Anglo-saxon apartheid led to Germanic gene prevalence in Britain

[Maciamo]

BBC News : Britain 'had apartheid society'

Scientists believe a small population of migrants from Germany, Holland and Denmark established a segregated society when they arrived in England.

The researchers think the incomers changed the local gene pool by using their economic advantage to out-breed the native population.
...
Estimates range between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrating into England between 5th and 7th Century AD, compared with a native population of about two million.
...
"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," Dr Thomas added.

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."

Quite interesting, isn't it ? I wonder how common this kind of passive genocide has been in history. We know that in Japan's case the Korean invadors (about 2000 years ago) mostly replaced the indigenous Ainu population is a similar way. But if Ainu language had now almost completely disappeared, like some British indigenous languages (e.g. Cornish Gaelic), DNA test show that the modern Japanese have inherited about 30% of their genes from the "Jomon" Ainu and 70% from the "Yayoi" Koreans. So in Britain's case, genes survived to a similar extent, but language a bit better thanks to the recent revival of Welsh Gaelic in schools.

Another case is that of the Arabian invasion of North Africa. I have explained in the thread Is there such thing as an Arab race ? that the Maghreban population which now speaks mostly Arabic and is is generally considered as ethnically Arabic, is in fact only very little genetical trace of Arabic blood. So the Arabs mostly converted the indigenes to their religion, and made them adopt their culture and language, but they didn't replace them genetically. (at least not in North Africa).

On a side note, I wonder what proportion of Frankish or Celto-Roman blood the Belgians inherited, as the Franks invaded, settled and dominated the region politically and economically much in the same way as the Anglo-Saxon did in Britain, and both regions' indigenous population were mostly Latinised Celts. What would be interesting to research in Belgium's case is how the linguistic border between the Flemish (Germanic speakers) and Walloons (Latin speakers) came into existence after the Frankish invasion.

[Kinsao]

That's very interesting! Isn't it in the nature of countries that their 'gene pool' gets changed over a period of time by incomers, though? I always thought that the UK 'people' have a very mixed origin - Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, French, Dutch... and probably a lot more races/cultures that invaded the British Isles at various points in its history. It's always seemed a bit more mixed in this way than some other European countries, and I'd put it down to it being an island nation and therefore subject to invasions from lots of different directions.

The researchers think the incomers changed the local gene pool by using their economic advantage to out-breed the native population.

We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid

I'm not entirely sure how those statements from the article fit together. the first statement, although saying that the incomers outbred the native population, also says that they "changed the gene pool". That couldn't have happened unless they had interbred with the 'natives'. If they hadn't, but stuck with "restricting intermarriage" and using an apartheid-like system as the second statement says, in order to become 'dominant' there would just have become more and more of them, and less and less of the native race... rather than a mixture of the two.

Unless the researchers just meant that it happened like that initially, and then sort of degenerated into interbreeding several hundred years down the line...

[Maciamo]

I always thought that the UK 'people' have a very mixed origin - Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, French, Dutch... and probably a lot more races/cultures that invaded the British Isles at various points in its history.

Well all of them are Germanic and closely related. Anglo-Saxons are basically Dutch, North Germans and Danish. Scandinavians also include the Danes, and are "North Germanic" just like the Anglo-Saxon/Dutch. The French who invaded and settled England with William the Conqueror were Normands ("Northmen"), who were no more than Danes (yes again !) who had settled in France during the Viking invasions - the same as those that had settled in Northern England ! In fact, the two main protagonists of the battle of Hastings in 1066 (Harold II of England vs William I of Normandy) were distant cousins, both of Danish (Viking) descent. In other words, English people are "North Germanic", closest to the Dutch, Saxons (North Germans) and Danes.

[Kinsao]

I kinda figured that... but these days, most people in England are from many different origins, rather than from the 'original stock' as one might say.

I suppose if you look deeply enough, you can find one place that everyone came from! Well, I exaggerate a bit, but probably there's one origin of European peoples. Maybe...

[DavidCoutts]

The Anglo-Saxon/Germanic genes may be prevailent in England, but they hardly seem to have made a dent in Scotland; last time I checked we are mainly Celtic, gentically speaking.

[rms2]

The report that article is based on has been around for awhile. I'm not sure how accurate its conclusions are.

There is an awful lot of L21 in England. One would have to argue that most of it was brought to what is now England by the Anglo-Saxons in order to maintain the wipe-out/apartheid argument.

I think the process by which what is now England came to be English speaking was more complex and nuanced than what is conveyed in that rather sensational report.

