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

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/actio...e=online&aid=8892531&fileId=S0079497X00002012


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.
 
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' -
 
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-1Cambridgshire, UKMaleR-L151K1a1b1b2500-1800 years
Hinxton-2Cambridgshire, UKF999921FemaleH2a2b12500-1800 yearsHinxton-2 Analysis
Hinxton-3Cambridgshire, UKF999922FemaleK1a4a1a2b2500-1800 yearsHinxton-3 Analysis
Hinxton-4Cambridgshire, UKF999925MaleR-DF25H1ag12500-1800 yearsHinxton-4 has X-Matches with living people
Hinxton-5Cambridgshire, UKF999926FemaleH2a2a12500-1800 yearsHinxton5 Ancient DNA Analysis


http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinxtons-are-related-to-each-other.html

:giggle:


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!
 
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.
 
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/courses/lx310/handouts/handouts-09/ringe/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").
 
Keep open what possibility, 'there's always been a Flanders'? ;)

What?!? Are we going to have an "agenda ***** fight"? Seriously?? Well, not with me, Taranis. Not with me. EDIT: ;)

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.

Sorry, that was Brinno of the Cananefates.

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.

But that is not what I suggested. I suggested a very fuzzy contact zone where Germanics ans Celts mixed and Celtic goddesses got Germanic suffixes, Celts claimed Germanic origins and mixed tribes lived. That is what I consider a contact zone, and I know of a number of Dutch archeologists that hold similar opinions.

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").

The word could also be simply be derived from Latin. I recall the cult being connected to the Ubii.
 
Last edited:
What?!? Are we going to have an "agenda ***** fight"? Seriously?? Well, not with me, Taranis. Not with me.

The " ;) " should have been a giveaway: I wasn't really serious with that comment. If you got that wrong, I would hereby like to honestly apologize. I don't think we're going to have an agenda fight because 1) I for one have no agenda (other than maybe "if you have a hypothesis, you need data to back it up" :p ) and 2) our opinions don't seem to be that different.

Sorry, that was Brinno of the Cananefates.

The Canananefates were a tribe of the Rhine Delta (from approximately the area around modern Den Haag, I think), and they were certainly Germanic.

But that is not what I suggested. I suggested a very fuzzy contact zone where Germanics ans Celts mixed and Celtic goddesses got Germanic suffixes, Celts claimed Germanic origins and mixed tribes lived. That is what I consider a contact zone, and I know of a number of Dutch archeologists that hold similar opinions.

This I totally agree on. My point merely is that the focus point is towards the vicinity of the Rhine (at least in the West) - at least before the Migration Period (that event, of course, changed the situation considerably).

The word could also be simply be derived from Latin. I recall the cult being connected to the Ubii.

Yes, it could be Latin, too: the Latin word for 'mother' is "mater", and Latin, like the Celtic languages, preserves *ā where Proto-Germanic shifts it to *ō.
 
The " ;) " should have been a giveaway: I wasn't really serious with that comment. If you got that wrong, I would hereby like to honestly apologize. I don't think we're going to have an agenda fight because 1) I for one have no agenda (other than maybe "if you have a hypothesis, you need data to back it up" :p )

Neither was I, Taranis. There is absolutely no need for apology. I should have written a smiley as well.

and 2) our opinions don't seem to be that different.

True.

The Canananefates were a tribe of the Rhine Delta (from approximately the area around modern Den Haag, I think), and they were certainly Germanic.

Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.

This I totally agree on. My point merely is that the focus point is towards the vicinity of the Rhine (at least in the West) - at least before the Migration Period (that event, of course, changed the situation considerably).



Yes, it could be Latin, too: the Latin word for 'mother' is "mater", and Latin, like the Celtic languages, preserves *ā where Proto-Germanic shifts it to *ō.

The thing is, so many things that we thought of as debunked came back with a vengeance. You never know..
 
Wow a lot of technical stuff so what is the verdict now
 
Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.

so everybody can say what he want: latin tribe names, latin placenames, people latin names, genetic differences : all that is without any value so where is the problem???
everybody is free! I like that... freedom
 
latin people never stayed in Italy! they arrived there lately?
 
more seriously my opinion is that this concept of mixed tribes has to be proved before building theories: people can sexually mix and cross easier than cultures: what criteria we have? language (when we have the chance to find traces) - I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).
the ebglish example is the perfect opposite to what I wrote above but this mixed culture (linguistically) was born in a STATE CONTEXT even if feudal, it was, I think, impossible in a clanic context as it was in Iron Ages or before in Northern Europe -
but I'm far here from the genuine topic
good evening
 
What is the autasomal DNA diffrence between some from Cornwall and someone from Norfolk wouldn't there be a difference?
 
