World Families Forums - Pre & Post British Dark Age Haplogroup Ratio Difference?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 26, 2014, 04:30:21 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)
| | |-+  Pre & Post British Dark Age Haplogroup Ratio Difference?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Pre & Post British Dark Age Haplogroup Ratio Difference?  (Read 7568 times)
EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2013, 04:40:45 AM »

While that is true, proportions tell an important story of population history, more important than shear numbers, in my view.

Based on what hard evidence?

My gist is that there can be two main scenarios that could have given us the current East England I bias.

1) the oft repeated Anglo-Saxon eradication of the Britains from the East and taking their places, followed by gradual migration of the remaining Britains in the west back towards London plus newcomers like norman, huguenots, etc. In other words L21s were virtually wiped out from the East in the Dark Ages and ones that are found there nowadays, either came from west or from the continent more recently.

2) the almost never mentioned theory that the Anglo-Saxons didn't come anywhere near wiping out the Britains from the east, just killing the leaders etc and enslaving the rest to grow their crops (a la roman slavery/expansion model) while they rampaged around the rest of the country. In other words L21s have maintained their place in the East and ones found there nowadays could be either original eastern england stock or newcomers from the west/continent.

Although the current eastern bias of I does suggest it came in large numbers with the Danes/Angles/Saxons there isn't a similar convincing bias of L21s or U106s. The perception that L21s are most frequently found in the west is misleading and in actuality they are all over the place, they have quite simply been joined by a lot of Is in the population-heavy east skewing HG percentages in the process.
Logged
EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2013, 06:26:25 AM »

I would guess there may be more L21s in the US than the UK, but it can't be by that much can it?

Ah, according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_American) the % of Americans with origins described in 2000 as British/Irish was:-

  English 8.7%
  Irish 10.8%
  Scottish 1.7%
  Welsh 0.6%

so about 20% of 300 million = 60 million so almost the same as the UK and the Republic of Irelands populations combined. When you allow for French/Dutch/German American L21s it might well tip the balance in the US's favour but it is going to be in the same ballpark.

Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2013, 07:23:49 AM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.

Of course with regards to L21 we know that one of major subclades of L21 was first discovered in an American of "Hispanic" origin. This specifically been Z253. Given that L21 is present in modern Spain and Portugal it's hardly surprising that it should also show up in the former colonial empires of both countries.

As for Census, i could be wrong but I do think the biggest single "origin" group that was listed was "American", lots of people don't associate there origin specifically to one single ethnic group.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2013, 10:02:18 AM »

While that is true, proportions tell an important story of population history, more important than shear numbers, in my view.

Based on what hard evidence?

My gist is that there can be two main scenarios that could have given us the current East England I bias.

1) the oft repeated Anglo-Saxon eradication of the Britains from the East and taking their places, followed by gradual migration of the remaining Britains in the west back towards London plus newcomers like norman, huguenots, etc. In other words L21s were virtually wiped out from the East in the Dark Ages and ones that are found there nowadays, either came from west or from the continent more recently.

2) the almost never mentioned theory that the Anglo-Saxons didn't come anywhere near wiping out the Britains from the east, just killing the leaders etc and enslaving the rest to grow their crops (a la roman slavery/expansion model) while they rampaged around the rest of the country. In other words L21s have maintained their place in the East and ones found there nowadays could be either original eastern england stock or newcomers from the west/continent.

Although the current eastern bias of I does suggest it came in large numbers with the Danes/Angles/Saxons there isn't a similar convincing bias of L21s or U106s. The perception that L21s are most frequently found in the west is misleading and in actuality they are all over the place, they have quite simply been joined by a lot of Is in the population-heavy east skewing HG percentages in the process.

To put this in perspective, there is a soon to be released paper by Kylosov and Conroy accounting for M222 as having migrated from Britain to Ireland, and linking this clade with the Fir Domnann in Ireland and the Domnonii and Damnonii in England.  Many of the M222 people in England have English surnames.  So I think you would have to examine the clades of the L21 people in England and then examine their personal genealogy to determine if they could be anglicized Celts or more recent immigrants.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2013, 10:13:05 AM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.

Of course with regards to L21 we know that one of major subclades of L21 was first discovered in an American of "Hispanic" origin. This specifically been Z253. Given that L21 is present in modern Spain and Portugal it's hardly surprising that it should also show up in the former colonial empires of both countries.

