men climbed up untilDenmark from Danau or Bohemia was close enough too (in more « pure »)to them, distinct from the Hannover Germanics skeletons and from thefirst Anglo-Saxons ones... and Belgae are supposed being come fromW-Bohemia or N-Baviera about the Iron Age-
some Y-R1b-U152 are found amongnorthern Jutland Danes (Himmerland : hazard?) and southernNorwegians (we know tumuli people colonized S-Scandinavia at Bronze,by sea but also by land leaving their tumuli line) – the sameHaploGr was surely important among La Tène Celts and shows up amongtoday Luxemburg people, Switzerland (and Italy but there it is morecomplicated, with L20 maybe more 'italic') – this R-U152 is theheavier among Walloons, and diminishes when going farther North inthe Netherlands - as R-U106 augments - country where passed theancient frontieer between Belgae and true Germanics (not the« Germani » of the ancients) ; by the way, themiddle of the Netherlands seem having been a frontieer for a longtime concerning Hgs and Hts of Y-R1b, R-U196 being in North at thistime, before Franks and company – today Walloonia is badly knownfor DNA helas ! But I bet they were at first strongly Y-R-U152and P310 and derived Hgs, before the Franks invasion -
what is true is that R-U152 is strongenough in East and South-East England compared to others regions ofUK (and in E-Scotland too, in an ancient Pictitsh region) : asBelgae took foot in E-England it is maybe not stupid to think inthem, even if, by humour of History, some Vikings (ex-Celts?) ofDenmark of even before them some Jutes could have send a bit ofY-R-U152 too...


concerning Wales, 2 parts it a bitsimple :
as a whole the western parts were themore pre-Celtic and Celtic (it is to say : not only an'Hunt-Gath' and a 'megalithic' - let's say « atlantic » -component but too a continental component where 'north-sea' werepresent too -
the North-Eeast of Wales as beenanglicized in the past century (touristical colonization), even morethan the southern industrial area of Wales, where nevertheless theprevious Welsh population is still present (except in Cardiff) mixedwith English workers but other « celtic » workers too(Irish, Scottish) – but the « germanic » element inCentral-East Wales is old, visible, and could explain the already oldbackward move of the welsh language there, in a poorly attractiveregion for business, and that when welsh was still spoken by peoplein industrial Glamorgan and in Oswestry, over the border – factsbecome useful when they are picked everywhere and numerous enough -


to conclude, Celts surely were not thebetter example for fully northern population taking a foot in Britain– less than Germanics, continental of not – but what is'northern' : 'nordic' types came maybe from East (and they were heavy among germanics!)– in someruns they are close to 'west-asian' and not too far from'south-west-asian', so surprising it could be ! - and Hunt-Gathscame from all over Europe had more than an origin, the same for themost (WHG : something common to 'north-atlantic' and 'baltic')but with accretions of 'ANE' (more present in the 'baltic'labelling?) - all the way I avow these autosomals components are justproxi's we play with.

MOESAN
31-10-14, 00:45
I do not know why people are still mentioning Anglo-saxon for these Hinxton finds. :banghead:
They are recorded between 900 and 400 Years before the anglo-saxon migration occurred.
the only Germanic trace if any, was with the belgae migration in Britain, but that was only in the kentish area, IIRC these Hinxton people moved south from yorkshire/nottingham area to cambridge area ( i think it's still anglia )
This anglo-saxon theory is a waste of time for these people, they where born and bred in Britain

!!!
Belgae origin is discussed, even if the Celtic origin (and a bit "old-northwestern-I-E") is very more credible than the germanic one: Celts occupied between 2/3 and 13/4 of today germany, before the Germanics expansion!!! Rhine has been Celtic all its way! caesar said one day he choose Belgae men to put people to believe he had vanquished Germanics, but he had been obliged to select the tallest and to colour ther head hairs of someones in blond for that -
concerning the datations (900/400 before Anglo-Saxons) WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT???

I thought they were 2 periods (only two men for Iron)

???

MOESAN
31-10-14, 00:48
by the way this thread is confusing because I red opposite statements concerning the some of the 5 skeletons and their attribution to Iron or Anglo-Saxon ages...

MOESAN
31-10-14, 00:54
ScienceNews reports:

Britons might not be Anglo-Saxons, a genetic analysis of five ancient skeletons hints.

When archaeological digs revealed ancient graves on the grounds of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, researchers there took it as a sign that they should analyze the ancient people’s DNA. Two skeletons were from men who were buried about 2,000 years ago. The other three skeletons were from women who died about 1,300 years ago, not long after the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.
The researchers were surprised to find that the older Iron Age men were genetically more similar to people living in Britain today than the Anglo-Saxon women were. Stephan Schiffels of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute reported the results October 20 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics.

“It doesn’t look like these Anglo-Saxon immigrants left a big impact on the genetic makeup of modern-day Britain,” Schiffels said.

