The Coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain

kingjohn said:
so what do you think that reich lab is lying ?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe their dating is incorrect. Remember kinjohn you said scholars can make mistake when it was predicted that BA Greeks were dark to black. Anyway, I answered your inquisitorial-sounding question. So can you please answer my questions too? How realistic or plausible is it, that a West African individual from a tribal people that were not like the Phoenicians, traders, and maritime folks, went to Britain to live there? What trading networks did Anglo-Saxons have with Nigeria? Show me a historical record of Anglo-Saxons trading with SSAs from West Africa? Keep also in mind that the Romans brought the Syrians, North Africans, and other Non-Europeans, etc. with them to Britain. The handful of Africans that were present in Elizabethan England were BROUGHT there as exotic eye-catchers and status symbols in noble courts. Moreover, a discussion about and questioning of the conclusion made by the authors didn't start with me. It's normal that in an archaeogenetic forum you discuss and question DNA studies especially when the finding is totally unexpected. If let's say Baltic DNA was found in a Dynastic Ancient Egyptian sample or in King Tut, etc. we all here including you would start to scratch our heads and question the results and try to make sense of it.
 
Agree there are no historical connection
Between anglo-saxon england and nigeria
EAS003 results is indeed surprise
David reich lab can be wrong small
Chance but they can
 
I guess that we can all choose to disregard findings we don’t like and to emphasize findings we like.

I detest bias, even mine.
 
There are some strange similarities between Yoruba religion and Germanic paganism. Their god Shango is basically identical to Thor, and also has similarities to Odin. Another god, Eshu, is the equivalent of Loki. And they also have a Jupiter, called Jakuta. The similarities with Thor in particular are so specific and in some cases bizarre it seems impossible that they aren't related. I thought it might have had something to do with the Vandals.
 
kingjohn said:
Agree there are no historical connection
Between anglo-saxon england and nigeria
EAS003 results is indeed surprise
David reich lab can be wrong small
Chance but they can
Click to expand...


kingjoh, remember the Qatari genome study? This paper was shredded into pieces here since it showed that Finns have Jewish and North African ancestry. Even the state of the scientific world was questioned not only by me but by others too. Besides, this Qatari paper was never corrected. But suddenly I lost my mind because I don‘t believe that Anglo-Saxons had an odd 30% Nigerian admixture that historically doesn't make sense and thus is very implausible. If the girl was dated to Elizabatian or Tudor England that would be surprising but plausible because Africans due to their rarity and exoticism were purchased by the nobles of that period in England.

Here's the thing, if it‘s believable that Nigerians had genetic input on Anglo-Saxons because a study says so then it should be also credible that Finnish folks are North African/Jewish admixed/Europeans have recent Qatari ancestry because a study says so, too.
Furthermore, please explain to me kingjohn. The Levant is basically next door to Africa and yet all the Ancient samples from there have zero Nigerian ancestry.
As a rule Copts, Christian Levantines, and Assyrian Christians totally lack this Yoruba component whereas the Muslims have minor Yoruba ancestry because they owned African slaves. Keep in mind, that Ethiopians and Somalis also usually lack this Yoruba/West African component too.

So, Nigerians avoid the Horn of Africa, Egypt, the Levant, Greece, and Rome only to go straight to Britain to live among the Anglo- Saxons there? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 
Salento said:
I guess that we can all choose to disregard findings we don’t like and to emphasize findings we like.

I detest bias, even mine.
Click to expand...


Salento, you missed the point here, honestly. It‘s not about dislike or personal bias but simply following logic and common sense and plausibility. For instance, I didn't believe a genetic study that "proved" that Tutsis and Hutus were basically the same people because it didn't make sense. Back then folks threw DNA/ science doesn't lie at me to shut down my arguments. Anyway, Razib Khan's aDNA results confirmed what was KNOWN by anthropologists and people with common sense that Tutsis and Hutus were two distinct ethnicities. The Tutsis cluster with Masai and to a lesser degree with Cushitic speakers. In fact, the genetic study on Tutsis was flawed and wrong. It feels to me like a deja vu.

Anyway, historically viewed, Nigerians going to Anglo-Saxon England makes as much sense as an Eskimo migrating to medieval Nigeria. Most SSA in Iberia or Sicily for instance was North African-mediate and not significant. Furthermore, when going by your logic dismissing a genetic paper that shows Finns have recent Jewish and North African admixture, and Europeans recent Qatari ancestry is because of bias and personal dislike and not because of the result being BS. No disrespect intended, but Salento, you appear to have blind trust in scientists. The academic world isn't as perfect and beyond reproach as many here think.
 
@real expert … if they weren't sure, they would have added: _possible at the end of the label, for example:
Roman_Medieval_ possible:R1291
 
Philjames100 said:
There are some strange similarities between Yoruba religion and Germanic paganism. Their god Shango is basically identical to Thor, and also has similarities to Odin. Another god, Eshu, is the equivalent of Loki. And they also have a Jupiter, called Jakuta. The similarities with Thor in particular are so specific and in some cases bizarre it seems impossible that they aren't related. I thought it might have had something to do with the Vandals.
Click to expand...

The Vandals conquered and ruled Tunisia and not Nigeria. Plus, Tunisians were and are not Yoruba people. In case you don't know, there are specific similarities between the Igbo religion/culture and Judaism. Therefore, Afro-centrists and so-called Black Hebrew Israelites argue that the original Jews/Israelites were black. Here are some historical facts. European colonisation of Africa only really picked up steam in the 1880s, when newer forms of transportation, better medicine, and industrial technology, made penetration of Sub-Saharan Africa possible. Tropical diseases killed off very high numbers of Europeans who visited West or Central Africa. Hence it was difficult for Europeans to colonize interior Africa in modern times for a long time, but you think Germanic folks in ancient or medieval times could just go to Africa and interact with the Yoruba folks as they please. On top of that, the Yoruba didn't build ships to travel over the world, they were farmers.
 
Salento said:
@real expert … if they weren't sure, they would have added: _possible at the end of the label, for example:
Roman_Medieval_ possible:R1292
Click to expand...

The authors of the Qatari study were also sure that Finnish folks are part Jewish and North African and Europeans have recent Qatari admixture, their paper past the peer review.
 
real expert said:
The authors of the Qatari study were also sure that Finnish folks are part Jewish and North African and Europeans have recent Qatari admixture, their paper past the peer review.
Click to expand...

About EAS003, you could kindly contact the authors of the paper, some of them may answer your questions.
 
Salento said:
@real expert … if they weren't sure, they would have added: _possible at the end of the label, for example:
Roman_Medieval_ possible:R1291
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
traveller said:
Here is another example of a SSA person (based on measurements) dated to Anglo-Saxon times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British_people#Anglo-Saxon_England

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

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.
Click to expand...


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



 
Philjames100 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.........
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
real expert said:
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]
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 41710 times.

Back
Top