The Coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain

[real expert]

@real expert … if they weren't sure, they would have added: _possible at the end of the label, for example:
Roman_Medieval_ possible:R1291

Here's a quote from Razib Khan. He illustrates based on facts why he became very skeptical of scientists from his field and I share his skepticism.

Here is an example I’ll give…in June of 2020 academics of all fields endorsed BLM marches after being COVID hawks. The reason was obviously ideological, but there were some statistics papers showing that the marches didn’t have a contagion effect later in the summer. Because these were less infectious forms of COVID and the marches were outside this is not implausible on the face of it (though many of the marches and protests in many areas just masked the reality that people also wanted to party, indoors). A friend of mine who is a statistician at an R1 university looked at the paper a year later and concluded that it was trash; the statistics were crap and they couldn’t draw any conclusion. So why did the paper showing that “the science” proved that the marches weren’t conducive to COVID spread get published and repeated in the press? Because they supported the view that academics wanted to be true, so all the extreme professional skepticism and methodological rigor went out the window. This is obviously a problem. If academics want something to be ideologically true..they now seem to be willing to go along with people just making things up.

[traveller]

Here is another example of a SSA person (based on measurements) dated to Anglo-Saxon times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...-Saxon_England

Googling for "Fairford skull" will get you more stories, but I couln't locate any scientific articles.

[traveller]

Here's some information from the supplements of the article about the EAS location. The EAS003 sample is missing from the sample list though. As to whether the EAS003 burial is more recent, archeologists are trained to look for disturbancies in soil layers.

Eastry Updown, Dover District, Kent


The early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Updown, Eastry (or Eastry III) was excavated in 1976 by S.C. Hawkes in front of a water pipe and 1989 by Kent Rescue Unit. There are at least four cemeteries in Eastry and it has been suggested that it was an important centre within early medieval Kent. Eastry is part of a wealthy group of cemeteries in East Kent. The two phases of work on this site have identified a total of 78 inhumation graves dating to the seventh century and at least 19 small mounds (Supp. Fig. 1.3). There are a range of grave goods from Eastry including jewellery items and weapons, but notably the cemetery includes imported objects from the Frankish continent and even a Byzantine buckle and Amethyst Beads9.

Screenshot 2022-12-06 at 17.43.26.jpg

[traveller]

This is the list of identified samples.

Grave 34 ESBW-89-33 Petrous EAS001
Grave 45 ESBSW-89-44 Petrous EAS002
Grave 48 ESBW-89-47 Petrous EAS004
Grave 37 EST 84 Tooth EAS005
Grave 52 EST 84 Tooth EAS006

The figure above also identifies grave 47. Possibly this is the EAS003 location.

[Philjames100]

There's also the story from Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 1136), who says that Gormund, the 'King of the Africans', invaded Ireland and Britain and was allied with the Saxons against the Britons. Some people have suggested that Gormund was a Vandal king.

Chapter 8. Britain, in the flame of a civil war under king Careticus, is miserably wasted by the Saxons and Africans.

"After Malgo succeeded Careticus, a lover of civil war, and hateful to God and to the Britons. The Saxons, discovering his fickle disposition, went to Ireland for Gormund, king of the Africans, who had arrived there with a very great fleet, and had subdued that country. From thence, at their traitorous instigation, he sailed over into Britain, which the perfidious Saxons in one part, in another the Britons by their continual wars among themselves were wholly laying waste. Entering therefore into alliance with the Saxons, he made war upon king Careticus, and after several battles fought, drove him from city to city, till at length he forced him to Cirecester, and there besieged him. Here Isembard, the nephew of Lewis, king of the Franks, came and made a league of amity with him, and out of respect to him renounced the Christian faith, on condition that he would assist him to gain the kingdom of Gaul from his uncle, by whom, he said, he was forcibly and unjustly expelled out of it. At last, after taking and burning the city, he had another fight with Careticus, and made him flee beyond the Severn into Wales. He then made an utter devastation of the country, set fire to the adjacent cities, and continued these outrages until he had almost burned up the whole surface of the island from the one sea to the other; so that the tillage was everywhere destroyed, and a general destruction made of the husbandmen and clergy, with fire and sword. This terrible calamity caused the rest to flee whithersoever they had any hopes of safety."