The finding raises an intriguing possibility that indigenous people in Britain may have repelled the Anglo-Saxons but adopted the invaders’ language and culture, says Eimear Kenny, a population geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who was not involved in the work. More ancient samples from other times and parts of Britain should give a clearer picture of that episode of history, she said.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/anglo-saxons-left-language-maybe-not-genes-modern-britons


I find very amazing all these "scientists" (they have to be, have they not?) making contradictory or vague conclusions before finishing their work and speaking about small samples, here not well identified yet - OR IT IS THE WAY JOURNALISTS REPORT THEIR SAYINGS (may very well be the case! we know that in France too)

MOESAN
31-10-14, 01:04
It's going to go back and forth for a while as different samples from different regions clarify and cloud but in the end i think it'll come down to something like:

English ~ 1/2 German + 1/2 Welsh

i.e. multiple waves (Belgae, Saxons, Danes etc) of similar northern populations coming from a northern/eastern direction via the north sea combined with multiple waves (HGs, Megalith, BB) of more southern populations from a southern/western direction via the Atlantic coast.

nb remote parts of the north Wales mountains have up to 30% E1b

I agree partly but remeber the british BB of Round Barrows were not the BBs of South: they were a mix with more than the half of geographically "German" people : seemingly autochtonous people (35% local of N-W Germany 'borrebylike' + 20% of Corded if we rely on physical types, the other 45% coming from elsewhere, 'dinaric' for the types, surely passed through upper Rhine...these last ones maybe the genuine BBs, so NOT CLASSICAL MEDITERRANEANS even id a med component participated to it; as a whole, BBs had been light genetically - these Round Barrows people came form the mouth of the Rhine, not directly from Portugal or Spain... "Beaker" is a poor term in the way it is employed by someones -

LeBrok
31-10-14, 04:39
Was there a final news which genome belongs to whom?

Sile
31-10-14, 08:58
!!!
Belgae origin is discussed, even if the Celtic origin (and a bit "old-northwestern-I-E") is very more credible than the germanic one: Celts occupied between 2/3 and 13/4 of today germany, before the Germanics expansion!!! Rhine has been Celtic all its way! caesar said one day he choose Belgae men to put people to believe he had vanquished Germanics, but he had been obliged to select the tallest and to colour ther head hairs of someones in blond for that -
concerning the datations (900/400 before Anglo-Saxons) WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT???

I thought they were 2 periods (only two men for Iron)

???

all bodies are between 2500-1800 years years ago ..............so from 500BC to 200AD

The anglo-saxon migration started 450AD ............there is over 250 years of separation of time. The most accurate theory was stated as before 0BC

First thoughts where 1300 to 2000 years old, but further analysis changed the dates

Angela
31-10-14, 15:55
I find very amazing all these "scientists" (they have to be, have they not?) making contradictory or vague conclusions before finishing their work and speaking about small samples, here not well identified yet - OR IT IS THE WAY JOURNALISTS REPORT THEIR SAYINGS (may very well be the case! we know that in France too)

It does indeed seem like part of the problem lies with the researchers.

This is the abstract that the authors released prior to the conference:
We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples, the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS). In addition the Anglo-Saxon period samples appear to share a stronger older component with Finnish (1000GP FIN) individuals.

This is what was presented at the conference, as reported by people who were there as well as in an interview in Science:
“It doesn’t look like these Anglo-Saxon immigrants left a big impact on the genetic makeup of modern-day Britain,” Schiffels said.

So, I think it's pretty clear that they changed their interpretation. After looking at the data for all the five samples, I personally think it's pretty murky, so I think it might have been wiser from their perspective to take a much more cautious approach. Of course, the paper hasn't come out yet, and they used the Finestructure program, not the ones for which I have seen the data, so perhaps their conclusions will seem more persuasive after reading the whole paper.

A further source of confusion for the internet population genetics community was that when the authors initially released the complete genomes they didn't label them by time period. The initial report was that of the two males, one was from the Iron Age and one was from the Anglo-Saxon period. I and others on this site tried to make sense of the data in light of that report, and said one male (Hinxton 1) had more of a north and east shift, and so was probably the Anglo Saxon, and Hinxton 4 was the Iron Age Celt.

It turns out that both of the males, Hinxton 1 - ERS389795 and Hinxton 4 - ERS389798 were from the Iron Age, and Hinxton 2, 3, and 5, all women, were from the Anglo-Saxon period. Hinxton 2 seems to be the most "Anglo-Saxon", if you will. * After a lot of internet drama and belittling of the analysis done here using the Dodecad runs, it only remains to be said that, based on another blogger's version of the genomes, and a subsequent analysis using supposedly superior methods, Hinxton 1 is indeed admitted to be more north and east shifted, more Scandinavian like, or, dare I say it, more Anglo-Saxon like, if you will, than Hinxton 4. The opinion was rendered that he was already admixed, perhaps by earlier migrations. I personally don't know whether it's admixture or normal variation within the Iron Age community in that location. It has to be kept in mind that all these samples come from a location in the east of England. I doubt that any grand conclusions can be reached until we get ancient genomes from further west.

As to time periods, there should be no confusion. You can see that they specifically say that two samples are Iron Age and three are from the Anglo-Saxon period. This is from the original abstract:

We present whole genome sequences generated from five individuals that were found in archaeological excavations at the Wellcome Trust Genome Campus near Cambridge (UK), two of which are dated to around 2,000 years before present (Iron Age), and three to around 1,300 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period).
Schiffels reiterated the point in the Science interview:
Two skeletons were from men who were buried about 2,000 years ago. The other three skeletons were from women who died about 1,300 years ago, not long after the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain.

