PDA

View Full Version : Was there an Anglo-Saxon Wipe Out in England?



Curtisw
Saturday, September 4th, 2010, 11:51 PM
So who here believes that there was an "Anglo-Saxon wipeout", meaning that during the early Middle Ages, Anglo Saxons emigrated to England in such numbers that they pushed out or massacred most of the people that had been living there before them?

I know, recently, there was supposed genetic data that showed most British were descended from Cro-Magnid and Atlanto-Mediterranid peoples. However, I also remember reading that the studies that purportedly showed those possibilities, were wrongly interpreted.

I believe that, more often than not, myth and conventional wisdom concerning a peoples origins have some basis in reality. The conventional wisdom is that the Anglo-SAxons largely pushed out the Romano-Celts, and I think this is probably the most likely scenario.

I know that Coon and others have commented on the high frequency of the "Keltic Nordid"/Atlantid types in England, but consider that England has received much immigration from IReland in the early modern and modern eras. This could account for the frequencies of those types in modern-day England.

Fyrgenholt
Sunday, September 5th, 2010, 12:09 AM
The genetic research, assuming correctness, indicates that the majority of British genes entered the Isles from two primary zones of contact, in a pincer movement of prehistoric migration. The earliest of the two contributions happened in the Paleolithic, coming from the Atlantic fringe, as the peoples of Europe headed back northwards with the recession of the ice. The second of the two a little later, from Northern Europe, headed across Doggerland from, primarily, Scandinavia. These set the foundations, and later contributions where of less significance in terms of genetics and of greater significance in terms of culture.

I'm not sure whether I do or do not believe in an Anglo-Saxon wipeout, but what I do certainly believe, is that the early history of England, and the development of our language and culture, is shrouded in alot of mystery.

Way of Deception
Sunday, September 5th, 2010, 12:20 AM
I know that Coon and others have commented on the high frequency of the "Keltic Nordid"/Atlantid types in England, but consider that England has received much immigration from IReland in the early modern and modern eras. This could account for the frequencies of those types in modern-day England.

Many (perhaps the majority) of anthropologists I've read put the Keltic Nordid type as most common in Belgium & the Netherlands, and more common in England than Ireland.

Barreldriver
Sunday, September 5th, 2010, 12:21 AM
There's been a lot of controversy regarding this when genetics gets involved. Originally it was assumed due to the levels of R1b in Britain (which is often over represented due to a bias in testing availability) indicated against Anglo-Saxon wipe out, however there have been discoveries of subclades of R1b that seem to have been brought by Anglo-Saxons and other Germanics like the Norse, examples being the clades of U106 and S182 (S182 recently being discovered at 23andMe and tested for by both 23andMe and Ethnoancestry, it has been labeled as Norse).

Gunwi
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010, 12:50 PM
I think judging by looking at the English that the wipeout theory isn't sustainable. English people have a tendency to look quite olive. The fair skin and light features are in a somehwat minority to me.

Bwana Doc
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010, 04:00 PM
A wipeout would be an unusual event in such a migration. Certainly not typical for other migrations of the same period.

Fyrgenholt
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010, 04:14 PM
I think judging by looking at the English that the wipeout theory isn't sustainable. English people have a tendency to look quite olive. The fair skin and light features are in a somehwat minority to me.

I disagree. Fair skin and lighter features are in the majority where I live although some, including myself, do have darker hair and/or eyes but none the less retain pale skin - this can be said in regards to the majority of European countries regardless. Who said non-Germanic speakers necessarily have olive skin anyway? I don't really know any Celts who do. Even Tacitus made such comments only regarding the Silures, a tribe who occupied a handful of modern south Wales counties.

I believe if a wipeout did happen then it only happened in the South East of England, this argument being supported by the distribution of Celtic languages existing until atleast the early middle ages in the North West and North East of modern day England ('Cumbric') as well as, of course, Wales and the South West (preserved in the form of Cornish).

Juthunge
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010, 05:13 PM
I doubt the Anglo-Saxon invasion was really an invasion like a whole "wave" of a people.
Firstly warrior parties arrived, called by the British (Hengest and Horsa, anyone? I think that part of the myth is quite correct.), took native women because they lacked their own, but after some time they wanted more of the land and called in their kinsmen which probably mostly arrived as families already. Nevertheless quite a few of them might have taken native women too.
The rest of the Celts, around 60% imo, got in larger parts pushed back over time to Wales, Cornwall and partly Scotland or died. Many might have just become subjects of their new masters though.

