The way the Vikings behaved as Pagans makes me hope I do not come from them but deep down in me it is not impossible as my father was born in Aberdeen in 1916 and he and the family were fair with Blue eyes and strong and uncles were tall and my 3 brothers blue eyes a d blond hair as boys and I have green eyes yet I learned last year my mother was Jewish and her mother also and my parents met in WW2 and my eldest brother born on London in 1945 in London and being in RAF my parents were were moved to East Anglia and I was born in Norfolk so I have no idea where my real original roots with my DNA is from my Father original name was Davidson on his mother's side
Fascinating stuff as always and it's exciting to be alive during the unfolding of such an elusive aspect of British history. Nothing brings us closer to the past than trying to understand how the past saw itself in its present.
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Oooh that's going to put the Cat amongst the pigeons. I almost want to put it as the pinned comment for the video just because of some of the comments and responses I've had to read over the months!! 🤣
Yes I am a native Saxon from Westphalia northwest Germany the homeland of the germanic Saxons..... that is Westphalia, LowerSaxony and Twente NL..... we share the Saxon horse on our flag with Kent....... our closest cousins the english❤🏴🇩🇪👱👍
@@AlexIlesUK there is a town called Beverungen in Westphalia.... you will find a Beverington close in Eastbourne east Sussex... a remain of the old village of Beverington.... which was founded by continental Saxons...
Just because the the early 'Anglo-Saxon' in habitants of Britain did not identify themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon, does not invalidate the label 'Anglo-Saxon' given to them. The inhabitants of what is now termed 'Celtic' Britain and Europe did not identify themselves as 'Celtic' at the time. Neither did people in what we term 'Medieval' societies identify as Medieval. These terms are useful identifiers to label particular cultural, political, linguistic and social phenomena in order to give coherent historical timeline. The current attack on the term Anglo-Saxon has its origins in people who have a particular political axe to grind and an agenda to undermine identities they don't like.
I think it's made complicated by people who don't understand why academics are challenging these definitions. If we say everything that's within x area is Anglo-Saxon, because that's how it was taught we fail to see how things changed, developed and how much each region was so different and unique in this period. I think there's not a push to invalidate or have an agenda in the UK. The USA I'd agree a lot more with, but it's a small group of Academics not the whole bunch. Also I don't use Celtic as it's so wrong and tied up in nationalism way more than Anglo-Saxon is.
@@AlexIlesUK Whilst there may be a legitimate debate about the spread of (for want of a better phase) ‘Anglo-Saxonisation’ over the regions in England, this is no different to the Romanisation that progressed, over a period of time, that is encompassed in what is termed ‘Roman Britain’. A term that is not under the same threat. However, the current ‘Anglo-Saxon’ controversy is not driven primarily by legitimate academic debate, but by a small number of socio-political activists within academia who usually end up getting their way. A case in point is the subversion of the International Association of Anglo-Saxonists. A virulent campaign was launched against its name led by its 2nd Vice President Rambaran-Olm. Her main concern was a more inclusive future for Medieval studies and the dislike of the term Anglo-Saxon which she associated with white-supremacism. When she initially did not get her way, she resigned. Then several ‘academic’ activist groups weighed in (including Queerdievalists, The Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship and Medievalist of Colour) and her cause was also supported by the likes of Adam Miyashiro (whose article ‘Decolonising Anglo Saxon Studies’ betrays his particular motives). The IAAH did what all establishments do when faced with a cancel-culture backlash and a fear of being labelled ‘racist’ - they capitulated and changed their name.
This is very interesting, and I guess you could say that many people have an agenda. Some seem to want to look at the Anglo Saxon period as foundational and downplay the various peoples (apart from the Danes) who inhabited the land. Simply labeling these people as Celtic or even Briton may not be sufficient and may be hiding some interesting connections.
@@brachiator1 I guess you could say that the Anglo Saxon period is foundational in that it witnessed, in earliest times, Germanic tribal incursions that then led to the establishment of individual kingdoms which eventually coalesced into the single nation 'England' that exists today. There is, of course, a sizeable amount of pre-Anglo Saxon genes in the mix but all were subsumed into a common English speaking identity along with aspects of their original culture. The same can be said of the Scot's incursions from Ireland into Northern Britain which led to them eventually absorbing Pictish, Brythonic and former English Northumbrian areas (in the Lothian area) into a Scottish Kingdom.
There is a lot of complexity contained within this period in history. A period that is only 'dark' due to by an unfortunate lack of written records. Maybe more will turn up at some point? Contained within the British people is the history of these islands. My ancestry, I am told via DNA and written records, is English (Anglo-Saxon), Irish and Scottish in almost equal measure, with a bit of Norse thrown in to complete the picture. This is pretty common in the modern UK, it is simply the percentages that vary. The 4th and 5th centuries AD were a time of mass movements of peoples within Europe, as the ailing Western Roman Empire folded-in upon itself. We are still missing huge chunks of the puzzle. The exciting 2020 discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa were quite an eye opener too, and proved that what we thought we knew about the time post 410 AD was wrong.
