dna in the British isles

There are quite a few videos about the history of English on youtube. Fairly interesting if you ask me!
 
nordicwarbler said:
We can't forget the Danes (Dane Law) which would have been considered Vikings, albiet from Jutland and not Norway. Do you find there is an identifiable accent or speech pattern in what was considered the Danelaw territory Jackson?

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

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

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

The thing i find really interesting about are language that a lot of people seem to overlook is that what we know as modern English has only become spoken across most of the country in fairly recent times, go back a couple of centuries or more and most regions had a large number of 'dialect' speakers, these typically retain a lot more vocabulary, ways of speaking (I forget the technical term for it, devices maybe?) and even accents from older times. The core of the Danelaw runs through most of Yorkshire down through Lincolnshire into parts of the East Midlands, and also in parts of Norfolk and Suffolk - The Danelaw extended beyond this but there doesn't seem to have been much Danish settlement beyond these areas.
 
Licnolnshire:
 
I love the sung version of Beowulf early on in this video:
 
adamo said:
I really like MOESAN's way of doing things. But one must realize that within the homo sapien sapien branch of hominids anthropology can sometimes be incorrect or not precise enough such as claiming red hair men is all in the same subgroup or race of caucasoid men, vague conclusions, language families are no clear link between saying both linguistically similar groups are of the same genetics , considering things such as the victorious cultures influence over the defeated, for example Latin language in Romania because of the Roman Empire in a nation that is significantly genetically diverse from the original modern day Italians. ( original Romanians where referred to as Dacians). And even history, at times, is no good indicator of genetics because there are many exceptions to the rule, for example the I2a Ostrogoths passed through and set up the ostrogothic kingdom in Italy but barely, if even, genetically affected it. The Huns moved into Europe but there's literally almost no Y-DNA C and Q in Europe which would be their genetic marker under Attila the Hun. One must use excellent judgement when it comes to history for example yes, modern day Iraqis are very representative of their ancient Mesopotamian ( Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian) roots still harbouring much J2 and even J1 today. Movements of armies/people's didn't always affect/modify the genetic structures of nations they arrived in even in places where some invading groups stayed for hundreds of years....but genetics is very frequently a clear indicator of population affinities tat when further analyzed can yield detailed results. With dating techniques and the help of global hotspots for the particular haplogroup and migrational maps with links to prior haplogroups suggesting how this hg got there, or can even correctly estimate where a certain haplogroup first originated
Click to expand...

Your post is not without sense so I agree but I like going further in details: so I believe linguistic (don't confuse offical language classifications with phonetical/structural discrepancies in dialects that learn us very more than official language alone, at least for substrata) and genetics can help to "correct" history, in first place official written history -
but what I was defending is that, as a whole, the scientists (not everytime official) traditional history doesn ' t tell us a to much lies! and by example, I see rather a confirmation of history and linguistic in the genetical makeup of the Great Isles (and Jackson gave you some useful pecisions about R1b) - in recent past we saw changings of languages, as you say, in the new romance speaking countries, but here history confirms it to us - and the very very diverging results of latinized population is too a confirmation of this linguistic changes (I leare a lot by giving a glance to dialects, in every language I could) -
concerning HGs, they are an indication, not the Bible, but they keep some worth about male elites!
&: by the way, i'm a bit amazed by the link you put between Ostrogoths and Y-I2a: on what ground do you base that? what kind of data have we to imagine that - if you have some "food" for me, i thank you beofrehand - &: for the Huns we knew yet they were a mix of steppes tribes where europoids germanic, slavic, iranic and turkic speaking people had a big weight... true history knew that - the same for Avars -
 
I heard on these very threads people saying they where very sure the Ostrogoths where i2a, how I do not know but I ended up taking their word for it somehow lol
 
I cannot be sure but I bet they have a lot of Y-I1 and Y-R1a, plus some taste of Y-R1b-U106 - surely on the road they took some Y-I2a1b and I2ab and other but not too much ...? the only reliable way to know is ancient DNA surveys, as ever -
 
Jackson said:
Click to expand...

thanks
some morphologic traits seems archaic germanic ones compared to modern official english (according to what it is said in the document) but for general phonetics, I was amazed to find some affinities with irish (south) english!
 
Man, this is all so fascinating!
So I would love to start a conversation of hypotheses. I am doing genealogical research, of which has included a LOT of personal genetic research. Ken Nordtvedt and I have emailing back & forth for a while now. He has been patient enough to answer my endless list of questions about my ydna results. So I am i1, Z58+, Z139+, Z2541+. Ken has said that most carriers of Z2541 are confined to the British Isles, more specifically Eastern Scotland. The weird curve ball in all this is that the estimated time of mutation of subclade Z2541 was 2000 years ago! So We're talking the Roman era. What are your ideas on the presence of i1 in Eastern Scotland 2000 yrs ago? Are there any well-known historical explanations for this?
Some of you have already touched on this, but I would love to hear your further theories. Could this be Chauci?
-Sven
 
tumi said:
I have finished reading two books on this subject that has changed my assumptions about I1 and indeed other ystr groups origins in the UK and Ireland.The books are (the origin of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer and Blood of the Isles by Brian Sykes)they have seriously challenged a lot of preconcieved perceptions I have and from what little I have read on these forums eg anglo saxon and (celtic) migrations into the Isles including scandinavian that others hold about any british ancestry they have.
Now I have many nagging doubts about displacement of (celts) in england and indeed were there any here before the romans arrived?Also were the inhabitants of england pre roman of north western origin as opposed to Iberian celto atlantic coast migrants?
Click to expand...

