Autosomal analysis of the genomes of Iron Age Britons and Anglo-Saxons

[epoch]

I commented on this over in linguistics in a recent thread.

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]

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-" ), 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...

[Sile]

I do not know why people are still mentioning Anglo-saxon for these Hinxton finds.
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]

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-" ), 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...

"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]

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]

I do not know why people are still mentioning Anglo-saxon for these Hinxton finds.
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]

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]

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]

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]

Was there a final news which genome belongs to whom?

[Sile]

!!!
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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Cambridgshire, UK

Male

R-L151

K1a1b1b

2500-1800 years

Hinxton-2	Cambridgshire, UK	F999921	Female		H2a2b1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-2 Analysis
Hinxton-3	Cambridgshire, UK	F999922	Female		K1a4a1a2b	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-3 Analysis
Hinxton-4	Cambridgshire, UK	F999925	Male	R-DF25	H1ag1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-4 has X-Matches with living people
Hinxton-5	Cambridgshire, UK	F999926	Female		H2a2a1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton5 Ancient DNA Analysis

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinx...ach-other.html

[Greying Wanderer]

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]

If it's 500BC to 200AD that makes a slight difference :)

[Aberdeen]

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]

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]

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]

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...79497X00002012


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]

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]

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

Cambridgshire, UK

Male

R-L151

K1a1b1b

2500-1800 years

Hinxton-2	Cambridgshire, UK	F999921	Female		H2a2b1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-2 Analysis
Hinxton-3	Cambridgshire, UK	F999922	Female		K1a4a1a2b	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-3 Analysis
Hinxton-4	Cambridgshire, UK	F999925	Male	R-DF25	H1ag1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton-4 has X-Matches with living people
Hinxton-5	Cambridgshire, UK	F999926	Female		H2a2a1	2500-1800 years	Hinxton5 Ancient DNA Analysis

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinx...ach-other.html

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]

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-" ), 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]

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/cou...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").