en vrac
Recall of theoriccolonization of the region - I hope I don't forget the principalones -
before Neolithic :unknown for the most
Neolithic : thefirst ones not well known + the Long Barrows period : Atlanticmegalithers with some elements maybe coming from far EastMerditerranea (partially « Sumerianlike » for Coon, maybeS-Caucasus people not far from Black Sea at some stage ? See dolmens in Abkhazia region NW-Caucasus about the 3000 BC? - alreadyY-R1b ? To be checked)
Chalcolithic-Eneolithic :Bell Beakers from the Rhine mouth and maybe Westphaly
Bronze Age : ?maybe some continental Celts ?
Urnfields period: ?seemingly some people (Celts) seemingly from EasternFrance/Switzerland
Iron Age
ther Celts ( ?), Picts ? and Belgae / then : Romans
450-650 :Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisons colonization
later :Norwegian and Dane Vikings with different places of settlements
1066 : Williamthe Bastard and « Normans » plus W-Armoric Bretons andFlemings (Preceltic-Celtic-Germanics mix)
later : nocolonization but infiltration of Western French nobility
the clusteringsystem is a problem to me : I suppose it searches close andpeculiar frequencies of genes among individuals leading to thepossibility to create some geographical groupings : it impliessome arbitrary statement ? Where are the true limits ? Themost precise and fine scaled the cluster is, the most exposed torecent drift it is, unrelated to ancient historical events -
Not the samedepth (number of typical sets of genes leading to the separationfrom others clusters)?
Theses clusters arenot compared to distributions of known pooled componants, ancient orcurrent -
here I would haveprefered a global genetic distance table for all the regions of theIsles ti this clustering system-
2 small branches ofa same population, sharing the same ancestors, and colonizing 2different small regions and isolated for some reason, can haveglobally the same % of genes of every ancient component butpresent a kind of « complementary » (opposed)distribution of some of these genes ; this plus subsequent driftcan create
2 well defined distinct clusters was could not beproduced by greater populations (greater mating circle) – globallythese 2 « distinct » populations shows nevertheless greatressemblance
so short distance when the whole genome isconsidered – (it's the problem I evocated concerning metricsvariations among Amerindians in compartimented mountains of Peru).
ancient regionalfacts :
BBs more in Southernand Eastern England, a bit in Eastern Scotland, modified by other« BBs » =
the Food Vesselpeople from Ireland, with a common element but lack of the otherselements of British BBs, these last ones picked in Preceltic oralready Celtic Germany (it is not so evident) – according tosomeones, BBs pushed back the precedent Long Barrows people wherethey take foot -
+ possibly peoplefrom East-France-Switzerland in Urnfields period, in Kent and maybeEastern Scotland : 'alpine » regions
Belgae settled forthe most in South-East and East England, very few elsewhere but itdoesn't esclude a shift towards West fleeing the Germanics -
Romans settled intowns or on boundaries, with them foreign legions from everywhere inthe Empire, Celts among them : surely few remnants after the450... LOOK DATES
the Anglo-Saxons andFrisons/Jutes settled at first the eastern coastal region of todayEngland : possibility : they absorbed the Brittons/Belgaepeople (or only their females) OR they pushed back the most of themtoward West, principally Wessex (look at some S-W english dialects?S/Z-F/V phenomenon , known in celtic Cornish and some Breton dialectstoday, not without some tendancy among Germanics of West : thisphenomenon generalized by the late progression of german, doesn'tseem genuine in North nor East : Frisons, Englishmen,Scandinaviasn ignore it as seemingly all ancient germanic languages :here a study of old germanic dialects phonetics is needed, I'm notsure, only speculation for east-german history)
Norse settlements :Ireland, Hebrides islands, Orkney/Shetland, Western Scotland shoresand Isle of Man, West Lancashire, some traces in South-Pembroke andSomerset
Middle Ages Vikingssettlements in Wirral-W-Lancashire shew some big drift concerningY-DNA by instance : their Y-DNA is absorbed for the most now ( alesson!) - it is the problem of colonizations by small groups,humans as animals – and here we have too the question ofpre-Anglo-Saxon regional clusters : the most of the regionsconsidered as more Celtic are refuge areas with small density sincelong time ago and so more exposure to drift– so it's hard tomeasure the DNA they shared between them some centuries ago – whatdoes
not push me to think it's only recent drift that explainthe today differences in these refuges – the Neolithic people camesurely in more than a wave and from diverse places even if LongBarrows people seem having had an heavy rôle – the Celts came fromdifferent places (maybe since the « British » BBs?) atdifferent times.
And we know Celtswere for the most pushed back into refuges of Preceltic people (anold law of History)- the Bretons and Belgae living in Central Englandand East or North England before the Saxons were surely not exactlythe same ones as the today Neo-Celts of the Occident shores -
the differencesbetween these refuge zones are maybe due not to the differencebetween Celts only but due more to the differences between Precelticstettlers. So small distances but clear restricted clusters ?
The clusterS-Central England seems to me very too largely and uniformly spred to be « sincere » - he doesn't reflect what anthropologynor Y-Haplos shew us – it ressemble an « average » or« mean » english citizen type (completely unrelated tovariations in Y-DNA haplos) where is smelt Anglo-Saxons + Celts +some Precelts : a cities new populations ? Or genuine localtypes, but with erased differences by the clustering system appliedto big populations or
not isolated small populations (famouscontinuum concept ???)
as you know thereare some studies about the different systems to appreciatedifferences in distributions of traits in population(s) and theclustering : not so simple... THE method can give THE result ?I 'll try to learn but maths explanations with maths « ogams »or « runes » are a punition to me...
So Angela is rightwhen she speak about global short distances between British people,even if it is true too for all the Euroasians –
except that thespotting of individuals in some tables show a span from Irishmen toNorth Frenches, Normands or Bretons, to N-W Germans (so :Belgians and Dutch people) until Norwegians !
By the way the« french » elements present in the Isles is for a partsince Middle Ages, but I think a lot is representative of more than aCeltic/Celtized people wave. I tried ti buy the paper but I had somedifficulty, I 'll try again : maybe I 'll change my thoughts ?
A conclusion ?Perhaps a TOO FINE scale for clustering is not accurate to show realdistances between human groups and to illustrate History? Butdifferent adjustments of the magnifying glass can help to devinedifferent depths of History too so...