The Coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain

[Angela]

And this perfectly explains the R1b-DF27 signal in eastern England which was a distinct split from the Iberian DF-27. Southern France was the mother of both. There was a huge resettlement of people from South France to East England, which wasn't recorded in history. Perhaps this is from the desolation mentioned in the Domesday book.

I agree with the bolded comment.

As for when it came, I think it would probably have mostly started coming with the Norman Conquest, but I doubt those people would have been from Southern France.

However, Queen after Queen came from France, and retainers, yeomen, artisans, servants, came with them, from various French territories.

A large number of Southern French people may well have come to England because of one of those Queens, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and the Plantagenets in general after her through the possessions which she brought to her husband. Had we samples from Aquitaine, or even Poitou, I think they would not be that different from those of Provence or Gallia Narbonensis, as the Romans called the area north of Catalonia, with which she also had ties.

"[FONT=&quot]One of the sons of Henry and [/FONT]Eleanor[FONT=&quot], Richard, later [/FONT]King Richard I[FONT=&quot], ruled the Aquitaine as Duke in conjunction with his mother. The [/FONT]Dukes of Aquitaine[FONT=&quot] and the [/FONT]Counts of Toulouse[FONT=&quot] were natural allies, between them controlling the area that we now think of as the southern half of France. The families were already related: Eleanor's paternal grandmother had been Philippa of Toulouse. Both families spoke the same language, [/FONT]Occitan[FONT=&quot], the first language not only of Raymond and [/FONT]Eleanor[FONT=&quot], but also of Eleanor's heir, [/FONT]Richard[FONT=&quot]. They followed the same fashions, ate the same food, read the same literature, even listened to the same [/FONT]troubadours[FONT=&quot], and were familiar with distinctive Occitan concepts such as [/FONT]paratge[FONT=&quot]. It was natural then, that [/FONT]Raymond VI[FONT=&quot], Count of Toulouse, should marry [/FONT]Jeanne of England[FONT=&quot], daughter of Henry and [/FONT]Eleanor[FONT=&quot]. This marriage made him son-in-law of Henry II and [/FONT]Eleanor[FONT=&quot], and brother-in-law to both [/FONT]Richard I[FONT=&quot] (the Lionheart) and [/FONT]King John[FONT=&quot]. He is buried at [/FONT]Fontevraud Abbey[FONT=&quot]."

[/FONT]"[FONT=&quot]Some of the towns belonging to the [/FONT]counts of Toulouse[FONT=&quot] had been founded by Richard I. One such was [/FONT]Marmande[FONT=&quot], a bastide founded about 1195, which was later besieged three times during the [/FONT]Cathar Crusades[FONT=&quot] - a series of religious wars directed against the counts of Toulouse and the people of the Languedoc."

[/FONT]"[FONT=&quot]John's second marriage (on 24 August 1200) was to Isabella of Angoulême, the daughter of Aymer Taillefer, Count of Angouleme - another Occitan paladin.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Raymond VI of Toulouse naturally chose exile in England when his lands were seized by the French Crusaders - Despite his avaricious nature, King John made Raymond a subvention of 10,000 marks.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Like the Counts of Toulouse, John was the victim of Innocent III's imperial ambitions. In the case of the Counts of Toulouse their territories were appropriated and reassigned by papal decree, a worrying innovation for all sovereigns in western Christendom."

[/FONT]https://www.midi-france.info/190202_england.htm

Perhaps a good number of Cathars or those just seeking to escape the Crusade against the Cathars in the County of Toulouse also fled to England?

That's not to mention all the French brides after Eleanor who came from Provence, Angouleme, Poitou etc. along with all their retainers and yeoman.

Even today, the modern "French South" sample is from the old Duchy of Aquitaine, and is quite different from the academic samples for Northern and Northeastern France and even Lyon.

Perhaps the signal is concentrated in "eastern" England, because to the west there were the Marches and Wales, and to the north the always turbulent borders.

 

[real expert]

The Daily Mail sensationalist, as always, jumped on one sample from the Anglo-Saxon paper that seems to be 1/3 West African. However, if my memory serves me right, the coverage was extremely low. I'd like to know, folks, what do you think of that?

​

Meet Updown Girl: 10-year-old child buried in Kent in the 7th century was of West African descent - suggesting England was more diverse than previously thought in the Middle Ages

• The young child buried in Kent in the early 7th century is known as 'Updown Girl'
• Experts say 33 per cent of Updown Girl's DNA points to West African ancestry
• The girl was buried near two women who were likely her great aunts, they claim

A 10-year-old child buried in Kent in the 7th century was of West African descent –suggesting England was more diverse than previously thought in the Middle Ages.