@@AlexIlesUK - It would be a good subject. A mosaic laid in the mid to late 5th century is a game changer. The heads of historians and archaeologists are still spinning.
@@AlexIlesUK Please do. And whilst I'm here, I'd also like to invite you to the Jarrow Hall Museum & Anglo-Saxon farm. I'm a collections volunteer there, but I also get involved in experimental archaeology sector at the Museum. We recently received some funding and will be refurbishing a lot of the village. There are already plans to paint the thirlings in the main hall with authentic Saxon art. We're currently in the process of installing a beehive centre, with authentic Saxon 'skeps'.In the near future, the museum will also be setting up a wooden replica of the auditorium based on Ad Gefrin - the screens and all! We plan to test how well they worked, whether the screens indeed helped etc. All in all, some really exciting projects which could hopefully inspire some videos?
@stannypk5k9 have a chat with Alice, I'm involved with training your volunteers! I tried to do a bit of filming today at the Thrillings but it was too dark by 3pm! Would love to chat further as I'd really like to do more filming there and work with you all on further projects!
Hello Alex, I loved this truly well researched, highly informative episode. What a great teacher you'd make. I hope this finds you and the family well and happy.
@@AlexIlesUK The thing that most people overlook is that Y-DNA doesn't change like that of mt-DNA, so if some chap in what is Central Germany now spread his seed to all these NE European areas, these brothers and now cousins are family with differences in their Y-DNA.
You say that there was no concept of English identity until the time of Alfred the Great and that people would have identified themselves by their family, tribal group or kingdom. Yet 150 years before Alfred and 60 years before the very first Viking raids which supposedly created it, in the year 731, Bede wrote his *Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum* . Am I wrong to assume that Bede saw exactly that: a common culture shared by all the people south of the Forth and the Clyde who were not the successors of the Romano-British inhabitants? If so, why did he use the word "Anglorum"?
Hi Keith, Bede isn't creating an identity, such as a national identity,and many scholars believe he's referring quite specifically to Northumbria as a tribal affinity rather than anything else.
@@AlexIlesUK But iirc he mentions the Jutes settling in Kent, IoW & Hampshire, so I think it is fair to conclude that he was interested in the whole history of what we call the Anglo-Saxons, though not so much the British
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
@@AlexIlesUK In my observation north-eastern Germans - never mind any other part of Germany - look very different to Scandinavians. Never bought the nordicist Anglo-Saxon trope for this reason alone.
Stricly speaking, nationality-based DNA mostly does not exist. For example, R1b DNA is R1b DNA, not something else. It is found all over Europe. What we have is correlations between similar and identical genes that may have mutated free of tribal ethnosis. There may be no single type of DNA that is found in Northmen that is not also found in Englishmen, etc.
Procopius, a Byzantine historian wrote in the mid 6th century, "Now in Britain there were three very numerous nations, each ruling over a portion of the island: the Angili, the Frisians, and after these the Britons." (Book VIII, Chapter 20).
I'm from Scotland, Aberdeenshire. DNA said 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, mate of mine did a test, he was 92% Celtic, 8% Finnish, know another man from Barra, outer Hebrides, he was similar. We are too far away from the south east of Scotland to have any Anglo connections. I was surprised we have no viking connection though.
Thats really intresting - I did a video on Pictish aDNA too. The Scandinavians did not get everywhere in Scotland and there is a really intresting paper on Scotlands DNA with a sub part on Orkney's DNA - have a look here: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904761116
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for that, I've had a quick look, and will need to look at it really in depth to understand. My son is studying Genetics at Uni, he is very interested in in your channel. Although I am from the Angus Aberdeenshire boundary, nearly all my heritage is Highland, cleared from their lands in the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the abuses of the landlord system. I come from an area of Scotland not recognised for being part of the Ghaedhealtacht, but nearly every place name is from Gaelic, and some from the Cruitneach (Picts). One other point, but this is hearsay, Bho Gaidhealtach (Highland Cattle) are said to be connected to the Yak, that came with the Finns from east of the Volga, not sure if its correct, but there are no other cattle like them in Europe, tho todays version have been bred with other European cattle, their may be a strong connection with Aberdeen Angus / Galloway cattle? I once worked with a Shetlander who told me Shetlanders are Picts, but with the culture and sense of the Norwegians, which I think they are, very progressive people more so than most of Scotland.