Gunwi, I don't know what you mean, it's not like the pre-Germanic or even pre-Celtic (which weren't very numerous anyways) populations were very swarthy, at least not as far as I know. They might have not been as fair as the Anglo-Saxons but still...

Linda Trostenhatten
Thursday, November 11th, 2010, 02:08 AM
Linguistically this would be quite simple, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes too lazy to fight the huns fled over the sea and each numbered around 60 000 and no words entered the language until the norman invasion when the language began to be italized, but again this was done not by swarthy italians but a bunch of norwegians who had picked up french.

the english are genetically distant from the welsh and close to the frisians

I believe this thing had been lying quietly when jewish genetics expert Goldberg made a study and said that there never was a large invasion of England and the people there are the same as at the time of Christ. he also said not many vikings settled & so on. but so I basically agree with the first post.

SaxonCeorl
Thursday, November 11th, 2010, 02:29 AM
^I agree

How else can you explain the complete lack of Celtic words in English and the complete lack of Celtic place names in England?

MCP3
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010, 10:58 PM
See also this thread to understand why in consequence of the two German Wars of the 20th century the Anglo-Saxons (whose mother nation is Germany, see YGGDRASIL) are biologically doomed.

H.S.Chamberlain: The Foundations of the 19th Century
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137093

There will be no Anglo-Saxon revival, and certainly not a Renaissance.

Caoimhe
Thursday, December 16th, 2010, 12:37 PM
the english are genetically distant from the welsh and close to the frisians



Incorrect. The English are just as close to the Welsh as they are to the Frisians; in fact all Brits are quite similar to each other. The only genetic outliers in Britain are the Orcadians (Orkney).

wittwer
Friday, December 17th, 2010, 06:27 PM
Why arent there more Celtic place names in Britain? Because the Romans Romanized everything during their occupation. As an example, whatever was Celtic in the area along the Thames river and estuary was centralized and Romanized in Londinium which later became London. As for the Angles, Saxons and Jutes they were never "German" ("German" as state and nation is a modern 19th Century conceptual construct. I doubt they would consider themselves "German"). As for the migration into Britain, there were small raids that coalesced into camps, and villages. Then came a larger migration when the Romano-Brit King Vortigern invited large bands of Angles, Saxons and Jutes into the country to deal with various tribes of Picts, Scots and Irish who were running amuck in the land and Kingdom. As mercenaries, these Continental Tribes were payed in land and as pastoralists they settled in the countryside and not in the urban areas that had been established by the Romans and adopted by the Celtic population. These cities and urban areas fell into disrepair and ruin over time. As these Tribes had no need of the Latin or Celtic language, these place names, eventually were Anglicized.

Finally, the Romano-Brits tried to drive the Angles, Saxons and Jutes out of the country once and for all, but were beaten back into what later became Wales and Cornwall and hence across the Channel into Britanny...

And as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes would certainly have put it, "As they "welshed" on their deals, so we took what was ours by right"... ;)

Savant
Monday, December 20th, 2010, 01:42 PM
Wrong, English are more germanic. The main remaining genetic enclave of the original britons are in Wales.




Incorrect. The English are just as close to the Welsh as they are to the Frisians; in fact all Brits are quite similar to each other. The only genetic outliers in Britain are the Orcadians (Orkney).

Caoimhe
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 10:28 AM
Nope, sorry. English are mostly Frisian/Germanic/Saxon genetically. The main genetic enclave of the origian Britons are the Welsh.

Prove it then (autosomal plots if possible). There is no `enclave` with the Welsh. All Brits tend to blend in with each other, there is VERY little differentiation. The Brits are closest to each other than to their European counterparts.

In this map, all Brits cluster close together (red crosses)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/Sf-FpITlRvI/AAAAAAAAAh0/pkXXqHXWglI/s400/without.jpg

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 11:20 AM
Prove it then (autosomal plots if possible). There is no `enclave` with the Welsh. All Brits tend to blend in with each other, there is VERY little differentiation. The Brits are closest to each other than to their European counterparts.