As for Census, i could be wrong but I do think the biggest single "origin" group that was listed was "American", lots of people don't associate there origin specifically to one single ethnic group.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I know I put American on the census records.  You are very limited on what you can choose for background, and I am mixed isles and german, it is easier and I feel more accurate to list American.  After around 300 hundred years of most of my ancestors living here, I consider myself American.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2013, 02:17:56 PM »

No doubt the USA has more L21 than anywhere else, in terms of numbers.

Out of love for trivia I wonder what the figures really are? On the one hand the US has 5 times the population of the UK, but on the other, it has much greater proportions of hispanic, african, asian and (strangely enough!) native american.

I would guess there may be more L21s in the US than the UK, but it can't be by that much can it?

I think there are far more L21s here than in the UK and Ireland in terms of sheer numbers. I don't know what the exact figures are, but I believe the Irish-American diaspora is bigger than the entire population of Ireland, and there are many y-dna descendants of Scots, Welsh, and English here.

I don't think sheer numbers give you that much of the story. Relative haplogroup frequencies are more informative.
Logged

EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2013, 04:09:18 AM »

I don't think sheer numbers give you that much of the story. Relative haplogroup frequencies are more informative.

If you think about it men have migrated out of Africa into various corners of the world over time. Many haplogroups have formed, many of which can be found near the origin. As you look at the far flung corners you tend to find only a few Haplogroups are present. If you compare the relative frequencies of these HGs they are likely to appear to be higher in the corners than they are near the origin, which will have high HG diversity.

On a smaller scale the peopling of Europe will be similarly skewed, i.e., there will be highest Hg diversity closest to our African origin than in the farthest corners, Ireland, Iceland, etc. Germany will have been peopled by many different HGs arriving at many diffferent times whereas somewhere less accessible like Britain and Ireland will have seen fewer successful waves of immigration (although doubtless many drowned trying!).

Even looking at Britain/Ireland there is likely to be a difference. Stone/Bronze/Iron age immigrants would have found the journey over the channel risky so it follows that most of the successful crossings would have been in the SE where the channel is narrowest and you can see across on a clear day. Over the centuries/millenia the population would spread out from the SE to claim land throughout the Isles. After the sudden arrival of Danes/Angles/Saxons and then the Normans, again mostly in the SE, another change occurred. Almost all of the population was involved in farming but the process of industrialisation picked up pace which saw the rise of market towns/cities. The peasant population slowly moved from the country to towns and London became the gravitational centre of the country. In effect this would have meant the relative recent arrivals in the SE (Danes, Angles, etc) didn't have time to spread out throughout the Isles and remained in the SE where they are still found to this very day.

The new arrivals were an addition to the existing inhabitants in the SE not a replacement..

Logged
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2013, 05:50:36 AM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.
Of course with regards to L21 we know that one of major subclades of L21 was first discovered in an American of "Hispanic" origin. This specifically been Z253. Given that L21 is present in modern Spain and Portugal it's hardly surprising that it should also show up in the former colonial empires of both countries.

As for Census, i could be wrong but I do think the biggest single "origin" group that was listed was "American", lots of people don't associate there origin specifically to one single ethnic group.

-Paul
(DF41+)

That my friend is the answer to your question. A good deal of the people I've spoken to don't realize that Spain is a country in Europe!

Sadly, albeit funny, this map is how a disturbing number of Americans view Europe!

http://tinyurl.com/d7hoe66
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2013, 06:27:41 AM »

England Northwest -- 47 samples
L21 = 40.4%
U106 = 21.3%
U152 = 6.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 10.6%

England Southwest -- 48 samples
L21 = 37.5%
U106 = 25.0%
U152 = 8.3%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 6.3%

Central England -- 165 samples
L21 = 16.4%
U106 = 18.2%
U152 = 9.7%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 15.2%

East England -- 172 samples
L21 = 12.8%
U106 = 25.6%
U152 = 8.1%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 17.4%

England Southeast -- 52 samples
L21 = 15.4%
U106 = 26.9%
U152 = 15.4%
P312 (non L21/ non U152) = 21.2%

Thanks. What exactly is the definition of Central England and were there figures for Wales?