I am of Saxon descent and live in Twente in the eastern Netherlands, a Saxon region. According to the results, I am closely connected to the people in the region where I live, but also to the people in Moray and Aberdeenshire, I am 51.2% Saxon. , 36.1% Scandinavian, 12.7 Frankish
@ I’ve never heard of the Aberdeen Dutch Saxon connection. Could be true. There was a lot of trade between Aberdeen and the Low Countries, going on for centuries.
Murray is a Scottish Gaelic Celtic name so how can you be Anglo-Saxon? English people are a mix that includes Celtic Britons, Danish Vikings, Normans, etc
@@realitywins9020 according to Ancestry DNA I am 12% Irish, 14% Scottish 3% Norwegian & 70% English. Ancestry claim (I take this with a considerable grains of salt) accurate to a 1000 years! From family history research, I have heritage in Leicestershire, Nottingham, Devon, Essex, one potential line in Yorkshire, Counties Cork and Kilkenny in Ireland. Cork being the origin of the family name, not my male line (illegitimate birth 1877). Where the Scottish comes from? Run away after the Boyne (1690?) or the Jacobite rebellion of 1745? Who knows! So I will go with my 70% and assume, until someone disproves it, that my English was in England 🏴 prior to 1066, therefore Anglo Saxon! Good enough case?
I was born in Germany in 1949 of a German mother from an old family in the western Danube region. My father was probably a lonely American GI. 😂😅 My mother was unmarried.😢 I had my DNA run a few years ago, and they said I am 59.1% English. 28% Italian and the rest Bulgarian and Scandinavian. I guess my father was Italian American. Why do they not say that the English are German because of the Anglo Saxons instead of saying the Germans, like me, are English, if we are that closely genetically related? That's alright. I love the English. All that I have ever known were lovely, kind people and even said the Germans are their cousins.😊
There's some interesting connections in the middle ages between Germany and Italy, so that could be your family history. I'd not be able to comment on recent history and sadly don't know much about it
@amandasmith3716 German is an umbrella term that covers various Germanic tribes that still have a certain distinction even today, including Anglo Saxons. Germania is the Latin term that the Romans used for that region of Europe. Have a great day!
@AlexIlesUK You could have a valid point since I remember my mother had a definite Mediterranean appearance. However, a man came to the orphanage I lived in to see me when I was only a few years old. If he were in Italy, people would assume he was a native southern Italian. He was also wearing a kaki shirt with no shoulder rank emblems. I surmise that he was an American officer and further surmise he was my father. Silk stockings and a box of chocolates would get an American soldier a long way with a German girl back in the 40s and 50s. 😆 🤣 😂
The people of northwestern Europe have been mixing since the time of the ancient Egypt. Marrying , and taking slaves was common throughout our history...Isn't it easier to say that all of the people from that region are basically the same, with minor regional and tribal differences? Thanks for a great site and all of your insight.
From Jutland, Denmark and other than Scandinavian DNA my test showed markers from Scotland/Ireland and East Europe. I have no known realatives from either EE or Scotland/Ireland so it may reflect where a certain seafearing people went or maybe comes from later historical events, cause a lot of history has happend since the “Viking age” afterall.
Wasn't Gilda's from arounds Strathclyde area when it was a Brythonic Kingdom? I know it's difficult to differentiate the Saxon root "wielisc", Welsh / Briton / Insular Celt / Roman Briton, but just calling him Welsh doesn't really do it justice, and maybe confuses modern geographic Wales / Welsh, for Medieval Welsh and what I think your talking about, but still love your videos.
People keep trying to guess where he's from and they throw the net as wide as Dumfries and Galloway right down to Devon and Cornwall, but he doesn't like the Welsh princes that's for certain!
Its a hard one for 'Welsh' because I need to keep it at a level where everyone can understand with little background and also short enough that people will watch so I know, I would love more nuance! Thank you that you like all the same!!
@@AlexIlesUK great because my english bit and some of my norwegian bits come from NW england and Isle of Man. I am mainly about 39% scandy, abit of german and a bit of fin as well. I have less english than my brother and sisters, and no irish or scots like they have.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 I have DNA results from all the main sites. They don't agree very well. And they change over time as their database increases and improves.
@@akaDorM yes I have Ancestry, 23&me, and heritage and they all say the same thing. I am 39% Swedish with a touch of Nowegian. My viking heritage is Baltic, but part of my scandyness comes from NW England. NW England, Isle of Man is where my mom's family comes from and Varmland Sweden is where 3 great grandparents and 1 grandparent came from with a touch of Finland and Germany. My great great grandfather was a German brew meister in Varmland Sweden who had 5 children to his upstairs maid and that is the branch i am from. My maiden surname is May which is old German and came from my great great grandfather. Now, my younger brother and sister are not quite 30% scandy with touch of German and finland (my dad's side) and the rest are NW England Ireland and Scotland.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 Remarkable that it's so consistent. Though if it's a deep ancestry in one place that's represented in all their databases that makes sense.