In this map, all Brits cluster close together (red crosses)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ro2ijOk8JWc/Sf-FpITlRvI/AAAAAAAAAh0/pkXXqHXWglI/s400/without.jpg

The English are almost exactly midway between continental Germanic and Celtic British Isles populations, viewed as a whole, but we are closer to the Dutch and Belgians than to anyone else.

Here are some quantifications of the various ethnicities' genetic distance from the English, taken from Cavalli-Sforza:

Belgian 15, Dutch 17, Danish 21, German 22, French 24, Norwegian 25, Scottish 27, Swiss 28, Irish 30, Swedish 37, Spanish 47, Italian 51, Austrian 55, Czech 60, Polish 70, Russian 79, Basque 119, Greek 204, Lappish 404.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010, 11:25 AM
All my English forebears looked decidedly Germanic, in and out of England, my Anglo-Saxon grandfather had classic Germanic features, including sandy blond hair, high cheekbones, straight nose, and very blue eyes. So I tend to believe the conventional history of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes migrating from northern Germany and western Denmark, to settle what was to become Germanic Britain or England. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes may well have absorbed some of the Celtic Britons in the process of settling England, but that doesn't cancel out or detract from the fact that these Germanic settlers and their Anglo-Saxon descendants were and are born of these Germanic tribes and a product of Germanic Europe.

Barreldriver
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 04:48 AM
As to my personal opinion on this matter I am inclined to think that the folks of England are mostly pre-Anglo-Saxon derived, with Anglo-Saxon being the next largest component followed by Scandinavian and Norman (all this depending on independent lineage in a way as some could have more Anglo-Saxon than others). My reasons for thinking this way are reflected in this post http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1050336&postcount=50

Naturally proportions would be near impossible to gauge in New Worlder's like myself as the majority my pull towards places like Germany is due to recent actual German ancestry as opposed to a distant Anglo-Saxon ancestor.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 07:11 AM
Here's something I posted on another thread:

I've heard of one test indicating a predominance of Anglo-Saxon "invader" genes in England, but other (in my view a little more thoughtful and detailed) DNA tests suggest that the vast majority are of pre-Saxon descent.

As for names, the majority of river names in England are pre-Saxon, and the same goes for major towns, i.e. London, York, Leeds, Manchester etc.

It may well be that the names of smaller villages tended to change over time, but the Norman Conquest brought in written records which pretty much put an end to this. This would explain why they tend to be more English, because whatever Celtic name a village might have had earlier (if it even existed) would often have been replaced by an English one by the time of the Conquest (due to language replacement).

However, many place names which have an apparently English meaning might actually be of Celtic origin. An example of this phenomenon is the town of York, which in Old English is Eoforwic (which apparently means town of the bear, or something like that); but looking at the earlier records this is clearly just an Anglo-Saxon corruption of York's Celtic name Eborac or Ebrauc; and Edinburgh is known as Edwinesburg in Old English. If York had never been mentioned in Roman or early British writings (as in the case of most small villages in England), then everybody would assume the name York is of English origin.

Regarding Celtic words in the English language, I believe a proper understanding of the nature of everything involved eliminates this difficulty. It'll take too long to explain here but I can if anyone's interested. Suffice it to say that I believe the A/S invasion was essentially no different from the Germanic invasions of the rest of the former Roman world.

Witta
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 09:10 AM
Prove it then (autosomal plots if possible). There is no `enclave` with the Welsh. All Brits tend to blend in with each other, there is VERY little differentiation. The Brits are closest to each other than to their European counterparts.

As genetic science advances the facts will emerge. There have been many DNA studies, and Germanic scientists tend to conclude England is Germanic (Weile, Weiss, Wager, Badman (http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/10571/)), British/Basque scientists/historians tend to conclude England is British etc (Oppenheimer, Sykes (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.html)). Results tend to take the side of the ethnic group of the scientist/historian.

This is the study I always cite:



http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/10571/
Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration

Weale, ME and Weiss, DA and Jager, RF and Bradman, N and Thomas, MG (2002) Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration. MOL BIOL EVOL , 19 (7) , 1008 - 1021.