Geoffrey of Monmouth - History of the Kings of Britain, p.195
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/geoffrey_thompson.pdf

[Philjames100]

"Some people", for example Flinders Petrie:

"Gormund the Vandal probably fled from Justinian 534; he came in the reign of Caredig"

https://archive.org/details/neglecte.../2up?q=gormund

[real expert]

Here is another example of a SSA person (based on measurements) dated to Anglo-Saxon times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...-Saxon_England

Googling for "Fairford skull" will get you more stories, but I couln't locate any scientific articles.

Well, the Beachy Head Woman from Roman Britain was also classified by British anthropologists who examined her skull as SSA, but DNA revealed she was a Southern European.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beachy_Head_Lady


The thing is, that Southern European skulls which are Caucasoid can’t be mistaken for SSA/Negroid, so this tells how unreliable these British scholars work. And unlike in this study, the scholars suggest that the found individual was a slave and not an affluent person. Furthermore, there are different kinds of SSA sources. My point is that the SSA ancestry of that girl in that context would've made sense if it was either mediated by a North African source or was rather East African-like but her African source was straight from Nigeria. Nigeria was Terra incognita even for the Greeks and Romans who were way more cosmopolitan than the Anglo-Saxons. For instance, a Nubian mercenary was detected among the Roman soldiers in Serbia. He clusters near modern Nubians and North Sudanese Arabs. That makes historical perfectly sense, since the Romans recruited soldiers from Egypt and Nubia. Moreover, the Nubian, or Horner- SSA source is clearly distinct from the Yoruba/West African one. The Romans got slaves from Nubia, Egypt, present-day Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, but those populations are all distinct from West Africans. The fact is that the Romans, Levantines, or for that matter even Africans, such as Egyptians and Africans from the Horn had no interactions with Nigerians for geographical, historical, and other reasons. So, what makes you all think Anglo-Saxons did?

By the way, I found out that the "Fairford skull" was probably from a Roman cemetery.

At the time of the discovery, the force said a Roman cemetery had been found near to the site which could explain the findings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-24106956

[real expert]

There's also the story from Geoffrey of Monmouth (c. 1136), who says that Gormund, the 'King of the Africans', invaded Ireland and Britain and was allied with the Saxons against the Britons. Some people have suggested that Gormund was a Vandal king.

Chapter 8. Britain, in the flame of a civil war under king Careticus, is miserably wasted by the Saxons and Africans.

"After Malgo succeeded Careticus, a lover of civil war, and hateful to God and to the Britons. The Saxons, discovering his fickle disposition, went to Ireland for Gormund, king of the Africans, who had arrived there with a very great fleet, and had subdued that country. From thence, at their traitorous instigation, he sailed over into Britain, which the perfidious Saxons in one part, in another the Britons by their continual wars among themselves were wholly laying waste. Entering therefore into alliance with the Saxons, he made war upon king Careticus, and after several battles fought, drove him from city to city, till at length he forced him to Cirecester, and there besieged him. Here Isembard, the nephew of Lewis, king of the Franks, came and made a league of amity with him, and out of respect to him renounced the Christian faith, on condition that he would assist him to gain the kingdom of Gaul from his uncle, by whom, he said, he was forcibly and unjustly expelled out of it. At last, after taking and burning the city, he had another fight with Careticus, and made him flee beyond the Severn into Wales. He then made an utter devastation of the country, set fire to the adjacent cities, and continued these outrages until he had almost burned up the whole surface of the island from the one sea to the other; so that the tillage was everywhere destroyed, and a general destruction made of the husbandmen and clergy, with fire and sword. This terrible calamity caused the rest to flee whithersoever they had any hopes of safety."

Geoffrey of Monmouth - History of the Kings of Britain, p.195
https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/geoffrey_thompson.pdf

Here's the thing the term Africa was used widely from Roman times to refer initially to North Africa, originally called by the Greek or Egyptian word Libya, before it was extended to the whole continent from the end of the first century of AD. Anyway, are you telling me that the Vandals went to TROPICAL Africa and became the Kings of the Yoruba of Nigeria and shared their Germanic religion with the natives there? How did they manage to survive all the tropical diseases without modern medicine? The fact ist, that the Vandals never set foot in Nigeria and the term "Africa" in antiquity referred to modern-day Tunisia and some parts of Algeria but not to the entire CONTINENT, thus definitely not to Nigeria. The Vandals would have been ruling North Africans, Berbers and not Yoruba or Esan people. Besides, here's some more historical piece of information for you:

