World Families Forums - England: Data From the Busby Study

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2014, 10:55:54 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  England: Data From the Busby Study
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: England: Data From the Busby Study  (Read 4215 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: August 28, 2011, 01:37:30 PM »

I used the Excel chart of supplementary data in Busby et al for this thread. It is located here:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2011/08/18/rspb.2011.1044.DC1/rspb20111044supp2.xls

From what I could tell, going through the latitudes and longitudes of the Busby sample locations using Google Maps, there were six sample locations in England: Southwell, Nottinghamshire; Lutterworth, Leicestershire; Leeds, West Yorkshire; Peterborough, Cambridgeshire; Exeter, Devon; and Gravesend, Kent.

Leeds and Lutterworth are pretty much right on the M1 Motorway, which runs north-south through basically the center of England. Southwell, Peterborough, and Gravesend are east of it, Gravesend well east of it, down in SE England. There was only one sample location in the West, the one at Exeter in Devon. So, the sampling is skewed a bit to the eastern side of England.

If I missed a location, please let me know.

For those who don't know it yet, S21=U106, S29=U198, S116=P312, S145=L21, and S28=U152. I will go with what FTDNA calls these SNPs, because that is what I am most comfortable with.

Here is a breakdown by sampling location in England.

Southwell   N= 165

U106xU198 = 15.8%

U198 = 2.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 15.2%

L21xM222 = 16.4%

M222 = 0

U152 = 9.7%

Lutterworth   N=25

U106xU198 = 24%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 12%

L21xM222 = 8%

M222 = 4%

U152 = 0

Leeds   N=47

U106xU198 = 14.9%

U198 = 6.4%

P312xL21,U152 = 10.6%

L21xM222 = 29.8%

M222 = 10.6%

U152 = 6.4%

Peterborough   N= 172

U106xU198 = 23.3%

U198 = 2.3%

P312xL21,U152 = 17.4%

L21xM222 = 12.8%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.1%

Exeter   N=48

U106xU198 = 25%

U198 = 0

P312xL21,U152 = 6.3%

L21xM222 = 37.5%

M222 = 0

U152 = 8.3%

Gravesend   N=52

U106xU198 = 23.1%

U198 = 3.8%

P312xL21,U152 = 21.2%

L21xM222 = 13.5%

M222 = 1.9%

U152 = 15.4%

Averaging over all six sample locations, I arrive at the following:

U106xU198 = 21%

U198 = 2.48%

P312xL21,U152 = 13.78%

L21xM222 = 19.66%

M222 = 2.75%

U152 = 7.98%


I did not attempt to get fancy and attach different weights based on the different sample sizes.

Clearly P312 and its clades outnumber U106 and its clades in England. More sample locations are needed for a more accurate assessment, but probably the big picture of R1b haplogroup frequencies and their order is fairly good. I do think R-L21 is probably the most frequent y haplogroup in England, with U106 not too far behind. U106 appears to be slightly more frequent in this study because the sampling was skewed to the east.

U152 seems to be pretty light on the ground everywhere except at Gravesend, Kent, although it did show up at almost 10% at one of the two best-sampled locations, Southwell, Nottinghamshire.

It's hard to say much about P312xL21,U152, because it's a paragroup and would likely break down into a number of distinct subclades about which nothing is currently known. It was most frequent at Gravesend, Kent, at 21%. It was also pretty well represented in four of the other five sampling places (Exeter being the low point for P312xL21,U152). P312xL21,U152 needs to be broken down into its constituent subclades. Right now it's just kind of an amorphous blob (sorry, but I remember being part of that blob, too).

Anyone else want to offer some comments? I realize I could have missed something. It's kind of a pain in the butt plugging map coordinates into Google Maps to find Busby's sample locations.

Note: I have had to edit this post a few times because I found I left things out. So, if you see some changes, that is why. I felt pretty free to do that, since no one has responded to this initial post yet.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 04:05:24 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2011, 06:01:03 PM »

I was a bit surprised by the low L21xM222 frequency at Lutterworth (8%), but the sample size (25) was the lowest of any of the locations in England. I suspect the percentage of L21 would have come up had they sampled two or three times as many men, but maybe not.

 
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 06:01:36 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2011, 07:36:09 AM »

It's surprising to me that no one has posted on this thread yet (besides me).

Anyway, what do these data do for the old "wipe-out" theory advanced by Weale et al in their famous 2002 study, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration?