Abstract

British history contains several periods of major Cultural change. It remains controversial as to how much these periods coincided with substantial immigration from continental Europe. even for those that Occurred most recently. In this study, we examine genetic data for evidence of male immigration at particular times into Central England and North Wales. To do this, we used 12 biallelic polymorphisms and six microsatellite markers to define high-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes in a sample of 3 13 males from seven towns located along an east-west transect from East Anglia to North Wales. The Central English towns were genetically very similar, whereas the two North Welsh towns differed significantly both from each other and from the Central English towns. When we compared our data with an additional 177 samples collected in Friesland and Norway. We found that the Central English and Frisian samples were statistically indistinguishable. Using novel population genetic models that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%-100% to the gene pool Lit that time) but not into North Wales.

Sigurd
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 09:35 AM
How else can you explain the complete lack of Celtic words in English and the complete lack of Celtic place names in England?

I'm afraid the assumption of a complete lack of Celtic place names in England doesn't stand the trial of time. It is simply that they went through the Romanic mouth first. Notable examples of this are places such as York, which is especially notable for being in "traditional Germanic territory":

The Romanic name we have for this place is Eburacum, whose Celticity is fairly evident --- if we see a Common Brythonic Eborakon as the root, we have inner-Celtic comparison on the dendronym (< *eburos "yew", cf. Welsh efwr, Irish iobhar, Scottish Gaelic iubhar, Breton evor), have comparable toponyms across Celtic-speaking Europe (Ebura in Hispania Baetica, Eburobrittium [near Óbidos], Ebora [Évora]; and even ethnonyms: a Celtiberian tribe were the Eburancí; two Gallic tribes were the Eburones and Eburovices.

The other option would be that it is not a dendronym in itself, but an anthroponym: It is not uncommon in Celtic naming to be named after a sacred plant, which yew evidently was (explaining the tribal namings with continental Celts). In either instance, that would also lend some striking evidence for its Celticity --- the inner-Celtic rooting is still present.

So, for York we have: Celtic *Eborakon becomes Latin Eboracum/Eburacum. The Anglo-Saxons hear this and re-interpret it as Eoforwīc, meaning "wild-boar town". Later, the Norse arrive and hear this and use folk etymology once more for Jórvik, meaning "horse bay". Over time, this is contracted to York. ;)

I could apply the same process to at least ten other very English-sounding place-names or very Latin-sounding place-names, but for now the most striking and well-documented example of York will do the service, I suppose. You spoke of a complete lack of Celtic names, I have my QED. :P

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 09:36 AM
As genetic science advances the facts will emerge. For exaple the scinece is not accurate enough yet to divide the Saxon and Danish genes in England. There have been many DNA studies and Germanic scientists tend to conclude England is Germanic, British scientists/historians tend to conclude England is British and Jewsish scientists/historians tend to conclude the British are a mongrel race. Results tend to agree with the agenda of the ethnic group of the scientist/historian.


In Chesterfield, which was settled by the Romans, there are many people there who look as Italian as any Italian or Italian-American and have Italian surnames, 2000 years later. But ten miles down the road in the next town there is no such Italian population. Where invaders settled, there still tends to be a population left behind. For example look at this map of Danish settlement names:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_48819_en.jpg

That's quite a few Danish settlements. Over half of England settled by Danes, who would have been absorbed eventually into the local Anglo-Saxon population infusing more Germanic blood into the English. I really can't see how the English, the real, genetic English if you like, could be anything other than thoroughly Germanic. So now we have four Germanic peoples in the ethnic composition of the English. Excellent.

Barreldriver
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 10:38 AM
As genetic science advances the facts will emerge. There have been many DNA studies, and Germanic scientists tend to conclude England is Germanic (Weile, Weiss, Wager, Badman (http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/10571/)), British/Basque scientists/historians tend to conclude England is British etc (Oppenheimer, Sykes (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.html)). Results tend to take the side of the ethnic group of the scientist/historian.

This is the study I always cite:

Y-Chromosome studies are very limited, that part of the genome doesn't count for much regarding overall ancestry, and when it comes to overall autosomal ancestry the folks of the British Isle's cluster closest to each other with individual minor pulls towards places like Germany and France mostly (some towards Norway and Sweden), these pulls though are not so strong as to pull them out from the British Isle's cluster, just shift their position within the cluster, thus they are more "British" than anything else, the similarities to Germans (via Anglo-Saxons) and Scandinavians (via Vikings and such) is a lesser part of the over all ancestral picture.

