"Anglo-Saxon" samples from Cambridgeshire

[Angela]

See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr2k...ature=youtu.be


These people probably cluster with modern people from Iceland instead of with modern people from Germany for a very simple reason: the people of Iceland are a mixture of Scandinavians, whom northern Germanics resemble anyway, and "Celts", i.e. "locals", enslaved and brought to Iceland. The papers are out there explaining it.

Depending on the time period, these "Anglo-Saxons" would have also been mixed with locals or "Celts". We've already seen it in other papers with very early Anglo-Saxon samples.

[Joey37]

Viking Icelandic is one of my closest matches in Mytrueancestry.com. I'm also 3/8 English, so I am not surprised by the finding of this group.

[paul333]

In the UK today,

In my opinion Archaeologists etc have to be PC, and explain all findings or theories in line with todays multi-ethnic society. No theories outside of these lines of thought are allowed,or accepted, and any evidence 'has to' reflect this.

The consequences of not adhering to these principles will likely be very effective for students requiring such qualifications/careers/future positions, and fundings etc.

The video reminds me of Francis Prior and Tony Robinson and the Time Team squads reflecting the views of Channel Four at the time.

Evidence of Anglo-Saxon History and Ancestry in England today is to be kept buried,or frowned upon, regarding genetics. "We know not who we are" is the norm.

She seemed totally confused, and ignorant of most of the make up of the people involved in the early migrations to Eastern England, and completely dissmisses 'Bede's evidence' which is actually contempary of the period, within living memory or shortly afterwards. The Buckle was most certainly a personal possesion,and 'not likely to be thrown in'.

The Jewelry from Loftus is from an 'Anglian' Burial known as the Bed Burial with connections to the Kentish Christian court, and is believed to be from the site of an early coastal monastic site as christianity moved North.

Maybe she should read some of the Icelandic Saga's such as 'Egils Saga', seeing she is studying at York, he has a personal history there, and might then understand that there is a connection between the Anglo Saxon people and the Icelandic people.

She seems to be mixed up with the modern Germans and the early Germanics, and oblivious of the Scandinavian elements, which would indeed show similarities with Icelandic peoples. I think she needs plenty homework on her subject.

[spruithean]

It does seem that the term "Germanic" in this video has been misunderstood as "German". It is no surprise that Anglo-Saxons plot closely with Icelanders they have similar ancestral populations really. Anglo-Saxons are not the only Migration Period Germanics to plot with Icelanders or Scandinavians.

[paul333]

It does seem that the term "Germanic" in this video has been misunderstood as "German". It is no surprise that Anglo-Saxons plot closely with Icelanders they have similar ancestral populations really. Anglo-Saxons are not the only Migration Period Germanics to plot with Icelanders or Scandinavians.

The Anglo Saxon 'Germanics' were very mixed before they even came here, although the culture's they brought were very similar.

The burial customs of these new Anglo Saxons would eventually later reflect the mixing of the two cultures, but it may be that, the Anglo Saxons at Barrington were just that 'All Anglo Saxon' and maybe they did 'not assimilate' as quickly with the locals as people want us to believe.
.
The Burials they are trying to separate by Ethnics, may not work, as what they believe to be a Celt, may be an Anglo Saxon, and what they believe an Anglo Saxon, may be a Celt. What is probable is that the burial of all were Anglo Saxon, by the time they first came to settle around Barrington.

Resources would be scarce, and these newcomers would certainly use, items they found, or came across,and incorporate them in there own cultures, or styles of dress, as the burial evidence of the early migration periods suggest.

The same with the people of Iceland, many of the peoples who arrived and settled there were also not confined to only a few Haplogroups. The supposed celtic elements may also have come from not only Britain and Ireland but throughout Europe, they were all Viking.

Anglo Saxons were also not confined to only one or two Haplogroups, and Germanic is a Language and Culture, not an ethnicity. I think she is unaware of these important points.

[spruithean]

Normans are Vikings who settled in France later invaded England 1066. Anglo Saxons are Germanic people who settled in Britain.In that sense they are then quite different and hence the Scots are still an ethnically distinct people from the English?

The difference is not that pronounced, all British Isles populations share some common ancestry.

FYI Normans are not Vikings. Not even close. Part of Normandy saw Scandinavian settlement, but majority of Normans were of Frankish/Gallo-Roman origins with maybe some Scandinavian ancestry in some families.

[KarenJed]

Wouldnt it be more accurate to say that the Anglo-Saxons are a mixture of Angles and Saxons? Hence the word Anglo-Saxon.During the fall of Roman power in Britain and thereafter, Germanic mercenaries were hired to serve in Britain - much as Germanic mercenaries were being hired elsewhere in the western Roman Empire.The three Germanic tribes that were hired in large numbers were the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. As happened elsewhere, the Germans discovered that they were major powers in Britain and established their own territories of control. They had come as full tribes and had their families with them, so they brought their full blood, it wasnt just a few hundred mercenaries.Being all Germans, they just get lumped together as one group, and the Jutes get left out so they are just called Anglo-Saxons.