'Updown Girl' – so-called because she was laid to rest at Updown, near Eastry in Kent – was buried with a pot, a bone comb, a knife and a spoon.

Findings reveal 33 per cent of Updown Girl's DNA points to West African ancestry, most closely resembling Esan or Yoruba groups.

Her African heritage came from her father's side, possibly her grandad or great grandad, although she was likely part of an affluent family that lived in England.

The findings, published in a series of articles in Current Archaeology, come from one of the largest ancient DNA projects in Europe, involving 460 people who were buried in graves between 200AD and 1300AD, 278 of whom were from England.

'Aged 10 or 11 when she died, this girl was buried in much the same way as the other early medieval individuals who were laid to rest at Updown, near Eastry,' said Current Archaeology Editor Carly Hilts.

'She was accompanied by very typical grave goods – a pot, a bone comb, a knife, and a spoon – and there was nothing to suggest that she had been treated differently, at least in death, even though the new genetic research highlights that her ancestry was very different to that of many of the people buried around her.'

Updown Girl is buried near two women who, according to the experts, are likely to be her great aunts with Northern European ancestry.


Both women were buried with several objects including belt hanging sets, beads, knives, combs and spoons, all suggesting they were part of an affluent family from the period.


The fact that both the women and the girl were buried in the same way indicates that despite her different ancestry, the girl was treated equally as her other family members, according to Professor Duncan Sayer, project leader and archaeologist from the University of Central Lancashire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-descent.html?ito=native_share_article-bottom

 

[Angela]

For accuracy, of course, they should have said, was partly of West African descent.

This isn't the big whoops they think that it is. We have ancient samples from Roman Britain, York, I believe, which contain the remains of a well to do woman of West African ancestry. Who knows how she got there? In Elizabethan England, to the best of my recollection, they found a cemetery which had a number of remains of people with African ancestry. A modern Yorkshire man turned out to have ydna "A" something.

All very interesting, of course, but they tell us nothing about the processes of admixture which formed the British "people".

Slavery was common during the Anglo-Saxon era, with the Vikings rather specializing in the slave trade, and their ships sailed into the Mediterranean. Or perhaps the African ancestor of this child was a free man who arrived via long distance trading routes. It would make a great novel, but it's insignificant in terms of population genetics, imo.

Likewise, does the fact that two Etruscan samples, of the many we now have, had part North African ancestry mean that theirs was an ethnically mixed culture overall?

Common sense gets tossed out the window when people have an ideological point to make.

 

[real expert]

For accuracy, of course, they should have said, was partly of West African descent.

This isn't the big whoops they think that it is. We have ancient samples from Roman Britain, York, I believe, which contain the remains of a well to do woman of West African ancestry. Who knows how she got there? In Elizabethan England, to the best of my recollection, they found a cemetery which had a number of remains of people with African ancestry. A modern Yorkshire man turned out to have ydna "A" something.

All very interesting, of course, but they tell us nothing about the processes of admixture which formed the British "people".

Slavery was common during the Anglo-Saxon era, with the Vikings rather specializing in the slave trade, and their ships sailed into the Mediterranean. Or perhaps the African ancestor of this child was a free man who arrived via long distance trading routes. It would make a great novel, but it's insignificant in terms of population genetics, imo.

Likewise, does the fact that two Etruscan samples, of the many we now have, had part North African ancestry mean that theirs was an ethnically mixed culture overall?

Common sense gets tossed out the window when people have an ideological point to make.

I now recall that the sample was not only very low coverage but also not carbon-dated. In the article from Daily Mail is stated that her African DNA points to West African ancestry, most closely resembling Esan or Yoruba groups. What makes me skeptical is that North African even East African-like admixture would've make sense but West African admixture during that era is a hard sell to me. Besides, the Ivory Bangle Lady from York was NOT from West Africa. Anthropologists that examined her skull suggest that she was of North African origin. This makes sense since Roman sources attest about North Africans that came with the Romans to Britain, lived and died there. And I believe there was a govener in Britain who was of North African descent.

The shape of her skull suggests that she had North African ancestry; this is not very surprising in a place like York, where inscriptions and written sources mention Africans. People from Africa who came to Britain include the Emperor Septimius Severus, who was born in what is Now Libya and ruled from AD 193-211.