Sorry to reply to an old post, but I've just joined the forum, and am interested in Y haplotype I1 in Scotland, and I found your comments interesting. I haven't read either book, but book reviews suggest that both authors are trying to draw conclusions about the language and culture of ancient Britain on the basis of contemporary DNA, but I think that's definitely the wrong approach to take in an island that has had as much to-ing and fro-ing as Britain. People can and do change their language and culture, as one can see from the continued disappearance of Gaelic from the Scottish highlands, and DNA percentages also change over time where you have a dynamic population. I personally think it's important to try to relate genetics to history and archeology before trying to draw any conclusions.
 
tumi said:
What both books agree on is that I1 was already present in england even before the comparatively small anglo saxon invasion of the dark ages and that anglian as opposed to saxon were southern scandinavian iin origin and already were familiar with pre roman anglians which might explain why there is no archeological evidence for pre invasion genocide or ethnic cleansing also why they were easily able to blend in.There is no evidence of celtic culture in england to date and a marked difference in dna between one side of offas dyke and the other even allowing for y-gata h4.The runes used by anglians were of the scandinavian type whilst in saxon areas no rune evidence has been found.
Click to expand...

Actually, archeologist such as Miranda Green describe plenty of evidence of Celtic material culture and iconography and, from during the period of the Roman occupation, some inscriptions written using the Roman alphabet to write in proto-Welsh. And Roman writers such as Julius Caesar and Tacitus describe a Celtic population in Britain. I'm not aware of them describing any groups that appeared to be Germanic. Even within the last century, Cumbrian shepherds counted sheep using numbers that seemed to be related to Welsh, although I know that's in northeastern England. But I seem to remember some historian referring to a Celtic dialect in central England that only died out in Shakepearian times - sorry I don't remember the source - I'll try to find it. But maybe you could clarify your comment that there's no evidence of Celtic culture in England to date. That statement doesn't seem to me to fit with the archeological or historical material that I've read.
 
I1 is found in only about 10% of Scottish males; it isn't frequent. It is probably due to minor Viking colonization; the overwhelming majority of Scottish men have a Celtic y-DNA marker (R1b is found in 70-80% of Scottish males) and not a Nordic/Scandinav marker as yours is (if you test positive for I1a). You are a rarity within your country but the Irish have even less I1 (5-7% I believe, minor highs of 10%). The English though have about 15-20% I1 on a national level, meaning that southeastern England near the Danelaw region has the highest I1 frequencies in the British isles.
 
The countries with the world's highest I1 frequencies of course are; Sweden and Norway, where 40% of men belong to it, and Denmark has 35% as well. I would say precisely that 45% of swedish men and 40% of Norwegian men are I1 whereas 30% of Danes have it and Germany, England have 15-20%; depending on studies the French have between 8-16% (it is a rare but present substratum among them that maxes out at 15%) and is found in about 10% of czech's; whereas being found in an eight to a fifth of English and German men, it is more of a "present" substratum among them.
 
Ah yes, I forgot to mention the Finns who have 25-30% I1 as well.
 
Aberdeen said:
Actually, archeologist such as Miranda Green describe plenty of evidence of Celtic material culture and iconography and, from during the period of the Roman occupation, some inscriptions written using the Roman alphabet to write in proto-Welsh. And Roman writers such as Julius Caesar and Tacitus describe a Celtic population in Britain. I'm not aware of them describing any groups that appeared to be Germanic. Even within the last century, Cumbrian shepherds counted sheep using numbers that seemed to be related to Welsh, although I know that's in northeastern England. But I seem to remember some historian referring to a Celtic dialect in central England that only died out in Shakepearian times - sorry I don't remember the source - I'll try to find it. But maybe you could clarify your comment that there's no evidence of Celtic culture in England to date. That statement doesn't seem to me to fit with the archeological or historical material that I've read.
Click to expand...

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

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

Northwestern! Otherwise, good post. Looks like we're delving into the sorts of claims made by proto-english (see this thread).

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

The trouble with the Normans is that they were likely as mixed as the Anglo-Saxon/Briton blend they conquered. They may have had more R1b-U152 and less R1b-L21 or something, but it's hard to say exactly how much, and that goes for I1 as well. I don't doubt that some I1 in Britain comes from the Normans, but I doubt that, for any given British I1 sample, Norman is a good first guess. In your case, do you have French matches?
 
sparkey said:
Northwestern! Otherwise, good post. Looks like we're delving into the sorts of claims made by proto-english ... .



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

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

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

This thread has been viewed 43975 times.

Back
Top