Britain was, and still is, Roman Britain. The Roman population stayed after the army left, 2nd-3rd centuries. All these Britannia mysteries exist because no one gets it.
It is true the Romans stayed and there are buildings and items that show Roman culture was important into the 6th century but there was a fundamental change and by the 7th people are copying the Romans. Roman Britian did end.
I am so called “northern Germanic Tribes” in my DNA, with some Swedish and Irish/Scottish as well. My grandparents all came from the British Isles. I’m guessing the northern Germanic tribes would be Anglo Saxon.
It depends, some tests help to explain but all of them work off where people get the most occurrence of that DNA where it exists in the world today which can make things harder to understand.
East Saxon Essex, in East Angl-ia, disappeared under the Danelaw, reappeared in Alfred's England, and has continued to be addressed as both Anglian and Saxon ever since. The Angle settlers of Brynach (Northumbria) initially preserved the name in translation (Beornicia: Land of the Bear), and they are also considered Saxon-ish (Sassenach) by their Northern neighbours. Memes transcend genes.
@@AlexIlesUK Bryn (like Bjorn, Beor, Bear, Brun, Brown) is a euphemism for the Unnameable beast (Arth/Arctos/Arthur...). The earliest record of an Arthur ("He was no Arthur" Y Gododdin) came from this land.
Where is Merseyside and Manchester on the Anglo Saxon scale? I'm an American with 40% percent British DNA, mostly in Merseyside, Manchester, Lancaster and some in West Yorkshire.
The DNA from south East England that is from Iron Age France- maybe they were Roman Gauls who fled the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes to a place - Britain- safe from those attacks and where they could continue to live in a Roman style? I did hear there were refugees who fled to britain at that time
I think this is highly likely. There is already a link with the Atrebates in both Britain and Gaul and also the Belgae. And there is evidence of close trading and familial links between the Cantii and Gaul, which continued after Jutish settlement. It is possible that the DNA evidence is now supporting the historical and archaeological findings.
I remember when at university a post doc was very fervently arguing that ‘Celtic’ was not an accurate term to describe the early Britons, even though they spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, made Celtic artefacts and lived in Celtic model settlements. His argument was that these were mere waves of influence on the populace. I said then, and say now, if that is to be believed then there was no such thing as Romans or Anglo Saxons either.
I would argue the diffrence between the title 'Celtic' is diffrent than later Romans or Anglo-Saxons is because of how it is used. The Celts are first metioned by the Greeks in the 6th century BC, while the Romans subdivide them into Britons, Gauls, Iberians etc. They dont even call the people living in Northen Italy Celts but Gauls. So the term Celt was used in the 19th century to apply it to items, peoples and language, while we have Romans (a identity that could be gained, granted or adopted rather than biologically determined) and the Anglo-Saxons who developed in the 9th century as a identity in contrast to the Danes to create a political unit. We do not get Gildas refering to himself as a Celt or the welsh princes calling themselves Celtic, they are Britons and see themselves as being connected to the Roman world. Thats why I would disagree with that post doc.
As far as I'm aware when I had my DNA test the conclusion was I am mostly/overwhelmingly Celtic, not surprising as I am Scottish and traced my ancestors many years ago and found my family originates from The Isle of Skye, on my mother's branch of the family, and the Blair Athol area of Scotland, the true centre of Scotland, for my father's. I found this interesting as I had no idea there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon DNA.
With all of these we are putting modern names onto ancient groups, but you can see groups of people moving at different times with this study and understand migrations, and groups in the past.
I'm reading Ivanhoe, written in 1819 and an eye opener to someone raised under Hollywood's false influence, and has led me to research what he got right, or not, about the social and cultural aspects of the time. And has brought me here.
Thank you Alex. What is an Anglo Saxon? A dirty word for UK Post colonialism etc. I'm fascinated. We don't know how pre/post Roman people wldve described themselves. Iron age tribal groups fits the bill. I'm from Liverpool. River Mersey I believe means boundary river. Age 83
Would there be an argument for referring to the Saxon settlers as Danish and not Germanic? Considering the larger land mass of Denmark during the medieval times compared to today, and the fact that Germany didn't technically exist until 1871. Although I am aware the Romans used the terms Germani and Germania as early as the fourth century B.C.