Moreover, I think you conflated the Ivory Bangle Lady from York with the Beachy Head Lady or Beachy Head Woman that was believed to be the the first black person in Britain. It turned out she was acutally from Cyprus.


Here's a comment about the article that sets the record straight about the Beachy Head Lady.

Beachy Head Lady and the "black" Romans in Britain; myth-making in the modern world

The Beachy Head Lady or Beachy Head Woman is an ancient skeleton discovered in Beachy Head, East Sussex, England. The Beachy Head Woman lived during the Roman period, around 125 to 245 AD. Initially, the skull shape led to an assessment that the woman had originated from Sub-Saharan Africa leading some sources, including a book, to claim erroneously that she had been the first known "Black" person in Britain.
However DNA analysis undertaken by Crick Institute established that the Beachy Head Lady was a mediterranean woman, Southern European in orgin, most likely from Cyprus. This concluded that she was most definately not a "black" African woman as previously claimed wrongly.

Odd that since this DNA analysis a ‘mournful and solitary silence’ appears to have surrounded this subject.
Who are the Cypriots? Where did they come from? What are the specifics of their gene pool?
Greek Cypriots are mainly Mediterranean in origin, deriving mostly from Neolithic populations of Anatolia and the Aegean (45–50%), with a considerable Caucaso-Iranic component (20–28%), a relatively small to moderate Levantine component (12–18%) and a little bit of ‘northern’ ancestry from the Steppes (7–13%). Percentages fluctuate a bit depending on the datasets and model of analysis.

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/bus...brates-first-year-with-23000-visitors-2002212



Anyway, finding outliers that were definitely a needle in a haystack and running with it to conclude that Anglo-Saxons were diverse is politically motivated and ridiculous. This Diversity here, and diversity there is becoming a genetic study trope.


Dear Angela, we live in times where scientists don't stick to principles anymore and basically everything gets politicized. So we have to read things that don't make sense even when they are from scientifc articles with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[real expert]

For accuracy, of course, they should have said, was partly of West African descent.

This isn't the big whoops they think that it is.

Allow me to share my honest opinion with you, and I’d like to get some feedback. I'm convinced that something is fishy with this very odd 30% West African (with no North African and 3% coverage) admixed Anglo-Saxon girl from this study. My suspicion is, that if the admixture is real, the dating was erroneous and the girl came from a later period by a long shot than the 7th century, and thus not from the Anglo-Saxon era. Once again the sample wasn't directly dated. For example, detecting North African ancestry in Etruscans that interacted a lot with Carthaginians, etc. isn't a big surprise. In addition, keep in mind that any SSA signal found among, for instance, Ancient Levantines is basically always East African/Ethiopian-like and never West African. The Copts also lack this West African/Yoruba component. Moreover we have now a fair amount of Ancient Roman and Greek DNA, and none of them, harbor West African admixture either. But ironically, from all people, the Anglo-Saxons from the Northern European backwaters have this very exotic DNA, and that in a significant amount. Given the fact that even Ancient North Africans were not 1/3 Yoruba/West African, an Anglo-Saxon with 33% West African genetic input isn't only a big whoops but implausible. And how did a man straight from West Africa end up in the 7th century England? Anyway, my trust in many scholars that have over and over again proved that they are obsessed with inserting black folks in early British history with all kinds of sophistry, words- and mind games, isn't huge. What is really troubling is the length many scientists seem to go to push a certain agenda. Hence, we should not take every result from genetic studies at face value.

 

[Angela]

What does it matter at the end of the day? One person with African ancestry of any kind is not significant in terms of the ethnogenesis of the British people. That's why it's not a big whoops.

As to whether 3% coverage is enough, I'm not sure. I do know that African ancestry is so divergent from that of Europeans that it's usually very obvious.

Egyptians, Saudis, Levantines, definitely tend to have East African ancestry, not West African. However, Moroccans are a different story. There are Moroccans with up to 60% SSA. Could one of them have made his way to England? Why not? There was still some trade even if nothing like before the fall. In the 10th century Ahmad Ibn Fadlan wound up among the Volga Bulgars and the Vikings. Would I be surprised if he left some offspring? No, I wouldn't. Fun, fictionalized movie about an Arab traveler among Vikings is called The 13th Warrior.