So, we're talking about 0 AD and about 700 AD. I don't know how it can be any clearer that we're talking about the Iron Age and the Anglo-Saxon period. Jean Manco also provided information about where some of the samples were taken.

"By the 7th century AD a small settlement or farmstead, represented by two earthfast timber halls and a number of Sunken-Featured Buildings (SFBs), was established in the northern part of the site, with further scattered SFBs and associated activity to the south. The burial of a mature female located to the north-east provides a tangible link to the inhabitants of the settlement, which may have been the documented Hengest's Farm - the origin of the place name, Hinxton."

Ed. At least according to one internet blogger.

MOESAN
31-10-14, 21:37
all bodies are between 2500-1800 years years ago ..............so from 500BC to 200AD

The anglo-saxon migration started 450AD ............there is over 250 years of separation of time. The most accurate theory was stated as before 0BC

First thoughts where 1300 to 2000 years old, but further analysis changed the dates

thanks, it changes a lot of things!!! all from the celtic period (Iron in this case), somehow pre-Belgae and Belgae? (considering localization)

MOESAN
31-10-14, 21:48
Sorry, I wrote nonsense!
200 AD IS NOR 200BC
=
I did not read Angela when I answered Sile - it remains some confusion about dates: who is right of both??? (even if I often rely on Angela, but I don't want to shock Sile)
concerning females I repeat here what I said before: some females of the Anglo-Saxon zones were "autochtonous" Breton females
Wait and see
good evening

Sile
31-10-14, 22:23
Sorry, I wrote nonsense!
200 AD IS NOR 200BC
=
I did not read Angela when I answered Sile - it remains some confusion about dates: who is right of both??? (even if I often rely on Angela, but I don't want to shock Sile)
concerning females I repeat here what I said before: some females of the Anglo-Saxon zones were "autochtonous" Breton females
Wait and see
good evening


no problem, do what you need to do

below are all the Hinxton if you are interested, with their gedmatch numbers for you to try



Hinxton-1 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
Male
R-L151
K1a1b1b
2500-1800 years





Hinxton-2 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999921
Female

H2a2b1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-2 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html)


Hinxton-3 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999922
Female

K1a4a1a2b
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-3 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-3-analysis.html)


Hinxton-4 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999925
Male
R-DF25
H1ag1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-4 has X-Matches with living people (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-4-has-x-matches-with-living.html)


Hinxton-5 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999926
Female

H2a2a1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton5 Ancient DNA Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton5-ancient-dna-analysis.html)





http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinxtons-are-related-to-each-other.html

:satisfied:

Greying Wanderer
31-10-14, 23:21
I agree partly but remeber the british BB of Round Barrows were not the BBs of South: they were a mix with more than the half of geographically "German" people : seemingly autochtonous people (35% local of N-W Germany 'borrebylike' + 20% of Corded if we rely on physical types, the other 45% coming from elsewhere, 'dinaric' for the types, surely passed through upper Rhine...these last ones maybe the genuine BBs, so NOT CLASSICAL MEDITERRANEANS even id a med component participated to it; as a whole, BBs had been light genetically - these Round Barrows people came form the mouth of the Rhine, not directly from Portugal or Spain... "Beaker" is a poor term in the way it is employed by someones -

Well I wonder considering there's both the maritime BB that seems to more or less follow the earlier Atlantic megalith distribution - I assume because they picked the best harbors - and the more central European "river" BB if there might have been two BB flows into Britain but apart from that yes I think the main components of my presumed southern coastal flow are HG and Atlantic megalith, my presumed northern flow being Belgae, Saxons, Danes etc with BB as the mysterious wild card.

Greying Wanderer
31-10-14, 23:27
If it's 500BC to 200AD that makes a slight difference :)

Aberdeen
01-11-14, 20:55
If it's 500BC to 200AD that makes a slight difference :)

If the latest date was 200 AD that would put the later finds in the Roman period but still prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions. However, there is contradictory information about the dating. It appears that some of the finds may in fact be from as late as 700 AD and therefore from the Anglo-Saxon period.

Sile
01-11-14, 20:57
If it's 500BC to 200AD that makes a slight difference :)

If the last link indicates they where related up to 3rd cousin, then surely they lived in a range of ages to each other of less than 50

Greying Wanderer
01-11-14, 23:15
I agree partly but remeber the british BB of Round Barrows were not the BBs of South: they were a mix with more than the half of geographically "German" people : seemingly autochtonous people (35% local of N-W Germany 'borrebylike' + 20% of Corded if we rely on physical types, the other 45% coming from elsewhere, 'dinaric' for the types, surely passed through upper Rhine...these last ones maybe the genuine BBs, so NOT CLASSICAL MEDITERRANEANS even id a med component participated to it; as a whole, BBs had been light genetically - these Round Barrows people came form the mouth of the Rhine, not directly from Portugal or Spain... "Beaker" is a poor term in the way it is employed by someones -

Yes, fair point. Was it Ireland which had the southern BB?