Were the native Britons wiped out and replaced by Anglo-Saxons? If not, how did English come to so thoroughly replace Celtic languages in what is now England?
Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2011, 08:52:04 AM »

Anyway, what do these data do for the old "wipe-out" theory advanced by Weale et al in their famous 2002 study, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration?

Were the native Britons wiped out and replaced by Anglo-Saxons? If not, how did English come to so thoroughly replace Celtic languages in what is now England?

Weale doesn't advance a wipe out theory. That's a media interpretation. Weale states:

"We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number."

Weale follows Jim Wilson's palaeolithic Basque hypothesis for R1b so the question ought really to be, how did Balareque's data affect his study, if at all.

The basis of Weale's study was to test three migration scenarios, the oldest being a mass migration in the neolithic, another being constant background migration and the third being an anglo saxon mass migration. Essentially he was asking what could account for the R1b haplotypes that were found in Friesland occuring in the quantities found in central England. Consequently, the actual age of these haplotypes is of less importance than the means by which they spread.

best
authun
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2011, 08:53:00 AM »

Well based on modern distributions and what people tend to think I would generally not see L21 or U152 as likely a big thing among Anglo-Saxons and are more likely Celtic.  Its harder to say for the p312* element although that does exist at reasonable levels throughout Ireland in this study so a chunk of it may be Celtic too.  In fact in terms of R1b I would only tend to see U106 as linked to the Anglo-Saxons, and not all of it at that.  So, on balance, I would tend to see the results as evidence for substantial pre-AS survival even in the east.  A lot depends on the sample though and how 'local' it really was.

The high M222 in Leeds is a bit of an eye opener.  It could be down to recent Irish immigration (it is the kind of industrial town that would have got Irish immigration) or it could maybe be older and relate to the previously suggested ancient M222 area in SW Scotland and NW England.  
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2011, 09:04:00 AM »

I tend to see the Britons as a major input into the basic rural stock of most of England. There is no mistaking the fact that L21 does increase substantially in Leeds and Devon in this sample, both areas which preserve the old British kingdom names (Loidis and Dumnonia) and where Britons seem to have long lingered after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. However, L21 also holds a reasonable level in the east albeit less than half.  U152 seems fairly uniform in east and west which again suggests to me it is not Germanic in origin.  
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 09:07:31 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2011, 11:03:59 AM »

...  Averaging over all six sample locations, I arrive at the following:

U106xU198 = 21%

U198 = 2.48%

P312xL21,U152 = 13.78%

L21xM222 = 19.66%

M222 = 2.75%

U152 = 7.98%
....
Busby apparently didn't break out L48 from U106, did he? Too bad if he didn't as I think that would help us even more.   Do any of these haplogroups of R1b line nicely with R1a1 frequency peaks?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2011, 12:05:37 PM »

Anyway, what do these data do for the old "wipe-out" theory advanced by Weale et al in their famous 2002 study, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration?

Were the native Britons wiped out and replaced by Anglo-Saxons? If not, how did English come to so thoroughly replace Celtic languages in what is now England?

Weale doesn't advance a wipe out theory. That's a media interpretation. Weale states:

"We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number."

Weale follows Jim Wilson's palaeolithic Basque hypothesis for R1b so the question ought really to be, how did Balareque's data affect his study, if at all.

The basis of Weale's study was to test three migration scenarios, the oldest being a mass migration in the neolithic, another being constant background migration and the third being an anglo saxon mass migration. Essentially he was asking what could account for the R1b haplotypes that were found in Friesland occuring in the quantities found in central England. Consequently, the actual age of these haplotypes is of less importance than the means by which they spread.

best
authun

Didn't one of the authors (Mark Thomas, maybe?) later put out a paper arguing for an Anglo-Saxon  "Apartheid" theory, i.e., male Britons were kept so down and out in A-S society that they weren't able to compete reproductively with A-S males, etc.?

I seem to remember that, but I'm not going to go hunting for the article.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2011, 12:31:05 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2011, 12:49:33 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?


Notice that the y hap I drops off drastically in the two Welsh locations, just as I recall the U106 does in Busby's Welsh data (but I am working from memory on that right now).