I would be wary of relying too much on the Busby data.

Looking at the supp data for Busby, some of the sampling is poor and geographically  incorrect - the regions used are quite vague for the purposes of this discussion.

For example, the sample location for SE England is Gravesend in Kent which may not be that representative of the whole of the SE. Central England was sampled at Ashbourne, Southwell, Lutterworth and Bourne. East England was Peterborough, Fakenham and North Walsham. SW England was sampled at Exeter, Devon.

Busby put Leeds in to its NW England sample which is actually wrong as Cumbria and Lancashire are accurate locations for NW England.

The problems I see with Busby are that the sampling is good in Eastern England and inadequate elsewhere.

Northern England is not that well sampled. Cornwall is not sampled at all and the West Midlands of England are not well sampled. Wales is also poorly sampled. The sample of 9 for South Wales is from Haverfordwest which has had a strong English influence for centuries. The North Wales samples were Abergele and Anglesey so much of Wales is not sampled in this study and the locations that are sampled are not necessarily representative of the native Welsh.



« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 06:52:01 AM by avalon » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2013, 07:00:00 AM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.

Of course with regards to L21 we know that one of major subclades of L21 was first discovered in an American of "Hispanic" origin. This specifically been Z253. Given that L21 is present in modern Spain and Portugal it's hardly surprising that it should also show up in the former colonial empires of both countries.

As for Census, i could be wrong but I do think the biggest single "origin" group that was listed was "American", lots of people don't associate there origin specifically to one single ethnic group.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I know I put American on the census records.  You are very limited on what you can choose for background, and I am mixed isles and german, it is easier and I feel more accurate to list American.  After around 300 hundred years of most of my ancestors living here, I consider myself American.

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_the_people_of_the_United_States 42 million Americans described themselves as having German ancestry, this was the largest group at the 2000 census.

20 million said they were "American" and I suspect many of these are folks who are long settled in the US, descending in part from the early English settlers of the 1600/1700s.



Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2013, 07:15:14 AM »

So in the east and southeast of England, DF27 is actually prevalent over L21 (or it can be assumed so, anyway). Interesting

However, L21 and P312* seem to have a relationship.  Where one is higher, the other is lower and vice versa.  It makes me wonder if that is a result of a pre-Anglo-Saxon interaction.

Bear in mind that there has been a stream of immigrants flowing into England in every century that you can think of. Probably a large % of these newer immigrants entered where the channel was narrowest, i.e. Kent, London, Essex & Suffolk which is exactly the area P312* appears to be elevated.

When you look at the surnames of places like Kent and Suffolk since as recently as the 1500s they still have a lot of names like "Dutch", "Spain", "German", and other non-English names that have since become anglicised. The Kentish ports were full of merchants/sailors, many of whom were of foreign origin and ended up settling in England. And then London of course was re-populated by the Normans after 1066 and has seen a steady influx of immigrants ever since.

In other words it can be argued that if any haplogroup is highest in the southeast corner, it says more about the most recent immigrants rather than the older ones.


I think you make a good point here. People of Isles ancestry often refer to the Celts, Saxons, Normans and Vikings but we tend to forget about more recent immigrants, particularly to London and the South East since the Medieval period.

Romany gypsies have been established in England for 500 years and we have also had Huguenots and Sephardic Jews since the 1700s as well as more recent Jewish immigrants to London in the 19th century. You are right about Kent/Essex/Suffolk by the way which have had close links with Belgium and Holland for a long time, so we shouldn't just assume that everyone is simply a Celt, Saxon or Norman.



Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2013, 07:39:01 AM »

With regard to recent immigration to England/UK. Well there are at least 6 million people in the UK who have at least one Irish grandparent, thus entitled to Irish citzenship.

If you factor in immigration since the 19th century the figure for British citizens with some Irish ancestry jumps to about 14 million!
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2013, 02:40:34 PM »

I agree there are problems with Busby et al's sampling, which we discussed when that report first came out. As mentioned, in England, the places where U106 is likely to be most frequent were sampled more extensively than the places where L21 is likely to prevail. Thus you get an inflated view of U106 in England, I think, but only better sampling will tell whether I am right or wrong.

Still, Busby's nearly all we've got, and its results do seem to reflect what we know from history.