[spruithean]

It is unlikely that they all came as full tribes to the entirety of England. The history of this period is much more complex than you seem to be making it out to be.

[MOESAN]

The difference is not that pronounced, all British Isles populations share some common ancestry.

FYI Normans are not Vikings. Not even close. Part of Normandy saw Scandinavian settlement, but majority of Normans were of Frankish/Gallo-Roman origins with maybe some Scandinavian ancestry in some families.

The Normans who settled in England with William the bastard had 1/3 of Bretons kids in their army, according to sources, some others came from Flanders which grouped germanized Gallo-Romans and galloromanized Germanics (so your Frankish/Gallo-Romans too) at those times. Shortly said, almost all the southern Channel bordering regions! honey attracts always a lot of animals, not only bears.

[MOESAN]

I think the Anglo-Saxons (+ Jutes and Frisians) who settled the Isles at the beginnings were very close to today Danes and North-Germanic people.
Some early buryings showed people where males where easily distinguishable from the females phenotypically speaking, females closer to the means of the previous pop of Britain. This very fact can explain very logically that further generations were less distinguishable from the original two stock of pops.
Phenotipically the Anglo-Saxons of the time were very different from, say, the today Southern Germans, rather "West-Central-Europeans". Even the Bajuvars of Middle Ages were closer to Northern Germans than to today Bavarians. At the autosomes level, it's true, Northwestern Europeans don't show too strong distances, compared to other parts of Europe, but their centroids don't coincid nevertheless..

[Tomenable]

I agree even those early Anglo-Saxons had already absorbed some Celtic ancestry by that time.

But not as much as modern English people, which is one of reasons they were closer to Iceland.

[spruithean]

The Normans who settled in England with William the bastard had 1/3 of Bretons kids in their army, according to sources, some others came from Flanders which grouped germanized Gallo-Romans and galloromanized Germanics (so your Frankish/Gallo-Romans too) at those times. Shortly said, almost all the southern Channel bordering regions! honey attracts always a lot of animals, not only bears.

Yes, Flemings and Bretons and Frenchmen were also present in William's army. Accidental omission on my part. Such an event as the Norman invasion of England the promise of land and potential futures for the children of feudal lords would have attracted a large number of men from a broad swathe of land. I think this is a feature of history over centuries that has been unfortunately glossed over or over simplified.

I agree even those early Anglo-Saxons had already absorbed some Celtic ancestry by that time.

But not as much as modern English people, which is one of reasons they were closer to Iceland.

Agreed.

[MOESAN]

I would like to have diverse Scots plotted on PCA with different colours according to regions and ancient dialects

[bicicleur]

archeology has refuted the myth of a very violent invasion of Anglo-Saxons
they may very well have mixed with the local Brittons, but maybe Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA with Britton mtDNA

[Angela]

archeology has refuted the myth of a very violent invasion of Anglo-Saxons
they may very well have mixed with the local Brittons, but maybe Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA with Britton mtDNA

Where do you see the proof for that in the archaeology?

[MOESAN]

archeology has refuted the myth of a very violent invasion of Anglo-Saxons
they may very well have mixed with the local Brittons, but maybe Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA with Britton mtDNA

More than a time archeology fails to prove or disprove certains facts. If I rely on the Brittonic sagas conserved by Welsh people, dating of the High Middle Ages, it has been endless battles during a long enough time.
So no integration or assimilation before later period. Otherwise, yes, that Anglo-Saxons took local wives seems proved.

[Angela]

More than a time archeology fails to prove or disprove certains facts. If I rely on the Brittonic sagas conserved by Welsh people, dating of the High Middle Ages, it has been endless battles during a long enough time.
So no integration or assimilation before later period. Otherwise, yes, that Anglo-Saxons took local wives seems proved.

I completely agree. Nor do I think the archaeology shows anything different.

[Tigertim]

archeology has refuted the myth of a very violent invasion of Anglo-Saxons
they may very well have mixed with the local Brittons, but maybe Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA with Britton mtDNA

Things have recently gone a little to far the other way theese days....it certainly wasn't the mass slaughter we got taught in school neither was it the love n peace theory people are trying to push now, there was certainly a lot of mixing and native Britons adopting Saxon dress and fashions (even burials ) but as mentioned there was also plenty of bloody fighting involving various war bands over a period of 200 years.

[MOESAN]

During the first times, it's very often the same scenario: no mixing, except some seldom elites (not all) exchanges and females rapts. After some times, longer or shorter, progressive assimilation; but spite the "clusters" system shows us, it remains still some differences between western and eastern English people (to simplify a good bit), not due to later Vikings settlements. Surely a remnant of the Anglo-Saxons conquest, rather through East at first. Look also at Y-haplos.