 

[Salento]

EAS003 - Female - England_Saxon_o_Africa - 400-1100 CE - England, Kent, Eastry - UK - (GretzingerNature2022)

Coverage - Genotype-Ratio 63%

 

[real expert]

What does it matter at the end of the day? One person with African ancestry of any kind is not significant in terms of the ethnogenesis of the British people. That's why it's not a big whoops.

As to whether 3% coverage is enough, I'm not sure. I do know that African ancestry is so divergent from that of Europeans that it's usually very obvious.

Egyptians, Saudis, Levantines, definitely tend to have East African ancestry, not West African. However, Moroccans are a different story. There are Moroccans with up to 60% SSA. Could one of them have made his way to England? Why not? There was still some trade even if nothing like before the fall. In the 10th century Ahmad Ibn Fadlan wound up among the Volga Bulgars and the Vikings. Would I be surprised if he left some offspring? No, I wouldn't. Fun, fictionalized movie about an Arab traveler among Vikings is called The 13th Warrior.

As I already told you, if the admixture was legit, the sample was most certainly incorrectly dated and not from the Anglo-Saxon era. Anyway, for the Daily Mail and the scholars involved, this one odd sample is enough to draw the conclusion that the Anglo-Saxons were diverse. Besides, pointing out modern Moroccans with 60% SSA admixture makes no sense here. The truth of the matter is that the girl was NOT admixed with North African DNA. She was not 33% Moroccan, her admixture was of West African kind. So, my point stands, it's implausible that West Africans were running around in 7th-century England. And tell me why didn't the scientists detect 33% West African admixed Romans, Greeks, Levantines, Etruscans, or Egyptians, but only among the most unlikely candidate the Anglo-Saxons? The Romans, Greeks, and Etruscans had big times more contact with Moroccans than Anglo-Saxons did. Besides, I'm sure it would be a big surprise or whoops if we got a Roman or Etruscan sample with 33% West African mix. To further illustrate my point, you believed, for instance, that the Roman York woman, actually a Northern African was SSA because you trusted the information. And a Southern European woman from Roman Sussex was mislabeled as "the first know black person" in Britain. Of course, one can brush this constant misinformation aside but to me, it's an issue. Nonetheless, thanks for explaining your take on this.

 

[kingjohn]

EAS003 - Female - England_Saxon_o_Africa - 400-1100 CE - England, Kent, Eastry - UK - (GretzingerNature2022)
Coverage - Genotype-Ratio 63%

Thanks
63% genotype ratio is not that bad
This might be real
She was mixed either way
She carry also european elements

 

[Salento]

She doesn’t match any modern or ancient populations, she’s mixed. The results show she is mostly of European and Sub-Saharan descent. Her coverage is about 63% meaning the results are believable.

 

[Angela]

She doesn’t match any modern or ancient populations, she’s mixed. The results show she is mostly of European and Sub-Saharan descent. Her coverage is about 63% meaning the results are believable.

Thanks for bringing some clarity to the matter, Salento.

It's obviously a big conspiracy to find 33% West African in a person in Anglo-Saxon Britain, but NOT in the Italians, Spaniards etc. where it belongs.

He's definitely going on ignore.

 

[Salento]

… you’re welcome Angela

 

[real expert]

Thanks for bringing some clarity to the matter, Salento.

It's obviously a big conspiracy to find 33% West African in a person in Anglo-Saxon Britain, but NOT in the Italians, Spaniards etc. where it belongs.

He's definitely going on ignore.

Yes, I don't believe for a second that this girl was from the Anglo-Saxon era, but from a long shot later period. Seriously, I don't get your hostile attitude. You really seem to hate Germans. At any given opportunity, you try to make me look bad or anti-Southern European and whatnot. To make one thing clear, I never said anything negative or disrespectful about Southern Europeans since day 1. Moreover, I never argued that 33% West African admixture belongs in Italians, Spaniards, or for that matter, in the Romans, Iberians, or Greeks. What I rather wanted to make was a point and contextualize the finding. The irony is, that I debunk stupid Americans and Afro- centrists on regularly basis who think that Italians and Spaniards are 25% SSA because of the Moors or that the Etruscans were black.

It appears that you're conflating me with the Italians from Italic Roots or the Spaniards from The apricity who fight each over who is 50%North African or has more black blood. Leave me out of this. Stupid me, I thought I would have a cool discussion with you, instead you're turning on me.

Plus, your blind faith in scientists in these days and age, shows that you're not really aware of what's going on behind the scene. You must have blacked out all the crappy and misleading studies to date. Since I don't believe the worst in people, I never accused you to believe in a big conspiracy after you got upset with how Moots makes Sicilians in her study appear to be 50% North African-like.