Angela
01-11-14, 23:36
The approximate dates of 2,000 years ago for the Iron Age finds and 1300 years ago for the Anglo-Saxon finds are from the authors of the paper in the preliminary abstract, from their speech at the ASHG Genetics Conference, and in interviews. Granted, they changed their entire conclusion between one event and the other, so I suppose anything is possible, but I would think they would know what periods they are studying.

Also, as per Hinxton.org:
"The real excitement was generated when the archaeologists came across the tell-tale signs of an Anglo-Saxon settlement, right in the middle of the proposed construction site. With the assistance of carbon dating, and knowledge of the structure of more intact Saxon sites elsewhere, the archaeologists were able to trace the changing fortunes of this homestead occupied over 1000 years ago. From what the archaeological team can make out, Anglo-Saxon residents in the sixth to seventh centuries AD had at least four huts, known in the trade as sunken-featured buildings or grubenh user ('grubbing houses'), on the site."

See also: http://oxfordarchaeology.com/earlymedieval/hinxton

The Iron Age samples may instead be from the Hinxton Rings site:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8892531&fileId=S0079497X00002012


The source for the 500 BC to 200 AD date seems to be the genome blogger "Felix" in his blog. I believe he is the one who uploaded the genomes to Gedmatch with the following dates: 2500-1800 years ago.
http://www.y-str.org/2014_10_01_archive.html

That of course would fit an approximate date of 1 AD. It would not fit the Anglo Saxon excavations at Hinxton dated to 700 AD.

Perhaps he should be asked where he got those dates and how certain he is of them. It may be they are from the Welcome Trust site, but they have many genomes, and these approximate dates may only apply to the Iron Age ones, and were mistakenly attributed by him to all of them. If they are not correct for the "Anglo-Saxon" samples, then the Gedmatch entry should be corrected.

MOESAN
02-11-14, 00:31
Yes, fair point. Was it Ireland which had the southern BB?

YES IN SOME WAY
for the typical BBs I don't know for Ireland -
classifications change sometimes with time (what is boring!) but in the 1950's the scientists spoke of a "Food Vessel" culture, akin to Beakers, in Ireland, and incinering their dead people in place of inhumation for Bell Beakers of Round Barrows (about the -2500/-2200?), before later Wessex culture -
genetcially I know nothing -
but COON estimated they were more related to Spain when Round Barrows as later Wessex and Rich Tumuli of Brittany were more linked culturally to Low-Rhine cultural Region (and even concerning skeletons for the few we have) - the irish skeletons were more purely "dinaric" (forms of skulls, thin walls of crania, no 'borreby', no 'corded') - they would have colonized Western Scotland and Cumbria, when Eastern Scotland was more 'round barrow' -

MOESAN
02-11-14, 00:34
no problem, do what you need to do

below are all the Hinxton if you are interested, with their gedmatch numbers for you to try



Hinxton-1 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
Male
R-L151
K1a1b1b
2500-1800 years




Hinxton-2 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999921
Female

H2a2b1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-2 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-2-analysis.html)


Hinxton-3 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999922
Female

K1a4a1a2b
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-3 Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-3-analysis.html)


Hinxton-4 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999925
Male
R-DF25
H1ag1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton-4 has X-Matches with living people (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton-4-has-x-matches-with-living.html)


Hinxton-5 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html)
Cambridgshire, UK
F999926
Female

H2a2a1
2500-1800 years
Hinxton5 Ancient DNA Analysis (http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/hinxton5-ancient-dna-analysis.html)




http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinxtons-are-related-to-each-other.html

:satisfied:


THANKS FOR KIND ANSWER BUT READING AGAIN ANGELA I KEEP CONFUSED. BUT IF THEY ARE TRULY RELATED??? THAT SAID A FORUM OR BLOG IS INTERESTING BUT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC REPORT -even if we know some scientists know how to make a mess, sometimes, over all when they are tempting to make a mountain of papers!

epoch
09-11-14, 10:52
I disagree, *eburo- is clearly Celtic, meaning "yew", and there's plenty of parallels there: "Eburacum" (York), "Ebora" (Evora in Portugal), the "Eburovices" of Gaul (around Evreux) and two towns named "Eburodunum" in the Alps (today Embrun and Yverdon-les-Bains). Further, the augmentative "-on-" is distinctly Celtic (e.g. "Senones", "Dumnones", etc.). Furthermore, Julius Caesar himself gives the connection to yews by pointing out that one of the chieftains (Catuvolcus) commits suicide using the "poisonous juice" made of yew (Bello Gallico 6.31). The Germanic word for "boar" is impossible because the cognate in Latin is "aper", and the *e in Germanic is unexplainable (in my opinion) except through the shift produced by the Germanic umlaut, which only occured later in Northern and Western Germanic. So, the Proto-Germanic cognate of "Eber" would have been *aβuraz, not *eβuraz.

Then there is the Suevian Semnones. And the Romans were notoriously indifferent to the proper names of the tribes they described. Mind you, I didn't answer this as a refute, more to keep open the possibility.


I also disgaree on the "Tungri": you have an analogue in Old Irish "tongaid" ('to swear', 'to take an oath'). To add to that, the chieftains of the Eburones have clearly Celtic names: "Catuvolcus" and "Ambiorix". Granted you have parallels in Germanic (German "hadern", "um-" :smile: ), but its clear that these are Celtic renderings, not Germanic ones.