@@AlexIlesUK of course. If I'm remembering correctly, it was firstly the selection of Southern French IA populations to represent the hypothetical Frankish input, rather than the more Northern populations. Some of hose individuals are paractically British IA on a lot of PCAs. Secondly, with respect to moderns, and county level inputs, again if I'm remembering correctly, was the use of Irish as a blanket representative for IA equivalents. We know from the York paper, that the gradation from English-Welsh- Scottish then Irish is not insignificant! If possible the authors should have perhaps selected Welsh populations as bieng reflective of Enlish IA populations. Finally, although the recent British IA paper, did not show PCAs for them, I have seen private PCAs that indicate a lot more variability in the IA populations alongside the Viking and AS paper. The 'author' found that many imodern ndividuals (of course not the PoBI dataset) could be effectively modelled with qpAdm just bey British IA and AS inputs,, without the high order of magnitude of AS input, at least not to the same degree............so for me jury is still out
I would add the caveat., Iam probably remembering certai details of the AS paper incorrectly. It's been a while since I read it. Probably got the Irish blanket wrong,.......
I've just googled "A DNA" - wikipedia states that it is one of three structural forms (A,B & Z) that DNA can take. It does not mean "ancient DNA". I suppose the term "A DNA" might have two meanings.
Try Ancient DNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20human%20aDNA,good%20conditions%20for%20DNA%20preservation. Best wishes
Bede and Gildas we're talking about two different forms of Christianity. Gildas was early (Celtic) Christianity, Bede was Catholic christianity. At the time Bede was writing the majority were Catholic Christians and this benefits his church as gifts (money) were donated to his church. The pagans (read the rest of Christianity in Britain), didn't make absurd gifts which they saw as useless, either God would take you to heaven or he wouldn't, giving money to a large business was a waste of resources. That's why Beds castigated the 'pagans'. - just my take on this argument 🤔
People make far too much of a distinction between the Celtic and Roman church - when ultimately it boils down to a haircut and when Easter was. Bede would never have referred to other Christians as pagans as his whole aim is to ensure orthodoxy in the church. The 'Celtic' believers made just as many wealthy gifts - just look at Whithorn and other sites on the West of the British isles!
I've always found it interesting that Gildas never mentioned the Irish invaders. He must have been aware being originally based in Wales. Presumably didn't fit his argument since they were Christian at the time.
Would it not be correct in saying we are an Germanic people. Also people forget about the yamnaya dna across Easter, and western Europe that connects us.
So that's a bit tricky because of mixing and changing cultures. Some people do some don't! Can't give you a straight answer but the people who do give you a straight answer have an agenda!
@@AlexIlesUKMy lineage is well-documented - feoffments and suchlike - in my family's history. You will understand if I choose to remain "incognito", I trust. Certain members of the family might think it a little odd that I post comments for public scrutiny. But I do enjoy your channel, very much. Regards...
I am always amazed with people that call them selves Anglo Saxons or Viking or anything else , what research did they do to prove this? A dna test from ancestry or myheritage won’t show anything but recent ancestry (250/ 400 years back in time). I know that primary school teach that the English are Anglo Saxon, but what is left of it since these Anglo Saxons arrived and many many others have migrated here since. Who look pretty similar to what was here. Especially if you are from big cities chances are very big that you have a lot of recent foreign ancestry.
This is a very important point, genetically we are not the same group and a lot of changes have happened since then! Your comment is a breath of fresh air!
When I did my DNA most of it was Scot and Welch. Surprised that 30% was Scandinavian, but our English ancestors came from Norfolk Coast of Britain across from Denmark.
Im English American but my dna is majority native Briton dna it seems. To be fair my mothers family were mostly of lowland Scots ancestry though with most of those families being historically "Anglo-Norman" such as my mother's surname of Montgomery. I was expecting to find more Germanic dna considering my fathers ancestors overwhelmingly came from England with a small distant component of Scots, and Welsh.
Normans intermarried with natives as did the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanics, so your DNA shouldn't be that surprising. Robert the Bruce was a Norman, but his mother was a Gaelic speaking Scot
I was stationed t RAF Mildenhall in the early 1970s and took a monthly salvage run each month to RAF Molesworth. It fascinated me that as we passed beyond Cambridge we entered a region that had small villages about every 4 to 5 KM. It was interesting because one village was peopled with tall, blond, blue eyed people while the next might be short, stocky, dark haired, brown eyed people. It became apparent that these folks didn't travel or intermarry much. It would seem that figuring their lineage would be a bit more simple than you are explaining.
As an American I found it striking. I don't claim to know the full story but apparently f you checked the census records through to the 70s I think you could isolate some pure strains of differing population. They looked alike enough to be clones.