But there does seem to be a lot of L21 in Normandy. Maybe the Normans practiced a little wipe-out/apartheid on the Anglo-Saxons?

Turnabout is fair play, as they say.

[^ lynx ^]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j617mImHVvk

[Joro]

That's very interesting! Isn't it in the nature of countries that their 'gene pool' gets changed over a period of time by incomers, though? I always thought that the UK 'people' have a very mixed origin - Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, French, Dutch...

That is all Germanic,excluding the French who,however,certainly have significant Germanic admixture.

[Chris]

The Anglo-Saxon/Germanic genes may be prevailent in England, but they hardly seem to have made a dent in Scotland; last time I checked we are mainly Celtic, gentically speaking.

Overall, this is a more complex subject than the more simplistic solutions put forward with such certainty by a number of experts, I suspect. Likewise, the following may or may not be accurate, but is food for thought:

(From 'Anglo-Saxon Britain' by Grant Allen)


...Nor must we suppose that this first wave of Scandinavian conquest in any way swamped or destroyed the underlying English population of the North. The conquerors came merely as a "host," or army of occupation, not as a body of rural colonists. They left the conquered English in possession of their homes, though they seized upon the manors for themselves, and kept the higher dignities of the vanquished provinces in their own hands. Being rapidly converted to Christianity, they amalgamated readily with the native people. Few women came over with them, and intermarriage with the English soon broke down the wall of separation. The archbishopric of York continued its succession uninterruptedly throughout the Danish occupation. The Bishops of Elmham lived through the stormy period; those of Leicester transferred their see to Dorchester-on-the-Thames; those of Lichfield apparently kept up an unbroken series. We may gather that beneath the surface the North remained just as steadily English under the Danish princes as the whole country afterwards remained steadily English under the Norman kings.


There was, however, one section of the true English race which kept itself largely free from the Scandinavian host. North of the Tyne the Danes apparently spread but sparsely; English ealdormen continued to rule at Bamborough over the land between Forth and Tyne. Hence Northumberland and the Lothians remained more purely English than any other part of Britain. The people of the South are Saxons: the people of the West are half Celts; the people of the North and the Midlands are largely intermixed with Danes; but the people of the Scottish lowlands, from Forth to Tweed, are almost purely English; and the dialect which we always describe as Scotch is the strongest, the tersest, and the most native modern form of the original Anglo-Saxon tongue. If we wish to find the truest existing representative of the genuine pure-blooded English race, we must look for him, not in Mercia or in Wessex, but amongst the sturdy and hard-headed farmers of Tweedside and Lammermoor.."

[willy]

The Anglo-Saxon/Germanic genes may be prevailent in England, but they hardly seem to have made a dent in Scotland; last time I checked we are mainly Celtic, gentically speaking.

I agree !!!

[genetic code]

yes you are picts and true britons genetically speaking
but if you realy r1a1a as you write than you are probably descendent of norse viking
who make fun during the viking era
regards genetic code

[willy]

yes you are picts and true britons genetically speaking
but if you realy r1a1a as you write than you are probably descendent of norse viking
who make fun during the viking era
regards genetic code

I am not sure about my ancestors but about you if you are realy e1b1b1bc1 as you write I wondering about your ancestors ? I will be interested

regards Willy

[genetic code]

since you ask i am middle eastern my ancestor was born in damascus syria
e1b1b1c1 is present in syria in 5% i could be descendts of jews who were in syria for thousand of years mainluy damascus and antiocia my clade is middle eastern
bu there is ocuurence in mediterreanean cost for example m34 4% in ibizia
5% minorca 3.5% sardinia probably descendents of the jewish legion sent by tiberius in 19 Ad also in sicily 4.7% so it is rare in europe but not so much in mediterreanean coast
more than r1a1 in those araes thats for sure
in europe itcould be pheonician there is on e famous english man calle dwilliam harvey who discovered the circulation of bloode belong to the same haplogroup as mine e1b1b1c1 he could be descendt of jews back in time since many jews were in rouen normandy many of them converted to chrisatianity just before the norman invasion .
another e1b1b1c1 confirmed by the e3b project is norman darcy comapanian of william the conquer and lord justice of ireland
regards genetic code

[rms2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j617mImHVvk

Dated material, just like the study that forms the basis of this thread.

R-L21 is probably the most frequent R1b1b2 subclade in all of the British Isles, including England.

So, how does one prove the L21 in England is "Anglo-Saxon" and somehow different from the L21 in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland?