Certainly relatively recent immigration has had an impact, but has it been extensive enough to sway the haplogroup profile more than a couple of percent one way or the other?
Logged

Webb
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2013, 04:07:07 PM »

I agree there are problems with Busby et al's sampling, which we discussed when that report first came out. As mentioned, in England, the places where U106 is likely to be most frequent were sampled more extensively than the places where L21 is likely to prevail. Thus you get an inflated view of U106 in England, I think, but only better sampling will tell whether I am right or wrong.

Still, Busby's nearly all we've got, and its results do seem to reflect what we know from history.

Certainly relatively recent immigration has had an impact, but has it been extensive enough to sway the haplogroup profile more than a couple of percent one way or the other?

I have recently read that many current historians are starting to question the number of Germanics that arrived in Britain during the Anglo-Saxon invasion.  Many are suggesting that the numbers may have only been 10,000 to 20,000 instead of the previous estimates of 100,000 to 200,000.  Even if it is the higher of the two estimates, how many people were living in Britain when the invasions happened, and is the idea of driving out or killing that many people realistic.  Also, it has been suggested by many historians that Mercia was originally a kingdom that though ruled by an Angle elite was very evenly mixed as far as Britions and Germanics as attested by the lack of Anglo-Saxon style burials well into a period when they should have been the norm.
Logged

William B. Webb
P312>DF27>Z220
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2013, 04:58:38 AM »

With regard to recent immigration to England/UK. Well there are at least 6 million people in the UK who have at least one Irish grandparent, thus entitled to Irish citzenship.

If you factor in immigration since the 19th century the figure for British citizens with some Irish ancestry jumps to about 14 million!

Very true and we should probably factor this is when we consider the DNA of modern English people with Irish ancestry.

The main destinations for Irish immigrants to Britain were Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester and London but their descendants are likely spread around England now as are the Welsh and Scottish who have moved to England in modern times.
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2013, 05:10:25 AM »

I agree there are problems with Busby et al's sampling, which we discussed when that report first came out. As mentioned, in England, the places where U106 is likely to be most frequent were sampled more extensively than the places where L21 is likely to prevail. Thus you get an inflated view of U106 in England, I think, but only better sampling will tell whether I am right or wrong.

Still, Busby's nearly all we've got, and its results do seem to reflect what we know from history.

Certainly relatively recent immigration has had an impact, but has it been extensive enough to sway the haplogroup profile more than a couple of percent one way or the other?

I agree that despite its sampling flaws the Busby data is still useful. The People of British Isles project has done some comprehensive rural sampling in every county of England but they have yet to release any useful Y-DNA data - only a prelim report and an autosomal map.

I am not sure about the impact of immigration within last few hundred years, it is probably only a swing of a few percent but I remain open minded.
Logged
chris1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2013, 06:08:52 AM »

With regard to recent immigration to England/UK. Well there are at least 6 million people in the UK who have at least one Irish grandparent, thus entitled to Irish citzenship.

If you factor in immigration since the 19th century the figure for British citizens with some Irish ancestry jumps to about 14 million!

Very true and we should probably factor this is when we consider the DNA of modern English people with Irish ancestry.

The main destinations for Irish immigrants to Britain were Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester and London but their descendants are likely spread around England now as are the Welsh and Scottish who have moved to England in modern times.


Yes, an example I know well is Middlesbrough, once a Victorian 'Infant Hercules' on the north east coast of England. It was little more than a farm in 1830 but by 1871, with the boom in industry, the population was 40,000. It was said to be second to Liverpool for the numbers of Irish immigrants. In 1871 3,200 inhabitants were Irish born, 1,531 Welsh, 1,368 Scots, 1,169 West Midlanders, 600 from overseas. East Anglians and Cornishmen migrated there too. (Figures from 'Northern Roots' by David Simpson, 2005). The population of Middlesbrough today is 138,400.

Article by a Teessider on his roots here: http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/teesspeak/page23.phtml
Logged
EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2013, 11:02:55 AM »

So, returning to my original question, the U106/L21 ratio is irrelevant as they are both widespread.

Do people think the following gross oversimplification is about the sum of current understanding of U106/L21/R1b^/I?