As a whole though the closest non-British Isle's population to the British Isle's cluster is the Germans, so logically the next highest influence after Briton is Anglo-Saxon, the Scandinavian and Norman having a lesser influence.

I will re-post this map from December 10th, 2010, the latest map from the Eurogenes Project (recently given thumbs up in a nature news article):

http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k438/ragnarok1227/EDIT1111.png

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 12:44 PM
In Chesterfield, which was settled by the Romans, there are many people there who look as Italian as any Italian or Italian-American and have Italian surnames, 2000 years later. But ten miles down the road in the next town there is no such Italian population. Where invaders settled, there still tends to be a population left behind. For example look at this map of Danish settlement names

I'm not actually sure who said this. It was quoted as FG's, but it wasn't in the original post. Maybe it was edited out?

Anyway, if they have Italian surnames, then they're obviously of recent Italian descent. Not surprising, given Chesterfield's large Catholic community. My dad went to school with a few, and this was in the 50s. There'll be more now. Romans 2000 years ago didn't have 'Italian' surnames as we know them today (Rossi, Ferarri, Leone etc.). And there are no Anglo-Italian surnames in existence, while there are, for example, many Anglo-Norman surnames (e.g. Saville, Beaumont etc.). I'm not saying there's no Italian blood in Roman settlements in Britain, but saying people who look Italian and have Italian surnames have had lineages in England for 2000 years is laughable, no offence.

Thusnelda
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Hasn´t the North-English town "Carlisle" near the border to Scotland a Gaelic, thus Celtic, name? It means "City at the wall" in Gaelic. So there doesn´t seem to be a complete lack of Celtic place names in England. And I´m pretty sure there´re some more examples. ;) Gaelic is a tree of the Celtic languages (q-celtic).

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:20 PM
The very familiar river 'Avon' is 'Celtic' in origin!

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:23 PM
Aber: River mouth or ford
Afon: River
Allt: Hillside
Avon; Esk; Eye; Dee: River
Bedd: Grave
Bre-; Drum; Don: Hill
Caer: Fortress
Capel: Chapel
Carnedd: Cairn
Castell: Castle
Coed: Wood
Coombe - a deep valley
Cwm: Valley
Dinas: City
Glan: River Bank
Glen - a narrow valley
Hamps: Dry stream in Summer
Llan: Church
Llyn: Lake
Mawr: Big
Môr: Sea
Mynydd: Mountain
Pant: Hollow
Pen; Bryn: Hill; Head
Plas: Palace
Pont; Bont: Bridge
Porth: Harbour
Tre: Hamlet; Village; Town
Treath: Beach
Ynys: Island

Barreldriver
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:29 PM
Isn't Ouse as well? My lineage came from the along the Ouse where it flows into the Trent (Whitgift and Blacktoft), Ouse is from the Celtic word 'Usa', from *udso-, which simply means 'water'. 'River Ouse' therefore actually means 'River Water', etymologically.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Ouse,_Yorkshire

Go figure that my folks have a Briton Y-DNA signature (R-S116* for the SNP haplogroup side [many associate this group with the Proto-Celts and Bell Beakers], for the STR haplotype side I'm R1b-6, Oppenheimer said my DNA is rare and specific only to Britain (mostly found in Yorkshire and the Southeast near Norfolk, it is extremely rare elsewhere in Britain).

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:37 PM
"Ouse is from the Celtic word 'Usa', from *udso-, which simply means 'water'."


Yep Cadwallon....that's correct ... "Uisce" being the full gaelic word for water.

WYB ... "Uisce Beatha" is original Gaelic for what became "Whiskey"

"Uisce Beatha" meaning " Water of Life"

Sláinte! Cheers!

Sigurd
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:45 PM
The list you provide, one should know, is most true only for Brythonic-derived names; which we count amongst the P-Celtic languages. It's certainly not true for the Goidelic branch (which we count amongst the Q-Celtic languages). And most certainly, we're looking to derive things from an even earlier stage, to prove its celticity, which can only be done via the older stage of the language; which would have dunon for city. ;)

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:55 PM
Indeed Sigurd, there are two branches of Celtic languages: one (Bryttonic) gave birth to Welsh, Cornish, Devonian and Breton. The other (Goidelic) gave birth to Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and Manx and various northern dialects.