It would be nice if someone would go back and test Weale's samples for the major subclades, so we could see the proportion of U106 in his sample locations. It would also be nice if they added a couple more locations in western England instead of jumping right from Ashbourne into Wales. Weale's English samples are skewed even more to the east than Busby's.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 12:50:45 PM by rms2 » Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2011, 02:37:49 PM »

Didn't one of the authors (Mark Thomas, maybe?) later put out a paper arguing for an Anglo-Saxon  "Apartheid" theory, i.e., male Britons were kept so down and out in A-S society that they weren't able to compete reproductively with A-S males, etc.?

I seem to remember that, but I'm not going to go hunting for the article.

No, though that's how it was reported by the media. The population model ran with U = D which meant that British males had the same opportunity to marry British females as did the Anglo Saxon males. The difference was the value of S, which was the female selective choice. This was run for a series of values, 1.2, 1.4 1.6 and 1.8. The female choice deprives british male lineages from progressing and allows anglo saxon lineages to increase.

It's just a theoretical population model but it did show that within realistic limits, a an initial anglo saxon population of no more than 10% could grow to be greater than 50% within 6 - 8 generations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/pdf/rspb20063627.pdf

Added to that of course we also have the possibility of chain migration where people came from the continent over a period of 150 - 200 years. This is a possible interpretation of the grave analysis at West Heslerton.

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 02:39:08 PM by authun » Logged
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2011, 05:28:13 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?

Short of aDNA from Ango-Saxon remains, wouldn't comparing the GD of Danish, German, and possibly the Low-Countries members with today's English give us an indication.  This A-S migration to the Isles was only about 1600 years ago and
maybe lasted a few centuries in the form of cross-channel movements.  At the 67 marker level, I think we would see Continental connections with the Isles with a small GD roughly in the 5-10 range on medium and fast markers.  I say 5-10 only as an example, realizing the uncertainty of STR variance and mutation behavior.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 05:29:13 PM by MHammers » Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2011, 06:52:53 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?

Short of aDNA from Ango-Saxon remains, wouldn't comparing the GD of Danish, German, and possibly the Low-Countries members with today's English give us an indication.  This A-S migration to the Isles was only about 1600 years ago and
maybe lasted a few centuries in the form of cross-channel movements.  At the 67 marker level, I think we would see Continental connections with the Isles with a small GD roughly in the 5-10 range on medium and fast markers.  I say 5-10 only as an example, realizing the uncertainty of STR variance and mutation behavior.

That is a good point.  Surely the matches should be reasonably close.  So, do English U106 folk tend to match continentals closely?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2011, 07:50:58 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?

Short of aDNA from Ango-Saxon remains, wouldn't comparing the GD of Danish, German, and possibly the Low-Countries members with today's English give us an indication.  This A-S migration to the Isles was only about 1600 years ago and
maybe lasted a few centuries in the form of cross-channel movements.  At the 67 marker level, I think we would see Continental connections with the Isles with a small GD roughly in the 5-10 range on medium and fast markers.  I say 5-10 only as an example, realizing the uncertainty of STR variance and mutation behavior.

That is a good point.  Surely the matches should be reasonably close.  So, do English U106 folk tend to match continentals closely?

That I don't know. One of the R1b-U106 Project admins could tell us, or someone could try running a few English U106ers in Ysearch.

It might be well to keep in mind that there is a large pool of British Isles test subjects in Ysearch and a far smaller pool of continentals.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2011, 08:01:38 PM »


Personally I think we will have a better idea of all this once U106 is tracked by subclade. My initial impression is that L48, or possibly some part of it, has the best claim for being Germanic, but don't take this to the bank. Actually, I think P312 would also have to be refined to a far greater degree than was done in the study to give a reliable picture.

I would love to hear from Authun how he would rank the above 6 places in order of density of Anglo-Saxon settlement. I doubt one can distinguish between the three places in the Midlands (Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire), which incidentally were also areas of comparatvely  heavy Scandinavian settlement.  I suppose I would rank Gravesend the highest and Leeds and Exeter the lowest, as the latter are both pretty westerly.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2011, 08:13:21 PM »

I randomly picked a U106 guy from Ysearch: Harris, Ysearch CTJBS, who says his mdka came from Kent. I believe he is actually R-L48, but I did pick him randomly.

He has a lot of neighbors within 12 markers away at 67 markers. Here are a few continentals within a reasonable distance (there were a few more, but I got tired of writing them down).