 

[real expert]

@Angela,

After reading your comment and my answer again, I realized that I've probably overreacted a bit and took your remarks too personally. The thing is, you come off across as very dismissive of my objection and arguments, as if I was talking out of my head. Besides, you better believe that BLM supporter Manx Planck Institute, the scholars who are mass migration and diversity apologists would be more than thrilled and eager to find SSA admixture in ancient Europeans, in particular in Anglo-Saxons & the Vikings, and the more, the better. If you consider me a conspiracy fruitcake just because I don't have the idealized view of scientists, then you must look at Razib Khan as a conspiracist, too. He says the following: "In the subjects I know most about, I am very skeptical of academics."......... "We know for a fact that academia is highly skewed politically, heavily left-of-center. The difference between academic fields is merely in the degree of the skew." When you read interviews and articles where the authors reveal that the genetic papers have a purpose to fight nationalism and to make people more accepting of immigration and diversity, etc. it makes you question their work.To me, genetic papers should be a source to inform and educate, and not to indoctrinate.

 

[real expert]

Could be! But dating her to the Anglo-Saxon time isn't credible. Anglo-Saxons had no historical ties to Yoruba or Easan people, Nigeria.



„Findings reveal 33 per cent of Updown Girl's DNA points to West African ancestry, most closely resembling Esan or Yoruba groups.“

 

[kingjohn]

She doesn’t match any modern or ancient populations, she’s mixed. The results show she is mostly of European and Sub-Saharan descent. Her coverage is about 63% meaning the results are believable.

dear salento ,
i can't find her there is no EAS003 individual here in the bam files link
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54899?show=reads
where is she in the ena site ?

p.s
i do see though EAS001, EAS002,EAS004,EAS005,EAS006
by the waythis site in kent and is dated to 600-750 Ad

 

[Salento]

dear salento ,
i can't find her there is no EAS003 individual here in the bam files link
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54899?show=reads
where is she in the ena site ?

p.s
i do see though EAS001, EAS002,EAS004,EAS005,EAS006
by the waythis site in kent and is dated to 600-750 Ad

I got EAS003 from ReichLab

(V54.1: Data release: Nov 16 2022)

... EAS003 GretzingerNature2022 Context: Archaeological - Period 1200 202 400-1100 CE .. England_Saxon_oAfrica.SG England, Kent, Eastry United Kingdom ....................

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen...le-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

 

[kingjohn]

I got EAS003 from ReichLab

(V54.1: Data release: Nov 16 2022)

... EAS003 GretzingerNature2022 Context: Archaeological - Period 1200 202 400-1100 CE .. England_Saxon_oAfrica.SG England, Kent, Eastry United Kingdom ....................

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen...le-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

thanks
i see
thats cool
all the other individuals from this site are dated from 600-700 AD
so it is extremely likely EAS003 is also dated to this period
very interesting

 

[real expert]

thanks
i see
thats cool
all the other individuals from this site are dated from 600-700 AD
so it is extremely likely EAS003 is also dated to this period
very interesting

Yep, it‘s extremely realistic that a Nigerian man found his way to Anglo-Saxon Britain and became part of the affluent people there. What did a Nigerian man want in cold and rainy Britain that after the Romans left was not exactly a flourishing place or the place to be? I‘m well-informed about African cultures. The Yoruba or Esan culture was an agriculturalist culture, thus a simple culture and not a sophisticated one. These Nigerian tribes were no maritime or seafaring people. Hence they weren't that mobile to go all the way up to Northern Europe. The point is that Yoruba-like DNA that is found in Muslim Arabs/Levantines is mostly from slavery. Arab slavers deported them to the Middle East.

 

[kingjohn]

Yep, it‘s extremely realistic that a Nigerian man found his way to Anglo-Saxon Britain and became part of the affluent people there. What did a Nigerian man want in cold and rainy Britain that after the Romans left was not exactly a flourishing place or the place to be? I‘m well-informed about African cultures. The Yoruba or Esan culture was an agriculturalist culture, thus a simple culture and not a sophisticated one. These Nigerian tribes were no maritime or seafaring people. Hence they weren't that mobile to go all the way up to Northern Europe. The point is that Yoruba-like DNA that is found in Muslim Arabs/Levantines is mostly from slavery. Arab slavers deported them to the Middle East.

so what do you think that reich lab is lying ?