The reason for this is that the Indo-European consonant written as "qu" has given 'c' in the Gaelic (Goidelic) languages and 'p' in the Bryttonic languages.

For instance:

"head" in Irish is "ceann", in Welsh - "pen".

"who" - in Irish "ce", in Welsh "pwy".


These languages are among oldest surving languages still spoken in Europe today.

VikingManx
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 03:06 PM
The fact that Brittany exists should tell us the whole story. Incredible bloodshed.

Barreldriver
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 03:21 PM
The fact that Brittany exists should tell us the whole story. Incredible bloodshed.

Irregardless of Brittany, the genes don't lie, and the gene's say, at an over all biogeographic ancestral level, the British Islander's are very very very similar to the core, with only slight variations that cause them to shift within their cluster towards other clusters that might be German, French, or Scandinavian, the existence of Brittany is not evidence of a complete or major retreat of Britons, rather it just shows that there were Britons who retreated (exact number who the heck can know), just because a number retreat does not mean all did, and the genes suggest that a load of them assimilated, if you disagree then tell me how the English are closer to the Scots and Irish (excluding some Orcadians, as the Orcadians form their own cluster almost that's in between the Norwegian's and the other British Islander's) than they are to Germans, Scandinavians, etc....

If their ancestry was predominantly Anglo-Saxon they would be pulled farther away from groups like the Irish and pulled closer to groups like the Germans and such, these maps don't show that, they show that the English, Irish, Scots, etc... form a distinguishable cluster, showing overall common relation, the pulls/shifts within that cluster that go in the direction of other clusters suggests some admixture, but not a strong enough one to lift them out of their group, which thus means at a majority their genes are common between each other (and logically then pre-Anglo-Saxon, unless you want to say the Anglo-Saxon invasion went as far as Cork? Rubbish).

VikingManx
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 06:53 PM
Im colonial British, and mine cluster with the Danish samples.

Maybe the Germanics left. All I know for a fact is that the founding-stock british in my part of America dont look much like modern Englishmen.

For instance, this man spawned me:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137751

Does that look like potato-famine Irish to you?

Barreldriver
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 07:11 PM
Im colonial British, and mine cluster with the Danish samples.

Maybe the Germanics left. All I know for a fact is that the founding-stock british in my part of America dont look much like modern Englishmen.

For instance, this man spawned me:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137751

Does that look like potato-famine Irish to you?

That's your example, I'm talking a region as a whole, of course there is individual deviations, but as a whole on these maps there's a very dense cluster of UK, Irish, Scots, etc.... with very little pull away.

VikingManx
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 07:18 PM
My family was apparently fairly upper-class in the Old World, so maybe Im making too many generalizations on the britvolk as a whole.

Still, how many millions of Y-dna lines passed away during the two World Wars? How many left for greener pastures in the New World? I think that until all the variables are looked at and measured, the extent of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian ancestry in Dark Age Britain will remain something of a mystery.

Barreldriver
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 07:25 PM
My family was apparently fairly upper-class in the Old World, so maybe Im making too many generalizations on the britvolk as a whole.

Still, how many millions of Y-dna lines passed away during the two World Wars? How many left for greener pastures in the New World? I think that until all the variables are looked at and measured, the extent of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian ancestry in Dark Age Britain will remain something of a mystery.

Very true, and the Plague is a factor to be considered. With New Worlder's it's hard to tell because we've mixed in some cases with Germans and Scandinavians, so the only New Worlder's that would be of use in such analysis are those of pure British Isle's ancestry.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 31st, 2010, 07:55 PM
Im colonial British, and mine cluster with the Danish samples.

Maybe the Germanics left. All I know for a fact is that the founding-stock british in my part of America dont look much like modern Englishmen.

I'm interested in exploring this a little further. Would you mind posting some photos of people you percieve as representing the English colonial type, and examples of people you perceive as representing the 'modern Englishman'?


For instance, this man spawned me:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137751

Does that look like potato-famine Irish to you?