Celtic names appeared to have been quite popular with Germanic chieftains. Boiorix, Brennus and even Ariovistes come to mind. There is even an etymological explanation of the loanword "reich/rijk" in Germanic languages where the suffix -rix in naming is said to be the way it was loaned. The general idea of some archeologists is that there was a large contact zone. There is more evidence to that: The Matrones worship, thought to be of Germanic origin extended through Gaul entirely.

Taranis
09-11-14, 14:37
Then there is the Suevian Semnones. And the Romans were notoriously indifferent to the proper names of the tribes they described. Mind you, I didn't answer this as a refute, more to keep open the possibility.

Keep open what possibility, 'there's always been a Flanders'? ;-)


Celtic names appeared to have been quite popular with Germanic chieftains. Boiorix, Brennus and even Ariovistes come to mind. There is even an etymological explanation of the loanword "reich/rijk" in Germanic languages where the suffix -rix in naming is said to be the way it was loaned. The general idea of some archeologists is that there was a large contact zone.

That is correct, Germanic *rīkjaz is derived from Celtic *rīgjo-.

Even though "Brennus" was to my knowledge not the leader of any Germanic tribe: there were two persons named "Brennus", one leader of the Senones in Italy, the other leader of the Galatian Volcae Tectosages.

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/handouts/handouts-09/ringe/celt-loans.pdf

And yes, this wide contact zone existed, (approximately, from the Rhine Delta to the western Carpathians - as I said, you do have Germanic place names at the lower Rhine, like "Asciburgium"), but the idea that the Belgae were (linguistically, at least) Germanic, and that the border between Lugdunensis and Belgica (the rivers Seine and marked a major linguistic boundary does not hold up.


There is more evidence to that: The Matrones worship, thought to be of Germanic origin extended through Gaul entirely.

What, in your opinion, is Germanic in origin about "Matrona"? The name is clearly Celtic, not Germanic: the Proto-Germanic word for "mother" is *mōðēr (English "mother, German "Mutter"), while the Proto-Celtic one is *mātīr (Irish "mathair").

motzart
09-11-14, 16:10
Was there a final news which genome belongs to whom?

apparently both male samples are iron age and all female are anglo saxon

epoch
09-11-14, 18:14
Keep open what possibility, 'there's always been a Flanders'? ;-)

What?!? Are we going to have an "agenda ***** fight"? Seriously?? Well, not with me, Taranis. Not with me. EDIT: ;-)



That is correct, Germanic *rīkjaz is derived from Celtic *rīgjo-.

Even though "Brennus" was to my knowledge not the leader of any Germanic tribe: there were two persons named "Brennus", one leader of the Senones in Italy, the other leader of the Galatian Volcae Tectosages.

Sorry, that was Brinno of the Cananefates.



And yes, this wide contact zone existed, (approximately, from the Rhine Delta to the western Carpathians - as I said, you do have Germanic place names at the lower Rhine, like "Asciburgium"), but the idea that the Belgae were (linguistically, at least) Germanic, and that the border between Lugdunensis and Belgica (the rivers Seine and marked a major linguistic boundary does not hold up.

But that is not what I suggested. I suggested a very fuzzy contact zone where Germanics ans Celts mixed and Celtic goddesses got Germanic suffixes, Celts claimed Germanic origins and mixed tribes lived. That is what I consider a contact zone, and I know of a number of Dutch archeologists that hold similar opinions.



What, in your opinion, is Germanic in origin about "Matrona"? The name is clearly Celtic, not Germanic: the Proto-Germanic word for "mother" is *mōðēr (English "mother, German "Mutter"), while the Proto-Celtic one is *mātīr (Irish "mathair").

The word could also be simply be derived from Latin. I recall the cult being connected to the Ubii.

Taranis
09-11-14, 19:32
What?!? Are we going to have an "agenda ***** fight"? Seriously?? Well, not with me, Taranis. Not with me.

The " ;-) " should have been a giveaway: I wasn't really serious with that comment. If you got that wrong, I would hereby like to honestly apologize. I don't think we're going to have an agenda fight because 1) I for one have no agenda (other than maybe "if you have a hypothesis, you need data to back it up" :-p ) and 2) our opinions don't seem to be that different.


Sorry, that was Brinno of the Cananefates.

The Canananefates were a tribe of the Rhine Delta (from approximately the area around modern Den Haag, I think), and they were certainly Germanic.


But that is not what I suggested. I suggested a very fuzzy contact zone where Germanics ans Celts mixed and Celtic goddesses got Germanic suffixes, Celts claimed Germanic origins and mixed tribes lived. That is what I consider a contact zone, and I know of a number of Dutch archeologists that hold similar opinions.

This I totally agree on. My point merely is that the focus point is towards the vicinity of the Rhine (at least in the West) - at least before the Migration Period (that event, of course, changed the situation considerably).


The word could also be simply be derived from Latin. I recall the cult being connected to the Ubii.

Yes, it could be Latin, too: the Latin word for 'mother' is "mater", and Latin, like the Celtic languages, preserves *ā where Proto-Germanic shifts it to *ō.

epoch
09-11-14, 19:58
The " ;-) " should have been a giveaway: I wasn't really serious with that comment. If you got that wrong, I would hereby like to honestly apologize. I don't think we're going to have an agenda fight because 1) I for one have no agenda (other than maybe "if you have a hypothesis, you need data to back it up" :-p )

Neither was I, Taranis. There is absolutely no need for apology. I should have written a smiley as well.


and 2) our opinions don't seem to be that different.