The first European Contact With Nigeria Was 1485 By The Great Benin Empire. The first European travelers to reach Benin were Portuguese explorers in about 1485. A strong mercantile relationship developed, with the Edo trading tropical products such as ivory, peppers and palm oil with the Portuguese for European goods such as manila and guns. In the early 16th century, the Oba sent an ambassador to Lisbon, and the king of Portugal sent Christian missionaries to Benin City. Some residents of Benin City could still speak a pidgin Portuguese in the late 19th century. The first English expedition to Benin was in 1553, and significant trading developed between England and Benin based on the export of ivory, palm oil and pepper. Visitors in the 16th and 17th centuries brought back to Europe tales of "the Great Benin", a fabulous city of noble buildings, ruled over by a powerful powerfulking. However, the Oba began to suspect Britain of larger colony designs and ceased communications with the British until the British Expedition in 1896-97 which resulted in a weakened Benin Empire.........

[real expert]

I quote a comment from Angela, even though she might view things differently now, because she nailed it.

Geneticists and Evolutionary Biologists were the holdouts in science, refusing to sell out to the Woke mob. I fear they're folding as well. It's like Mao's Cultural Revolution, a madness that wins through public intimidation and humiliation. When Reich put his toe in the water with an essay about how we have to accept that different groups may have different and varying aptitudes and that if we don't accept the verdict of science we will be going down a dark path, he was eviscerated by The New York Times and other publications.

Maybe they all got frightened. I don't know.

I do know that two years ago, at least some geneticists would have gone on record as saying this is a terribly designed study which has come to completely wrong conclusions. Instead, there's silence. None of them really make comments any more on their twitter feeds or other social media, and nobody is talking to the press.

We might be heading into another Dark Age of science.

Anyway, I guess this Latin Saying- Quodlicet Iovi / Jovi, non licet bovi

(What is permissible for Jupiter / Jovi is not permissible for an ox) applies to me.

I basically said the same things as Angela, but her comment gets upvoted, mine raises only eyebrows.

[Philjames100]

Well, the Beachy Head Woman from Roman Britain was also classified by British anthropologists who examined her skull as SSA, but DNA revealed she was a Southern European.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beachy_Head_Lady


The thing is, that Southern European skulls which are Caucasoid can’t be mistaken for SSA/Negroid, so this tells how unreliable these British scholars work. And unlike in this study, the scholars suggest that the found individual was a slave and not an affluent person. Furthermore, there are different kinds of SSA sources. My point is that the SSA ancestry of that girl in that context would've made sense if it was either mediated by a North African source or was rather East African-like but her African source was straight from Nigeria. Nigeria was Terra incognita even for the Greeks and Romans who were way more cosmopolitan than the Anglo-Saxons. For instance, a Nubian mercenary was detected among the Roman soldiers in Serbia. He clusters near modern Nubians and North Sudanese Arabs. That makes historical perfectly sense, since the Romans recruited soldiers from Egypt and Nubia. Moreover, the Nubian, or Horner- SSA source is clearly distinct from the Yoruba/West African one. The Romans got slaves from Nubia, Egypt, present-day Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, but those populations are all distinct from West Africans. The fact is that the Romans, Levantines, or for that matter even Africans, such as Egyptians and Africans from the Horn had no interactions with Nigerians for geographical, historical, and other reasons. So, what makes you all think Anglo-Saxons did?

By the way, I found out that the "Fairford skull" was probably from a Roman cemetery.



[/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-24106956



[/FONT][/COLOR]

There were contacts with sub-Saharan West Africa already in Roman times. The Garamantes had direct contacts with West Africa and there's even some evidence for Roman expeditions to the Niger Bend area.

[kingjohn]

Reich is top of his game
He can be wrong but chance he does
Is extremely low.
Personally for me i don't care at all
If this EAS003 outlier individual carried 30% african
Autosomally speaking
It will not change my life and other people life

[capisan]

There some english people belong a mtDNA L1b and L2( maybe have ancestry black people ) and E-M2

[capisan]

Any info about mtDNA EAS003

[traveller]

Any info about mtDNA EAS003

U5b1c2b, according to the paper.

[capisan]

U5b1c2b, according to the paper.

interesting , so very possible her dad black
There sample from Yfull he is belong under subclade E-M2<FGC44064 from UK (ID sample UKB66F1C)
according his profil genetic european 100 percent
https://my.personalgenomes.org.uk/public_genetic_data )