Which goes to show how little we can derive from someone bearing a Celtic name, is what I meant to say.

so everybody can say what he want: latin tribe names, latin placenames, people latin names, genetic differences : all that is without any value so where is the problem???
everybody is free! I like that... freedom

No no no, Moesan. What I meant to say was that Celtic names were once fashionable amongst Germanics. Just as Germanic names were fashionable amongst Gauls under the Merovingians. Actually, a lot of current day French names still are of Germanic origin. So a Germanic carrying a Celtic does mot make that man a Celt.

Sorry. No freedom ;)
 
I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).

The Cimbrians that harried the Roman empire with the Teutones in a century before Christ had a king that carried a celtic name (Boiorix) although that could've been a nom the guerre or a nickname.
 
Maciamo,what about the Siberian admixture,from K12?
From current day populations,Finns have it and also North Russians,I guess North Swedes and North Norwegians should have also,do you think is from Hunns in the Anglo-Saxon 1?
And how come current day Britons do not have anymore African admixture,neither Siberian+East Asian?
EDIT:
Found this,considering the population from those days Denmark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen#Other_names
"In the eighth century the inrush of the Vikings in force began to be felt all over Pictland. These Vikings were pagans and savages of the most unrestrained and pitiless type. They were composed of Finn-Gall or Norwegians, and of Dubh-Gall or Danes. The latter were a mixed breed, with a Hunnish strain in them.[5]"
So if the genetic material of Anglo-Saxon-1 is from about 1300 years ago,it is said that around 8th century,so that can be very good a little after the year 700,exactly from the period when the Vikings were raiding there.
R1b-L11 could show very well Danish origins.
 
Last edited:
more seriously my opinion is that this concept of mixed tribes has to be proved before building theories: people can sexually mix and cross easier than cultures: what criteria we have? language (when we have the chance to find traces) - I have some hard work figuring out something as two populations mixing and creating a melting pot new culture more or less in balance - ONE culture overgoes the other even if incorporating some language substrata of this other: but as some final stage the selfconscience of tribe members is in accord with the dominant culture of this trive: they speak germanic, or they speak celtic, so they name theirselves "Germans" (classical meaning) or "Celts" - and I've some difficulty too to believe they took celtic names when they were germanic speakers and gave celtic names to their setlements (or the reverse).
the ebglish example is the perfect opposite to what I wrote above but this mixed culture (linguistically) was born in a STATE CONTEXT even if feudal, it was, I think, impossible in a clanic context as it was in Iron Ages or before in Northern Europe -
but I'm far here from the genuine topic
good evening

How many settlement names in the US have either Latin names or names originally given by displaced natives and how many personal names come from Latin?

So if Celtic culture was much more advanced when the Teutonics first made contact and they took some settlements off Celts after they'd got used to calling it by the original Celtic name then maybe the same things happened?

(I'd guess this is only likely to happen in the border zone between the two cultures.)
 
No no no, Moesan. What I meant to say was that Celtic names were once fashionable amongst Germanics. Just as Germanic names were fashionable amongst Gauls under the Merovingians. Actually, a lot of current day French names still are of Germanic origin. So a Germanic carrying a Celtic does mot make that man a Celt.

Sorry. No freedom ;)



your comparing things that cannot be compared so simplisticly
Celts and Germanics at these time had not huge territories, "national", as Franks had after having put their feet in the ancient Roman boundaries in a political world fashioned by the Romans i think - so I have some difficulty to swallow Celts tribes had Germanics minorities inside their small territorries: old clans lands were NOT big states territories - I think at some time these clans were more attached to ligneages than to ground even if it changed progressively -
we know (by linguistic for the most, Cleyts have had influence upon the first Germanics at some stage of forces desiquilibrium BUT WE HAVE NO PROOF FOR I KNOW OF CELTS RULING GERMANICS AND INCORPORATING THEM INTO A POLITICAL FRAME creatong a cultural mixed cuntry, so we have yet to prove genuine proud Germanics took Celtic personal names . I don't say it is impossbile, I say it's a very easy way to say what we want to say without any proof...
 
The Cimbrians that harried the Roman empire with the Teutones in a century before Christ had a king that carried a celtic name (Boiorix) although that could've been a nom the guerre or a nickname.[/QUOTE

for I know it has never be proved Cimbrians were germanic speaking... ir s the very question!!! thay have some traces of scythian inspired art but it seems it's the Celts who were the more in contact with the Scythian world, not the Germanics
 

This thread has been viewed 133539 times.

Back
Top