True.



The Canananefates were a tribe of the Rhine Delta (from approximately the area around modern Den Haag, I think), and they were certainly Germanic.


Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.



This I totally agree on. My point merely is that the focus point is towards the vicinity of the Rhine (at least in the West) - at least before the Migration Period (that event, of course, changed the situation considerably).



Yes, it could be Latin, too: the Latin word for 'mother' is "mater", and Latin, like the Celtic languages, preserves *ā where Proto-Germanic shifts it to *ō.

The thing is, so many things that we thought of as debunked came back with a vengeance. You never know..

tjlowery87
16-11-14, 03:45
Wow a lot of technical stuff so what is the verdict now

MOESAN
16-11-14, 19:01
[QUOTE=epoch;443871]



Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.

so everybody can say what he want: latin tribe names, latin placenames, people latin names, genetic differences : all that is without any value so where is the problem???
everybody is free! I like that... freedom

MOESAN
16-11-14, 19:02
latin people never stayed in Italy! they arrived there lately?

MOESAN
16-11-14, 19:25
more seriously my opinion is that this concept of mixed tribes has to be proved before building theories: people can sexually mix and cross easier than cultures: what criteria we have? language (when we have the chance to find traces) - I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).
the ebglish example is the perfect opposite to what I wrote above but this mixed culture (linguistically) was born in a STATE CONTEXT even if feudal, it was, I think, impossible in a clanic context as it was in Iron Ages or before in Northern Europe -
but I'm far here from the genuine topic
good evening

tjlowery87
17-11-14, 04:39
What is the autasomal DNA diffrence between some from Cornwall and someone from Norfolk wouldn't there be a difference?

epoch
17-11-14, 22:38
Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.

so everybody can say what he want: latin tribe names, latin placenames, people latin names, genetic differences : all that is without any value so where is the problem???
everybody is free! I like that... freedom

No no no, Moesan. What I meant to say was that Celtic names were once fashionable amongst Germanics. Just as Germanic names were fashionable amongst Gauls under the Merovingians. Actually, a lot of current day French names still are of Germanic origin. So a Germanic carrying a Celtic does mot make that man a Celt.

Sorry. No freedom ;)

epoch
17-11-14, 22:49
I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).


The Cimbrians that harried the Roman empire with the Teutones in a century before Christ had a king that carried a celtic name (Boiorix) although that could've been a nom the guerre or a nickname.

mihaitzateo
17-11-14, 23:07
Maciamo,what about the Siberian admixture,from K12?
From current day populations,Finns have it and also North Russians,I guess North Swedes and North Norwegians should have also,do you think is from Hunns in the Anglo-Saxon 1?
And how come current day Britons do not have anymore African admixture,neither Siberian+East Asian?
EDIT:
Found this,considering the population from those days Denmark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen#Other_names
"In the eighth century the inrush of the Vikings in force began to be felt all over Pictland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictland). These Vikings were pagans and savages of the most unrestrained and pitiless type. They were composed of Finn-Gall or Norwegians, and of Dubh-Gall or Danes. The latter were a mixed breed, with a Hunnish strain in them.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen#cite_note-5)"
So if the genetic material of Anglo-Saxon-1 is from about 1300 years ago,it is said that around 8th century,so that can be very good a little after the year 700,exactly from the period when the Vikings were raiding there.
R1b-L11 could show very well Danish origins.

Greying Wanderer
18-11-14, 00:05
more seriously my opinion is that this concept of mixed tribes has to be proved before building theories: people can sexually mix and cross easier than cultures: what criteria we have? language (when we have the chance to find traces) - I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).
the ebglish example is the perfect opposite to what I wrote above but this mixed culture (linguistically) was born in a STATE CONTEXT even if feudal, it was, I think, impossible in a clanic context as it was in Iron Ages or before in Northern Europe -
but I'm far here from the genuine topic
good evening

How many settlement names in the US have either Latin names or names originally given by displaced natives and how many personal names come from Latin?

So if Celtic culture was much more advanced when the Teutonics first made contact and they took some settlements off Celts after they'd got used to calling it by the original Celtic name then maybe the same things happened?

(I'd guess this is only likely to happen in the border zone between the two cultures.)

MOESAN
19-11-14, 12:37
No no no, Moesan. What I meant to say was that Celtic names were once fashionable amongst Germanics. Just as Germanic names were fashionable amongst Gauls under the Merovingians. Actually, a lot of current day French names still are of Germanic origin. So a Germanic carrying a Celtic does mot make that man a Celt.