[Chris]

R-L21 is probably the most frequent R1b1b2 subclade in all of the British Isles, including England.

So, how does one prove the L21 in England is "Anglo-Saxon" and somehow different from the L21 in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland?

Is there a user-friendly web link that illustrates (a) the various sub-clades in the UK, and (b) their likely origins, based on most recent research?

[rms2]

Is there a user-friendly web link that illustrates (a) the various sub-clades in the UK, and (b) their likely origins, based on most recent research?

Not that I know of. This site probably has the most comprehensive information all in one place anywhere, thanks to Maciamo.

[rms2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j617mImHVvk

By the way, I have tried twice to post a response to that YouTube clip, merely mentioning that it is very dated material that does not take into account the latest developments in genetics.

Neither of my posts has been approved. Apparently the original poster has an anti-English agenda. He wants there to be some kind of clear ethnic distinction between the English and the rest of Britain's inhabitants.

So much for truth!

[JackMack]

The Anglo-Saxon theory of Britian has now been debunked....It seems that most of the people in England have more DNA of the old Britons than Anglo-Saxon. I guess apartheid didn't happen there. This post is another example of many on this site that are based on opinion and not fact.

[Maciamo]

The Anglo-Saxon theory of Britian has now been debunked....It seems that most of the people in England have more DNA of the old Britons than Anglo-Saxon. I guess apartheid didn't happen there. This post is another example of many on this site that are based on opinion and not fact.

You are right. I posted the topic from this BBC article 4 years ago. In the meantime I have written a summary of what is known of British genetics. It emerged that the pre-Germanic lineages are indeed much more common than was expected - around 40% of all lineages in England. But a strong east-west gradient does exist. In East Anglia and Yorkshire the percentage of Germanic Y-DNA exceeds 80%. Close to the Welsh border it can drop to under 20%.

[^ lynx ^]

By the way, I have tried twice to post a response to that YouTube clip, merely mentioning that it is very dated material that does not take into account the latest developments in genetics.

Neither of my posts has been approved. Apparently the original poster has an anti-English agenda. He wants there to be some kind of clear ethnic distinction between the English and the rest of Britain's inhabitants.

So much for truth!

That's disgusting. I just want to state that I'm not related in anyway to the uploader of that video.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I think Maciamo's research and opinions provide something considerably closer to reality. There is a Basque / Iberian genetic substratum in the British Isles, however, the Germanic tribes and Nordics made significant contributions as well. In any case, the English are hardly all Germanic.

[Chris]

Nothing can be ruled in or out, as no-one knows.
- As Maciano points out, Germanic Y DNA is strongly regional in England; some extremely high, some low.

- Almost all place names in England are Anglo-Saxon in origin, as is the language - not Celtic. (The ‘Celts’ did not exist as a homogenous entity anyway. They were tribes that shared much in common culturally, but the term was coined in the early 18th century). One way or the other, the Germanic tribes dominated and established the core of English culture.

Genetically - as I understand it - the overwhelming majority of an individual's DNA/appearance is due to paternal/maternal ancestry of within 400-500 years. Every English person will have a mixture of DNA derived from our ancestral past. The Y haplogroup is a paternal 'signature' pointing to the origins of one's paternal line but does not describe the holistic entity of who we are.

[Eochaidh]

You are right. I posted the topic from this BBC article 4 years ago. In the meantime I have written a summary of what is known of British genetics. It emerged that the pre-Germanic lineages are indeed much more common than was expected - around 40% of all lineages in England. But a strong east-west gradient does exist. In East Anglia and Yorkshire the percentage of Germanic Y-DNA exceeds 80%. Close to the Welsh border it can drop to under 20%.

There is a nice map on another page on Eupedia that shows this gradient.

I can't post a link, but here is how to see it.

Go to the 'Facts & Trivia' page from the top menu.
Under 'Maps of Europe', click the fifth one called 'Map of main ethnic groups in Europe'.

[rms2]

I think Maciamo's research and opinions provide something considerably closer to reality. There is a Basque / Iberian genetic substratum in the British Isles, however, the Germanic tribes and Nordics made significant contributions as well. In any case, the English are hardly all Germanic.

Er . . . uh, "Basque/Iberian substratum"?

And that is represented by what?

[Wilhelm]

Er . . . uh, "Basque/Iberian substratum"?

And that is represented by what?

Yes :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/sc...rits.html?_r=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nly-Spain.html
http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/public...chilli2004.pdf