dna in the British isles

[tumi]

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

[adamo]

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

[adamo]

It was brought to England by Viking coastal colonizations from Norwegians/swedes and also by certain Danes ( the highest I1a concentrations in England are on the eastern coast in the Danelaw regions.)

[Anthro-inclined]

It was brought to England by Viking coastal colonizations from Norwegians/swedes and also by certain Danes ( the highest I1a concentrations in England are on the eastern coast in the Danelaw regions.)

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

[tumi]

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

[MOESAN]

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

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

[Anthro-inclined]

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

The Saxons came from Saxony and the Angles came from a region in northern Germany or south Jutland, I can understand classifying the latter as Scandinavian but the Saxons were not. If the Anglo Saxon migration was minimal how come England pocesses almost 40% R1b-U106, usually a marker of Germanic peoples, and much lower frequencies of R1b-L21, which is found in its highest frequencies in Ireland. Also what do you mean there is no evidence of celtic culture in England, plenty of stones, and ruins with celtic inscriptions have been found, not to mention the Cornish language which still persists in South West England.

[tumi]

The Saxons came from Saxony and the Angles came from a region in northern Germany or south Jutland, I can understand classifying the latter as Scandinavian but the Saxons were not. If the Anglo Saxon migration was minimal how come England pocesses almost 40% R1b-U106, usually a marker of Germanic peoples, and much lower frequencies of R1b-L21, which is found in its highest frequencies in Ireland. Also what do you mean there is no evidence of celtic culture in England, plenty of stones, and ruins with celtic inscriptions have been found, not to mention the Cornish language which still persists in South West England.

I,m sorry I have not put it very well.Cornwall was not in england realy untill the west saxons finally invaded and previously was known as west wales to anglosaxons.I dont know of celtic inscriptions in england but agree about standing stones and henges although in not in england as a whole,mainly in the south west.
Regarding the germanic subject.The minimal invasion I referred to was the dark age migration.These authors conclude that anglo saxon south scandinavian migration did not happen only after the legions left but had been happening well before the romans arrived and it is the celtic clerics Gildas and Nennius that stated that large numbers of saxons invaded and slaughtered the britons but there is no evidence ie mass graves most telling is Bede does not mention any slaughter.Gildas and Nennius had an agenda of their own as the invaders were pagan!

[tumi]

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

[adamo]

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

[adamo]

Significantly more THAN Scotland wow sorry guys typo lol

[adamo]

As for my haplogroup I theory going to England, another correction....

[Anthro-inclined]

As for my haplogroup I theory going to England, another correction....

You can edit your posts, you dont need to keep posting new ones.

[adamo]

Thanks I just saw that lol what a sorry ass moron I am

[Anthro-inclined]

Thanks I just saw that lol what a sorry ass moron I am

Dont worry about it, not that big a deal.

[nordicwarrior]

...I 'm a bit tired with the huge number of extravagant theories that come under light(with great regularity it's true) trying everytime to kill definitively "the father" and the official theories...

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

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

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

[spruithean]

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

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

[adamo]

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

[MOESAN]

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

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

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

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

[MOESAN]

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

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

[adamo]

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

[nordicwarrior]

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

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

[adamo]

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

[Jackson]

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

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

[adamo]

Yes that is correct thank you for the minor correction, very good extra details : )