58/67 - Deruig - Netherlands (49WJZ)

57/67 - Van Camp - Netherlands (Ysearch 23H5g)

57/67 - Bergerson - Norway (WXTQ4)

57/67 - Klootwijk - Netherlands (VMPHS)

57/67 - "Anonymous Belgian" - Belgium (DDD6Q)

Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2011, 08:26:02 PM »


Personally I think we will have a better idea of all this once U106 is tracked by subclade. My initial impression is that L48, or possibly some part of it, has the best claim for being Germanic, but don't take this to the bank. Actually, I think P312 would also have to be refined to a far greater degree than was done in the study to give a reliable picture.

I would love to hear from Authun how he would rank the above 6 places in order of density of Anglo-Saxon settlement. I doubt one can distinguish between the three places in the Midlands (Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire), which incidentally were also areas of comparatvely  heavy Scandinavian settlement.  I suppose I would rank Gravesend the highest and Leeds and Exeter the lowest, as the latter are both pretty westerly.

I think it's going to be hard to distinguish Anglo-Saxon from Scandinavian input, except perhaps using R1a, since R1a appears to be higher in Scandinavia than in the main A-S source lands.

I wouldn't call Leeds western. It's squarely in the north middle of England. Exeter was the only location Busby et al sampled in western England. Busby's English sampling was skewed to the east, like Weale's.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2011, 07:25:41 AM »

Didn't one of the authors (Mark Thomas, maybe?) later put out a paper arguing for an Anglo-Saxon  "Apartheid" theory, i.e., male Britons were kept so down and out in A-S society that they weren't able to compete reproductively with A-S males, etc.?

I seem to remember that, but I'm not going to go hunting for the article.

No, though that's how it was reported by the media. The population model ran with U = D which meant that British males had the same opportunity to marry British females as did the Anglo Saxon males. The difference was the value of S, which was the female selective choice. This was run for a series of values, 1.2, 1.4 1.6 and 1.8. The female choice deprives british male lineages from progressing and allows anglo saxon lineages to increase.

It's just a theoretical population model but it did show that within realistic limits, a an initial anglo saxon population of no more than 10% could grow to be greater than 50% within 6 - 8 generations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/pdf/rspb20063627.pdf

But authun, the title of the paper is, Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure
in early Anglo-Saxon England
, so my characterization wasn't entirely the product of media spin. Anyway, that's not worth arguing about.

That model is interesting, though, because it could be applied to any era and any "interloper" scenario to explain how a substantial change could take place in the y-dna population of a region within just a few generations.

Added to that of course we also have the possibility of chain migration where people came from the continent over a period of 150 - 200 years. This is a possible interpretation of the grave analysis at West Heslerton.

best
authun

That is what I think happened. Once the Anglo-Saxons established a foothold in SE Britain, that provided a base for the continued immigration of their relatives and friends. I recall a number of years ago reading about the apparent abandonment of whole villages along the North Sea coast, especially the Terpen, those villages built on big mounds of cow manure and earth because of flooding.

Even though I think there was probably a substantial influx of Anglo-Saxons into Britain, it took place over the course of several centuries and not all at once. So, I don't think the Anglo-Saxons annihilated the Britons or even came close to that. There were a number of warring British kingdoms that spent as much time fighting each other as they did fighting the Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes this or that British kingdom would ally with the Anglo-Saxons against one or more of the other British kingdoms. As we know, some of them hired Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. I also think it likely that native British warriors took service in Anglo-Saxon warbands and, to a lesser extent, vice versa.

It is interesting in this connection that Cerdic, king of Wessex in the early 6th century, had what is generally believed to be a British name. While I don't usually like to rely on anything from Wikipedia, I think the following quote is fairly accurate, considering what I have read on the subject in other sources.

Quote from:  Wikipedia article "Cerdic of Wessex"
Curiously, the name Cerdic is thought to be British – a form of the name Ceretic or Caradog (in Latin Caratacus) – rather than Germanic in origin. One explanation for this is the possibility that Cerdic's mother was British and that he was given a name used by his mother's people; if so, this would provide evidence for a degree of mixing, both cultural and biological, between the invaders and the native British. Alternatively, the use of a British name may indicate that Cerdic was a native Briton, and that his dynasty became Anglicised over time.[7] This view is supported by the non-Germanic names of some of his successors including Ceawlin, Cedda and Caedwalla. Also Cerdic's father, Elesa, has been identified by some scholars with the Romano-Briton Elasius, the "chief of the region", met by Germanus of Auxerre.[8] If this were the case then the records of Cerdic landing in Britain, which were written down many generations after the events they purport to portray, must be looked on as being in the realms of legend.[9]

« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 07:29:42 AM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2011, 07:59:44 AM »

And of course we shouldn’t exclude that some degree of Roman (or of Roman Empire Peoples) genes were amongst the same Britons and why not amongst the same Anglo-Saxons. Now we know that G2a3b1a2-L497+ was probably of Etruscan (widely Roman and Italian) descent. If the same French dynasty of the Capetians descended from them (see the G2a3b1a2 of Louis XVI and of the Lombard warriors excavated in South Germany), how many important families, included that of King Arthur, did descend from Romans or Peoples of the Roman Empire?
Also my haplogroup (R1b1a2a and others upstream and downstream) are present at a low level (but they are at a low level also in Italy) in the British Isles and probably are of the Roman times, being so close to mine. And I don’t speak of R-U152, which is in its origin and diffusion exclusively Italian. The link with Celts is demonstrated not true just by its diffusion in the Isles.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2011, 08:09:09 AM »

And of course we shouldn’t exclude that some degree of Roman (or of Roman Empire Peoples) genes were amongst the same Britons and why not amongst the same Anglo-Saxons. Now we know that G2a3b1a2-L497+ was probably of Etruscan (widely Roman and Italian) descent. If the same French dynasty of the Capetians descended from them (see the G2a3b1a2 of Louis XVI and of the Lombard warriors excavated in South Germany), how many important families, included that of King Arthur, did descend from Romans or Peoples of the Roman Empire?
Also my haplogroup (R1b1a2a and others upstream and downstream) are present at a low level (but they are at a low level also in Italy) in the British Isles and probably are of the Roman times, being so close to mine. And I don’t speak of R-U152, which is in its origin and diffusion exclusively Italian. The link with Celts is demonstrated not true just by its diffusion in the Isles.


I agree with you, although I would note that in the Bavarian discovery it was the R1b bodies who were buried with the accoutrements of warriors (chainmail, spurs, swords, etc.). The G2 bodies were not so equipped.

I do think you are right about U152, that at least some of it, perhaps much of it,  must have been spread by the Romans.

I refuse to believe King Arthur, if he existed, was descended from a Roman family, except in the sense that it was Romano-Briton, but that is just a matter of my own L21 sensibilities. Arthur is ours. ;-)
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2011, 08:26:48 AM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?

Short of aDNA from Ango-Saxon remains, wouldn't comparing the GD of Danish, German, and possibly the Low-Countries members with today's English give us an indication.  This A-S migration to the Isles was only about 1600 years ago and
maybe lasted a few centuries in the form of cross-channel movements.  At the 67 marker level, I think we would see Continental connections with the Isles with a small GD roughly in the 5-10 range on medium and fast markers.  I say 5-10 only as an example, realizing the uncertainty of STR variance and mutation behavior.
Quote from: rms2
I randomly picked a U106 guy from Ysearch: Harris, Ysearch CTJBS, who says his mdka came from Kent. I believe he is actually R-L48, but I did pick him randomly.

He has a lot of neighbors within 12 markers away at 67 markers. Here are a few continentals within a reasonable distance (there were a few more, but I got tired of writing them down).
The spreadsheet I have of U106 haplotypes allows me to compare everyone in the spreadsheet to any one person by GD (only at 67.) This is what I was trying to indicate in the thread about U198. The GD's are larger than 1600 ybp would indicate.  That's all STR variance calculations are, a way of reflecting GD's statistically.
U106* in England is also quite old but since it is a paragroup, that is less meaningful. I didn't really look at L1 and L48 yet.  Good news on the L48 front is they are finding more SNPs.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2011, 08:31:01 AM »

And of course we shouldn’t exclude that some degree of Roman (or of Roman Empire Peoples) genes were amongst the same Britons and why not amongst the same Anglo-Saxons. ...
I've read that people think the Roman garrisons in some areas of Britain were manned by people from SE Europe.  We know the Roman armies on the continent included Germanic peoples like Aleric (too bad for the Romans they didn't handle his career development seriously.) Were Germanic peoples included with the Roman military in Romano-Britain?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2011, 08:42:58 AM »

But authun, the title of the paper is, Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure
in early Anglo-Saxon England
, so my characterization wasn't entirely the product of media spin. Anyway, that's not worth arguing about.