Sorry. No freedom ;)



your comparing things that cannot be compared so simplisticly
Celts and Germanics at these time had not huge territories, "national", as Franks had after having put their feet in the ancient Roman boundaries in a political world fashioned by the Romans i think - so I have some difficulty to swallow Celts tribes had Germanics minorities inside their small territorries: old clans lands were NOT big states territories - I think at some time these clans were more attached to ligneages than to ground even if it changed progressively -
we know (by linguistic for the most, Cleyts have had influence upon the first Germanics at some stage of forces desiquilibrium BUT WE HAVE NO PROOF FOR I KNOW OF CELTS RULING GERMANICS AND INCORPORATING THEM INTO A POLITICAL FRAME creatong a cultural mixed cuntry, so we have yet to prove genuine proud Germanics took Celtic personal names . I don't say it is impossbile, I say it's a very easy way to say what we want to say without any proof...

MOESAN
19-11-14, 12:40
[QUOTE=epoch;444393]The Cimbrians that harried the Roman empire with the Teutones in a century before Christ had a king that carried a celtic name (Boiorix) although that could've been a nom the guerre or a nickname.[/QUOTE

for I know it has never be proved Cimbrians were germanic speaking... ir s the very question!!! thay have some traces of scythian inspired art but it seems it's the Celts who were the more in contact with the Scythian world, not the Germanics

MOESAN
19-11-14, 12:52
How many settlement names in the US have either Latin names or names originally given by displaced natives and how many personal names come from Latin?

So if Celtic culture was much more advanced when the Teutonics first made contact and they took some settlements off Celts after they'd got used to calling it by the original Celtic name then maybe the same things happened?

(I'd guess this is only likely to happen in the border zone between the two cultures.)

same answer as to EPOCH: you're comparing things of very different times too simplisticly I think -
the settlements in the USA were made in a time when a lot of people knew read and write, someones having a good taste of general culture and so some snobism (concerning Latin or not english european placenames) - concerning the placenames in Belgia, you can say the Germanics kept these names and I agree, but these names at this time were not given by snobism but inherited from previous Celtic tribes, it's not the same thing - SO THE QUESTION REMAINS: WERE THERE ALREADY GERMANIC TRIBES IN OLD BELGIA AT ROMAN TIMES? KEEP IN MIND THE ANGLO-SAXON FIRST EMIGRANTS DIDN'T TAKE INDIAN NAMES TO GIVE TO THEIR CHILDREN EVEN IF THEY RETAINED INDIAN PLACENAMES...
I wrote about all this stuff because someones (not you precisely) appeared to me as pretending there never has been genuine Celtic tribes in Central-Northern Germany, what is wrong - other people are restless rewriting History I find that boring sometimes: classical History is rather to be precised and corrected, not denied 100%

Greying Wanderer
19-11-14, 14:55
your comparing things that cannot be compared so simplisticly
Celts and Germanics at these time had not huge territories, "national", as Franks had after having put their feet in the ancient Roman boundaries in a political world fashioned by the Romans i think - so I have some difficulty to swallow Celts tribes had Germanics minorities inside their small territorries: old clans lands were NOT big states territories - I think at some time these clans were more attached to ligneages than to ground even if it changed progressively -
we know (by linguistic for the most, Cleyts have had influence upon the first Germanics at some stage of forces desiquilibrium BUT WE HAVE NO PROOF FOR I KNOW OF CELTS RULING GERMANICS AND INCORPORATING THEM INTO A POLITICAL FRAME creatong a cultural mixed cuntry, so we have yet to prove genuine proud Germanics took Celtic personal names . I don't say it is impossbile, I say it's a very easy way to say what we want to say without any proof...


"I have some difficulty to swallow Celts tribes had Germanics minorities inside their small territorries"

I'd agree about that. I'm thinking more of tribal confederations.

Greying Wanderer
19-11-14, 15:19
when a lot of people knew read and write

Yes I agree that will determine the scale of it happening so if it happened it was likely to be very localized and small scale.


so some snobism (concerning Latin or not english european placenames)

Yes, cultural dominance would likely be the main factor there.


in Belgia, you can say the Germanics kept these names and I agree, but these names at this time were not given by snobism but inherited from previous Celtic tribes, it's not the same thing

Yes I agree. The place names (if it happened) would likely be the result of a gradual expansion where traders, trappers, mercenaries etc ahead of the expansion got used to calling settlements by their original name - like "London" or "Dakota".

Personal names would more likely be a status thing and so only likely to happen in a context where the chief of a Germanic group was a minority in a culture they thought was more advanced or perhaps because they wanted to be diplomatic e.g. a Celtic tribal confederation which included some Germanic sub-tribes (and in that case possibly even *given* a Celtic name by the Celtic confederation leader as a mark of submission).

So I agree with you that the circumstances where this sort of thing is likely to happen are quite specific however I think that situation is highly likely to have occurred multiple times on the border zone with Celtic confederations inviting small tribes over the Rhine as mercenaries during wars with other Celtic confederations.



I wrote about all this stuff because someones (not you precisely) appeared to me as pretending there never has been genuine Celtic tribes in Central-Northern Germany, what is wrong

Fair enough. My thinking is more the opposite of that - that Celtic confederations fighting each other over the centuries and inviting Germanic tribes in as mercenaries is likely how the Celts *lost* Central-Northern Germany.

tjlowery87
20-11-14, 23:41
So is eastern and western different in autosomal dna

Aberdeen
22-11-14, 04:38
No no no, Moesan. What I meant to say was that Celtic names were once fashionable amongst Germanics. Just as Germanic names were fashionable amongst Gauls under the Merovingians. Actually, a lot of current day French names still are of Germanic origin. So a Germanic carrying a Celtic does mot make that man a Celt.