R1b spread thoughout mainland Europe as the iceage receded. About 4-5000 yrs ago the L21 subgroup evolved in the centre near the Rhine/Swiss/French/German border amongst R1b* folks and the U106 subgroup evolved in north Poland/Germany/Holland amongst R1b*s, R1as and Is. The L21s spread north up the Rhine and mixed with U106s towards the mouth of the Rhine (Hollandish).

Traders, travellers and refugees from both north and south Europe progressively settled in Britain and established isolated communities throughout the Isles. Early settlers came from throughout Europe (a la Amesbury Archer) and were probably R1b*s. As time went by the population in mainland Europe increased and saw increased numbers of people moving to Britain. Judging by pottery finds Britain was mostly settled by people from the mouth of the Rhine (ie U106s, L21s & R1b*s) whereas Ireland was also settled by Iberians. Roman campaigns just before 0AD saw an influx of tribes from south of the Rhine estuary.

End Result = by the time of the Roman invasion there was a spread of R1b*s, U106s and L21s all over Britain.

Dark Ages brought influx of U106s, R1b*s, R1as and Is from the north Coast of Europe which mainly settled east England (whether they completely wiped out the previous inhabitants of East England not known) and didn't move inland much, leaving a large splodge of Is up the east coast.

Norman age saw influx of mixture of Is, R1b*s, U106s, L21s as did subsequent immigrations of hugeunots, merchants., etc, but mainly to the south east.

Leaving current messy picture of R1b*s, L21s, U106s everywhere, Is up the east coast and people needing to find SNPs below U106, etc., which provide more geographically specific info than the higher level ones..

N.B. by R1b* I mean R1b excluding U106 and L21, not real R1b*s..
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 11:19:00 AM by EthiopianSon » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2013, 11:38:23 AM »

I have very little time right now, but I disagree with some of the things you wrote.

First, I do not think the U106/L21 ratio is irrelevant at all. There is definitely a pattern in their relative distributions, with L21 prevailing in the north and west and U106 in the south and east.

Second, I do not think "R1b" spread throughout mainland Europe as the ice receded. I think R1b entered Europe as R-M269 or possibly R-L23 much more recently than that, perhaps during the Neolithic Period or even the Bronze Age.

I have more to say, but I'm out of time for now.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 11:39:01 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mitchell-since-1893
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2013, 12:53:32 PM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.
  You might be on to something.  Many hispanics in the US originated in Mexico.  I found this on wikipedia, which quotes the American Society of Human Genetics
Quote
According to a paper presented by the American Society of Human Genetics Mexicans were found to be 58.96% European, 36.05% Asian (Amerindian), and 5.03% African. Sonora shows the highest European contribution (70.63%) and Guerrero the lowest (51.98%). In Guerrero one also observes the highest Asian (Amerindian) contribution (37.17%). African contribution ranges from 2.8% in Sonora to 11.13% in Veracruz.[30] Sixty percent of the Mexican population was classed as mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish), 30% as mainly Amerindian ancestry and 10% as white.[31]

Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2013, 01:40:08 PM »

Ethiopianson,

Quote
End Result = by the time of the Roman invasion there was a spread of R1b*s, U106s and L21s all over Britain.

I know you are speculating but until we get some ancient DNA tested from the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain then we can't know what the haplogroup frequencies were in AD43. As I said earlier, modern DNA may be very useful to us but in the case of Busby we are lacking data for large parts of Britain.

Quote
Dark Ages brought influx of U106s, R1b*s, R1as and Is from the north Coast of Europe which mainly settled east England (whether they completely wiped out the previous inhabitants of East England not known) and didn't move inland much, leaving a large splodge of Is up the east coast.

Actually, if we look at the place name evidence then the Anglo-Saxons settled much further west than that. The kingdom of Wessex stretched as far as Devon and Anglo-Saxon Mercia encroached on the Welsh border at Offa's Dyke. We see Anglo-Saxon or Danish place names all over England as recorded in the Domesday Book 1086, even as far as Eastern Cornwall.

From a linguistic and place name viewpoint the Anglo-Saxons and Danes had completely swamped the whole of England by 1000AD. To what extent the native Britons survived this, we need more data, but obviously it could vary region by region, county by county - something we don't have data for yet!



« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 01:50:00 PM by avalon » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2013, 03:00:19 PM »

The Anglo-Saxons did eventually settle all over what is now England, but it took them a considerable amount of time to do that, and probably only after a considerable amount of assimilation of the native population. The 5th century Anglo-Saxons in the core A-S foothold regions in the south and east were probably a more directly continental population than the "Anglo-Saxons" who later spread to the west and north. I think you see this reflected in the relative proportions of U106 and L21 in the south and east versus the north and west.

While it is true that U106 seems to be spread everywhere in England, it does reach its maximums in the south and east. Again, Busby failed to sample purely northwestern and southwestern locations that are likely to be lower in U106. One also has to look at the frequency of L21 in the various sample locations in England. Even with Busby's obvious limitations, its "England Northwest" and "England Southwest" locations were still overwhelmingly L21+: 40% and about 38% respectively. Nowhere in Britain that we know of does U106 achieve that kind of preponderance, and even those numbers are weak compared with the frequencies of L21 in the "Celtic Fringe" countries.

U106 drops like a rock in Wales and Scotland and dwindles to negligible status in Ireland. I think that is an indication that U106 was either not present at all in the Isles prior to arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (my position) or that it had only a vestigial presence before then.

In the south and east of England, where U106, U152, and P312xL21,U152 are strongest, L21 reaches its ebb. I believe if you look at papers by Capelli and Rootsi (if I recall correctly), I1 (old I1a) reaches its English maximums in the south and east, as well, precisely where U106 is strongest. Since I1 is also commonest in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, this is telling.

So, the pattern, I think, is readily apparent: U106 et al radiating out from the south and east of England where the Anglo-Saxons and, later, the Vikings were strongest, and declining as one moves north and west; and L21 strongest where the old Celts held sway, declining as one moves south and east. This pattern reflects the historical reality of the immediate post Roman Period, the advent of the Anglo-Saxons, and through the medieval Viking settlement period.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 08:51:44 AM by rms2 » Logged

ArmandoR1b
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2013, 05:36:06 PM »

I always find this american division of "Hispanic" from other Europeans as strange. Here in Europe someone from Spain is just as European as someone from Sweden.

I'm assuming the concept in America's is due to possibility of "native" admixture into Central/South American populations.

Of course with regards to L21 we know that one of major subclades of L21 was first discovered in an American of "Hispanic" origin. This specifically been Z253. Given that L21 is present in modern Spain and Portugal it's hardly surprising that it should also show up in the former colonial empires of both countries.

As for Census, i could be wrong but I do think the biggest single "origin" group that was listed was "American", lots of people don't associate there origin specifically to one single ethnic group.

-Paul
(DF41+)

I am not sure if you realize this, but Mexico is in North America and not in Central America or South America and a majority of Hispanics in the U.S. are originally from Mexico.

But yes, many people don't understand that Mexicans are mostly mestizos, a mix of Spanish and Amerindian, and that Spaniards are our European relatives without the native admixture.

Logged
EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2013, 03:11:27 AM »

if we look at the place name evidence then the Anglo-Saxons settled much further west than that. The kingdom of Wessex stretched as far as Devon and Anglo-Saxon Mercia encroached on the Welsh border at Offa's Dyke. We see Anglo-Saxon or Danish place names all over England as recorded in the Domesday Book 1086, even as far as Eastern Cornwall.

Bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxon-Danish "invasion" wasn't really a one off event; it occurred in spits and spats over several hundred years. Although there must have been large battles somewhen, most of this time could have been filled with gradual expansion and assimilation, i.e. making alliances with locals via intermarriage, etc.

If largescale settlement took place on the east coast, control of the rest of the country could have been gained via an anglo-saxon elite leading merged forces of Angles-Saxons and native Britains (e.g. the Mercians). Once control was gained names were imposed on some settlements (quite likely by the angle-saxon tax inspector!) and only a minimum number of the allied forces (shire-reeves & reeves?) would be needed to maintain a presence in each conquered area. If any trouble flared up the anglo-saxon elite could mobilise their forces and deal with it.

Just because a village in the west fell under anglo-saxon control doesn't mean that it was filled with blood thirsty Angles and bawdy Saxons. Why would they want to spread dung on fields and pick turnips when they could get the locals to do it?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:17:51 AM by EthiopianSon » Logged
EthiopianSon
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2013, 03:32:49 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Europe_5th_Century.jpg
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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 0.147 seconds with 19 queries.