It was your statement "male Britons were kept so down" that I was referring to. That is not what is meant by an apartheid like system. Alex Woolf explains the use of the term in his paper, 'Apartheid and Economics in Anglo-Saxon England' although Nick Higham used it earlier.

I recall a number of years ago reading about the apparent abandonment of whole villages along the North Sea coast, especially the Terpen, those villages built on big mounds of cow manure and earth because of flooding.

It's not just the terp regions of the north sea which show signs of abandonment, farms in southern Norway too are deserted as well as parts of Jutland on the Baltic coast. The scale of abandonment however is not as large as previously thought and there is evidence of continuity even in the terp regions of the Elbe Weser triangle. A mass evacuation as a single event, as previously imagined would have resulted in a mass migration as a single event. Rather, the new evidence appears to be show a decline over 6 or 7 generations as people migrate in search of an easier lifestyle. Haio Zimmermann proposes that Britain's warmer climate and improved conditions for cattle farming, where the livestock could be outwintered, was the prime factor. This is consistent with terp settlements showing a greater scale of depopulation than the geest settlements, on the firm land. Life on a terp was particularly arduous. One only has to think about the difficulties in obtaining drinking water.


Even though I think there was probably a substantial influx of Anglo-Saxons into Britain, it took place over the course of several centuries and not all at once. So, I don't think the Anglo-Saxons annihilated the Britons or even came close to that. There were a number of warring British kingdoms that spent as much time fighting each other as they did fighting the Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes this or that British kingdom would ally with the Anglo-Saxons against one or more of the other British kingdoms. As we know, some of them hired Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. I also think it likely that native British warriors took service in Anglo-Saxon warbands and, to a lesser extent, vice versa.

Whatever happened, it is likely to be highly regional yes.

The Deiran prince Hereric was under the protection of Ceretic, a celtic king of Elmet and Edwin, also a Deiran prince, under the protection of the celtic king of Gwynedd, Cadfan. The threat to these two anglian princes came from anglian Bernicia, led at that time by Aethelfrith who had expansionist policies. So, it's definitely not a case of anglians versus Britons.


It is interesting in this connection that Cerdic, king of Wessex in the early 6th century, had what is generally believed to be a British name.

Cerdic is an interesting king and his name is almost universally accepted as a British name. All succesors however have germanic names with the exception of Cadwalla, which is ambiguous and who has a Marcommanic counterpart, Cathuualda.

best
authun

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2011, 08:47:21 AM »

...
It's not just the terp regions of the north sea which show signs of abandonment, farms in southern Norway too are deserted as well as parts of Jutland on the Baltic coast. The scale of abandonment however is not as large as previously thought and there is evidence of continuity even in the terp regions of the Elbe Weser triangle. A mass evacuation as a single event, as previously imagined would have resulted in a mass migration as a single event. Rather, the new evidence appears to be show a decline over 6 or 7 generations as people migrate in search of an easier lifestyle.
This would seem to argue for U198 having been in England for quite a while before the Anglo-Saxons since the traces of it are so remote as you move towards and up the Jutland Peninsula.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2011, 08:58:03 AM »

Were Germanic peoples included with the Roman military in Romano-Britain?

Yes, we have several units eg. Vexillatio Sueborum Longovicanorum - The Detachment of Suebi from Longovicium; Vexillatio equitata provincae Germaniae - The part-mounted Detachment from the German provinces; Cuneus Frisiavonum Vercovicensium - The Formation of Frisians from Vercovicium etc. but such units were moved around the empire. We cannot always suppose that, once placed in Britain, they stayed in Britain.

Where we can be sure that they stayed is if civilians were settled as laeti, that is, groups from outside the empire who were given land within the empire in return for miliatary service in times of need. These resettlements are recorded eg:

276 - 279 Probus defeats alemannic insurection around the Rhine and along with their leader Igillus "sent [them] to Britain, where they settled, and were subsequently very serviceable to the emperor when any insurrection broke out."
(Zosiumus)

306, Crocus, who is described as "Alamannorum rege," plays a key role in the accession of Constantine at York.
(Aurelius Victor)

372 Valentinian sends the Alamannic Fraomarius of the Bucinobantes (an alamannic canton), along with other Alamannic troops commanded by Bitheridius and Hortarius, to Britain.
(Ammianus Marcellinus)

best
authun
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.152 seconds with 19 queries.