Sorry. No freedom ;)

I just noticed this, and I have to disagree with your premise. The Merovingians were the first Frankish dynasty to rule in France. The Franks were a Germanic tribe that took Gaul away from the Romans and turned the country into France. And when Germanic people have Germanic names, I don't see that as proof of Celts borrowing German names. Of course, the Franks weren't numerous enough to change the language of the country to Frankish - modern French is mainly descended from Latin, as we all know. But descendants of those German speaking Frankish invaders still live in France, which is why a fair number of modern French surnames are actually German. It has nothing to do with Celts adopting German names or Germans adopting Celtic names.

MOESAN
22-11-14, 14:13
always half off topic but i'll answer grey Wanderers and Aberdeen

to Grey Wanderers: I repeat we have no proof, neither me nor you, but the concept of federations of tribes applies I think more to later eastern germanic (Goths, Vandals of every sort) and steppic tribes (Alans, Huns, Turks, Magyars ...) after decline of Roman Empire, when A PART of these ethnies begun rovering everywhere with occasions to raid some rich places - in these cases they were in some way mercenaries the ones to the others - I don't think it was the case BC in the Seine to Weser area:what I know about this time (Iron) was some tribes leaving old Belgia (settled from NE-France to Central Germany not Belgium of today) to go to Iberia, tribe by tribe: emigration for the most and not military rovering - tribes were well distinguished one from another - the only germanic (considered) tribe I'm sure is the Cempsi with a set going to Britain (East I beleive) and another set to Iberia ...
I red in Wikipedia the Pelandones or Cerindones (?) of Belgia, emigrated into N-E Iberia, would have been a mix of Celts and Illyrians, but it's important speaking only a Qw- celtic language (see what I wrote sooner about culture and language in these cases of assimilation) - this "Illyrians" part is to be proved even if possible - Illyrians were seen everywhere at some stage of archeology and History, they "lost ground" more recently even if we know by archeo-metric-anthropology a foreign elite element penetrated the tumuli proto-celtic world at La Tène Age -

to Aberdeen:
I beg your pardon because you are supporting my party in some way this discussion about cultures, ethnies and namings -
as I said before, the Frankish State based upon Roman Empire remnants has nothing i common with the clannic system of old celtic tribes of bronze or Iron Ages (and germanic, the same) -
the assimilated germanic names in France - not the Alsacian or Flemish modern ones - are very too numerous to be the image of Frankish or Alaman or Burgundian settlers: at some stage, in the countries conquired by germanic elites, their germanic names became the higher snobism (in Italy as well as in Iberia) - but it was stronger in France (ex-Gaul) - the personal names, after that christian names, were overwhelmingly germanic in France (specially in North) before they became surnames (I could give you a list, but it would be very boring so numerous they are) EVEN AMONG GALLO-ROMAN PEOPLE WHO DID NOT SPEAK GERMANIC AT ALL (the placenames, in comparison, are very rare outside the core area of Franks settlements) so the germanic surnames in France are mistaking concerning the true weight of Franks and others in it -

MOESAN
22-11-14, 14:18
to Aberdeen:

that said, I agree with you concerning the pre-State tribes periods

MOESAN
22-11-14, 14:23
a proof of this difference between celtic and germanic (modern sense) tribes in N-W Europe could effectively be in the fact that the most or quasi totality of celtic tribes emigrating southwards came from Belgia and not from other parts of Gaul, closer to Iberia: pression of Germanics tribes gaining ground over the Celts in Germany? the exception could be the Cempsi, supposed to be settled at first just over the mouths of Rhine, and maybe too acquainted to Celts to can stay among their germanic brethren? (but I know the "exception confirming the rule" is a too easy way of reasoning)

Sile
22-11-14, 19:23
[QUOTE=epoch;444393]The Cimbrians that harried the Roman empire with the Teutones in a century before Christ had a king that carried a celtic name (Boiorix) although that could've been a nom the guerre or a nickname.[/QUOTE

for I know it has never be proved Cimbrians were germanic speaking... ir s the very question!!! thay have some traces of scythian inspired art but it seems it's the Celts who were the more in contact with the Scythian world, not the Germanics

The cimbrians from jutland are not the same cimbrians that fought the Romans in Italy..........to eventually still live in the 7 cimbri towns of northern Italy

Greying Wanderer
22-11-14, 23:06
MOESAN


to Grey Wanderers: I repeat we have no proof

Sure, I'm not saying it did happen. I was just suggesting we have a model from Roman times of what can happen when you invite tough tribes into your territory as feoderates so it seems possible to me the same thing might have happened earlier with the Celts. Did any of the chiefs of tribes settled as feoderates by the Romans take Roman names for example?

MOESAN
29-11-14, 00:16
MOESAN



Sure, I'm not saying it did happen. I was just suggesting we have a model from Roman times of what can happen when you invite tough tribes into your territory as feoderates so it seems possible to me the same thing might have happened earlier with the Celts. Did any of the chiefs of tribes settled as feoderates by the Romans take Roman names for example?

I have no data concerning that, sorry - I'll try to find some sources but... It's true that elites are the first ones to change names and dress and habits...