ALEX: PROPS! this video is top tier/first rate. As it went on i realized "this is very much like--is essentially--a conference presentation, and rates among the very best Ive attended across 40+ years". EXCEPT that i just watched it on my phone @ home, early on a Saturday morning: what a treat! "Full disclosure" Your topic falls in a field which Ive never studied formally nor worked in, altho it is adjacent to mine--or the next over...or perhaps in the next valley🤔--and so broadens my horizons. For which you are a fabulous guide. I know just enough about migrations of peoples and the New DNA-ology (if i can say that) to be able to follow YOUR extremely lucid presentation. I would tag this video a "review essay", meaning an overview/precis of what is known currently about a topic and the questions/directions for further research. Its true that I am unfamiliar with the researchers & studies that you cite, but your presentation bears the hallmarks of someone who has that literature at their fingertips and who is analyzing and synthesizing it with sound methods and without an agenda (other than love of their topic). And, i enjoyed your response to the internet orcs who attacked the comments section of one your previous videos😂
Northern Francia wasn't French (Gaulish or Gallo-Roman) but Germanic, i.e. the people were Germanii. Anyone who was Angle, Frank, Jute, Frisian, Saxon and later Dane, were all Germanii. You say the Franks are a new population that we didn't know about, but at least one Welsh poem from the 5th century that speaks of "I sit across the fire from the Frank (a mercenary) to whom I cannot speak." There are other historical references albeit short to Franks being in Britain during the late Roman period throughout the migration period. Perhaps later historians (Victorians) just ignored the evidence?
In the 5th Century the Franks crossed the Rhine so they did migrate into Northern Gaul. It's interesting period but yes there must have been a lot of Franks around the place! Maybe not ignored, but not thought it was possible for them to be there!
From the end of the 2nd century AD there was a constant flow of Frankish migrants into Gaul in the regions north of the Seine river. Mercenaries in the Roman army, peasants where labor force was required, many names of localities in these parts have a Germanic origin. Where they were most numerous, the Franks imposed their language, as in Flanders or on the left bank of the Rhine river, elsewhere they were assimilated to the vernacular Latin language in the following centuries. But Germanic dialects are still spoken around Dunkirk in French Flanders and near the German border in Lorraine and Alsace. But little by little people there are being Frenchified, especially in the last fifty years. The dynamics of languages are the same everywhere. People learn the most useful language where they live.
Quite true. For simplicity sake the term Anglo-Saxon is perhaps more of a modern application by historians to describe the Germanic peoples that began settling across the old Roman province of Britannia. Even though Alfred introduced the term his purpose was likely more about the continued unification of all the peoples under his watch. It's not reasonable to believe that the average person of those times would even use of the term Anglo-Saxon, let alone see themselves part of some larger nation state. People would more likely refer to themselves (in terms of self identity) as from whatever village or area they were born and raised in. Most people did not travel far from where they lived, except men that were needed in times of conflict. There were no professional soldiers, all were farmers, smithys etc. Identifying as from a particular village or region was the norm for centuries and likely all the way up to WWII. During the War of the Roses men identified as from the village they were born, then if they were Lancastrian or Yorkshireman, but rarely would suggest they were English, that probably only came into their vocabulary if fighting oversees. Identifying as part of a nation state, as in being English or British is something very much post modern, and that has likely come about through it being repeated continuously through all our school years. So in fact we are all programmed to identify as being English etc.
What about strontium - the gas that can tell where these people were born and lived ...besides just dna... which can be hard to extract? Although the fact that you CAN get ancient dna ASTOUNDS me.
@gravegoods and identity - it seems to me that this question is treated differently when it comes to this period than when it comes to the start of the Roman period. I wonder why so much (more) stress is put on ethnic background and who they identitified with when it comes to the AS when compared to the Romans.
I think it's because so many nations see their 'foundation' in the post Roman period, so ethnicity becomes a aspect of this. A lot of it can be traced back to the 19th century!
Very few Romans from Italy settled in Britain. There was a wider mix from the rest of the Empire. And some will have left when the legions withdrew. So the bulk of British DNA is either Pre-Roman or Post-Roman, and the Roman bit is very mixed.
It is pleasing that the evidence largely did not support woke academias attempts to rewrite Anglo Saxon history, and in some cases write them from history completly. It should not be a revelation that the Anglo Saxons were not the only tribes to migrate/invade, or that peoples were already here. The Angles and Saxons became the dominate tribes over the centuries, much like France is named for the Franks or Belgium for the Belgae, both were still made up of many other tribes
Like all things there's exceptions to the rules and also nuance. I would really like more data from the North, but it may never happen due to the soils being more acidic.
Indeed. How about the migration of the Ingvaeon/Ingwine peoples as a more inclusive term for the early migrations? Ingwine may have been something they all indentified with at the time
@'Frankish dna' - I wonder if we should call it thus. The 'Franks' were originally from the NE Netherlands and/or from the Middle Rhine areas, and these people would be different from 'Iron Age France'. Now my questions would be this: do we know when this dna enters Britain? Because in my humble opinion (i'm NO dna expert!) we could also be looking at people who migrated to Britain during the (later?) Roman period, as Roman citizens.