I see people who look like your father every day. He looks more English than Irish, IMO. I never see anyone who looks like your mother, though (if she's your mother, that is).

Rhydderch
Saturday, January 1st, 2011, 12:59 AM
The fact that Brittany exists should tell us the whole story. Incredible bloodshed.This is a frequently repeated fallacy. If we look at the history of Brittany we find that there was a British influence there long before the Anglo-Saxon conquest. In the turmoil of the barbarian raids (Scots and Picts as well as Anglo-Saxons) many Britons decided to pack up and leave to more peaceful territories already under British rule and cultural domination.

Alcuin of York does not speak of the Britons as if they were slaughtered or driven out, but that they "yielded to burdensome slavery" after having overthrown the Roman yoke. I would say that by "slavery" he was using the term as it commonly was, not in the sense of individuals being slaves of a household master, but of a nation being under foreign domination and tribute, in much the same way that Gauls, Britons and other peoples were said in earlier times to be "slaves of the Romans".

VikingManx
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 12:24 AM
I'm interested in exploring this a little further. Would you mind posting some photos of people you percieve as representing the English colonial type, and examples of people you perceive as representing the 'modern Englishman'?



I see people who look like your father every day. He looks more English than Irish, IMO. I never see anyone who looks like your mother, though (if she's your mother, that is).

Yes she is my mother. Ill post a bunch of pictures of her soon. She is of English, Lowlands, Highlands, and Welsh origin.

Barreldriver
Tuesday, January 25th, 2011, 06:05 PM
I've been reading Bede lately, and according to his history of the English people prior to the Saxon invasions and after the final Roman legions left Britain the Irish and Picts began raiding and such with the Britons not having a military force as their war men were gone for a number of reasons (Roman military service so they left with the legions, sickness, death from early raids, etc...), plus there was famine and pestilence. Sounds to me that by the time the Saxons came they would not have had much to do to really make the native Britons numbers dwindle, now this brings up the question of why the autosomal genetic similarity between English folk and their other Insular neighbors?

It could be that the Anglo-Saxon's utilized a practice similar to the Roman foederati forming their military forces from various groups of Northern and Northwestern European peoples not just Germanic but Celto-Germanic or even Celto to a smaller extent, like today a big inspiration for military action is payment of some sort and one could bet that when rumor spreads about a large warband heading out to conquer an island supposedly well suited for farming and bountiful in plunder folks are gonna want in on that band wagon.

So in turn if the initial Anglo-Saxon waves were already consisting of a Celto-Germanic man base, by the time all those descendants of the various soldiers and other settlers in those large bands got to mix their blend would look very similar to what we are seeing today in Britain.

We can tell based on the genetic maps that the Celto component is pulling the English towards the Irish and such while the Germanic component is pulling them towards the Germans, as a whole English folk are naturally most similar to other English folk and in some cases to other Isle inhabitants (these latter being probably recent Anglo-Scots or Anglo-Irish mixes) while others cluster farther towards the Germans with a slighter pull towards the Irish and such (these ones more than likely being those of all or mostly all English ancestry thus their greater pull towards other Germanics with their more slight Celtic pull being the result of possibly the other parts of the early war bands in combination with the even smaller numbers of remaining Britons).

Rhydderch
Friday, March 11th, 2011, 01:18 AM
I've been reading Bede lately, and according to his history of the English people prior to the Saxon invasions and after the final Roman legions left Britain the Irish and Picts began raiding and such with the Britons not having a military force as their war men were gone for a number of reasons (Roman military service so they left with the legions, sickness, death from early raids, etc...), plus there was famine and pestilence. Sounds to me that by the time the Saxons came they would not have had much to do to really make the native Britons numbers dwindle, now this brings up the question of why the autosomal genetic similarity between English folk and their other Insular neighbors?Bede got his information for this period essentially from Gildas, who used a fair bit of hyperbole in his accounts, as did continental writers of the same period, with the barbarian invasions occuring.

Other sources indicate that there were times of reasonable prosperity in this era, and many British kingdoms survived in their own right until close to two centuries after the departure of Roman rule. In fact it would appear that the Britons themselves may have taken things into their own hands and expelled the last of the failing Roman administrators, and organised their own defence.

So I don't think they were really left helpless when the Romans left.