Hi Robert, I should have clarified this more! So this aDNA is not present in Roman or Late Roman British aDNA samples, it comes in during the Migration period. I believe it's been referred to as Frankish due to the connection to items referred to as Frankish and the fact this aDNA has been found in the Rhineland. Hope that clarifies!
@@AlexIlesUK NE Gaul was Belgae? Didn't some cross into Kent before Caesar? I have a vague memory the Romans wrote the Belgae thought of themselves as Germans rather than Gauls. Thanks for mentioning the Britons were never considered Celtic by the Romans. Their Celts were in todays S Germany & Bohemia. The Gauls/Britons/Germans were just another, related, part of the Indo-European language group. I sound abit too certain in these paragraphs. I'm happy to be corrected.
I always take the historical sources with a pinch of salt but with the distances over the channel migrations would have occured more easily. From the paper this aDNA is definitely early medieval though which is interesting in itself. Don't need to apologise you've done your reading, which is great!
Thank you, Alex for this interesting presentation and for recommending the Gretzinger paper. I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail yet but the finding that you mentioned at the end of your presentation touched on something I already wanted to ask you about. I sometimes read that the Norman Invasion didn’t have much demographic impact because only the elite was changed and they represented only about 2% of the population. I don’t think this is true. The histories of England and France were intertwined for 300 years (to the end of the 100 years war). France had a much bigger population than England during this period and led England in the development of towns and trades. I think this would have led to a slow but ultimately significant migration of French and Flemish (also heavily populated and more urbanised) people migrating into England; mainly craftspeople moving into the growing towns. I think the Frenchified English language as we know it today was nurtured and developed in this environment. In Gretzinger’s paper, the addition of the French Iron Age ancestry is inferred by comparison with the contemporary British population. I would suggest the this is not the addition of a French Iron Age population but rather the addition of a French Medieval population. I understand that France is rather behind on using genetic studies to unravel its History but presumably this could be tested.
I think they clarified it by saying that the human remains analysed were all from the early medieval period (400-1066), so that they couldn't reflect later migrations. But it's a valid point, the Normans and later groups did settle Flemish populations in the British isles.
I would say that the Leslie et al. paper was also highlighting the geographic effects of isolation and mixing between populations. The paper was essentially looking at small-scale genetic differences between populations. The major reason that the South and East, and indeed Midlands of England has a more homogenous population today than elsewhere, is that people in those areas were in lowlands of a very similar nature, with few natural barriers to movement. Unlike the more genetically diverse highland regions. Movement between highland regions is more difficult due to physical isolation and diverse local conditions. Movement from the lowlands to the highlands, and vice-versa, is made even more difficult by differences in agriculture. A farming community, family or individual peasant can move between areas of lowland - say Norfolk and Hampshire - quite easily, as both areas have almost identical reliance on mostly wheat-based cereal crop farming. Highland agriculture is very different, being mostly reliant on grazing cattle and sheep, and even the crops are different, oats and barley predominating. People moving between areas having very different agricultural conditions would be at a severe disadvantage, not knowing how to make the best use of the land. It is, therefore unsurprising that the lowlands would have a thoroughly mixed together, almost homogenous population and the highland regions have populations distinct from the lowlands and each other.
Hi Alex - I remember hearing (but I can't remember where) that the first time Anglo-Saxon was used was at a 6th century continental European meeting of bishops where it was to differentiate the British from the continental.....
@@AlexIlesUK What do you think to the book 'Age of Arthur' by Morris. I know it was panned by historians, but it made sense to me. a) AS invited in, rebelled b) The Britons halted the advance at Mons Badon. c) Plague devastates the Britons more than the AS d) AS take over unoccupied lands, inviting in more AS families Morris (from memory) thinks that unlike Gaul it was not a elite takeover, but families. Explaining the loss of the British language because the women talking to the children were AS. In France there was more intermarriage of warriors with local women. If 'Arthur' had lost at Mons Badon, it would have been warriors marrying locals.
I think it shows the academic work at the time, he researched and presented his argument based on what was known at the time and it's an enjoyable read but it is of its period.
@@jcoker423 Was there really a British language when the Roman Empire withdrew? Some will have spoken Latin. Most people would have stayed local. Even a thousand years later the dialects of distant districts were barely interpretable (if understandable at all). Judging by modern dialects, the move to English was primarily local, with English becoming the lingua franca of the ruling class who needed to converse over greater distances. Incoming germanic mercenaries or invaders didn't speak brythonic and British rulers who invited them would have had an incentive to communicate clearly with them. Irish/Scottish mothers don't seem to have stopped Icelanders szpeaking Icelandic.
Well I’m 83% Irish Scottish & Welsh . 11.4 % Greek & South Italian 5.6% Baltic . I’m from north Lanarkshire in Scotland & I knew my dad was Irish & my mum a Scot , the rest came as a surprise. No English DNA so I know at least there was no mixing with any southerners.
And if there had been would that have been a problem for you? Also if it's bunching Irish, Scottish and Welsh together it is likely is grouping the British isles DNA together so it's quite possible you have ancestry from the Southerners.
Have a look at Tolkien's translation of the Battle of Maldon..the narrator stated that the 'English' fought with the fyrd..were they Angles possibly from Mercia or East Anglia? Also it is likely that many of the Anglo Saxons were Frisian. Some studies indicate that the Dutch and English have close DNA..
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Especially Iceland where West Irish sex slaves were most valued.. Green eyes/black hair... I had bad luck and ended up with an east irish ginger
l just love this episode. l never knew that the english were so keen on the anglo/Saxon concept. l come from Sweden and we do call the period 793/1066 the Viking age but of course they didn't call themseves vikings. Why would it be so important to have your roots called Anglo/saxon?
Its a very good question but it really affects some people that they connect their identity back to it, without really understanding what they are saying.
There is a theory by Wilson and Blackett that in the 18th Century when the German Royal family came to throne they changed history and introduced the Anglo-Saxon perspective, we’re all from Germanic heritage in order to calm down anti-German sentiment at the time. There were ancient Brits here before.
@amandasmith3716 that's been disproved by the genetic study that I've quoted in this episode, but I'd also say that there was a political push to connect the Hanoverian holdings and England for the Georges.
As one of my sons put it - We come from where they make white people. Over three-quarters of our dna is from the British Isles. English. Irish and Scottish. The fact that it does not include Welsh is kinda weird as we were all over the British Isles. The other part is ...Viking I do believe. In the latest round they included Iceland ... which is REALLY weird because that is a VERY small group of people
My brother just had his dna done. I can find only 1 ancestor in 200 years who was born outside Yorkshire or north east england. They were Irish. However his dna was 45% celt 30% English. 20% viking.
I'd say any Genetic test telling you that you are Viking is not to be trusted. There were populations of Native Britons who lived side by side with Anglo-Saxons and intermarried, as seen by the paper this is based on.
Commercial DNA tests are not very reliable. The most they can do is compare your DNA to the DNA of the testing company's other customers. My mother had her DNA tested a while back and it came back as 85% British Isles. But I know from documentary sources that her maternal ancestors were nearly all Rhenish/swiss/Prussian going back to around the year 1530.
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes (Viking) all come from the exact same genetic Population! There is no way to be able to distinguish them from each other except through age or distance
Another really helpful video, thank you so much for keeping them appearing. I've watched the Anglo-Saxon and Pict ones so far and can't wait for the others. For me, all the harsh comments on the 'Anglo-Saxons Didn't Exist' video represent an inability to get past modern national identities - whether 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Celtic' (both terms that I think muddy the waters even further) - to appreciate the greater fluidity of cultural, spiritual and social identities in this period. Personally, I think there is an argument for calling this the 'Early Medieval Migration Period' rather than the A-S Ages or, worst still, the 'Dark Ages' and applying this same descriptive to much of western Europe at the time. But again, the problem of modern national identities causes this to be a contentious term because of the perception of migration in that context. Finding out the fascinating truth about the past of the place you live in doesn't mean you can't be proud to live there, it just means that you can acknowledge cultural expression outside your own and celebrate that too.
I think you make a good point. However I think its that the English people are tired of being told by progressives that their national identity is problematic, does not matter and that they need to look beyond it as you put it. When the opposite is true
Thank you both @snufkinhollow318 and @danielryan570 - I do understand both positions and see why the Radicals on one side denying any identity in England is really frustrating. To give you a prospective from me, I was born in Scotland, but don't sound Scottish so because of that face hostility from a minority of Scots as I can't be a part of their national identity (but any American can as long as they buy a kilt and some shortbread on the way!) I think the important thing is to say that the first settlers were not Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon were not English, but these identities grew out of events and people who mixed and became the next thing. I see myself as British but this feels like a dying identity.
@@danielryan570 I don't think I singled out the English for criticism here, rather as you say 'the opposite is true'. My point was that modern national identities have a tendency to exclude any period involving migration from areas outside their national borders from history (or their origin mythology) because it is perceived as a threat to their 'purity'. Whereas, for me, it enhances the richness of their history and should be celebrated. If pointing that out makes me a 'progressive', then, yes, I will happily sit in the camp of progress. I am of Welsh ancestry, born in England and now live in Ireland, all countries that I love for their natural beauty, and I have travelled around the world too, sometimes to places where I felt completely at home within days of arriving. But do I feel like I 'belong' to any of the countries I have been to or they to me? No, I belong where my home is and where I feel safe and if there are national identities that come into conflict with that, I will criticse them, wherever they are.
@@AlexIlesUK I'm not sure that it is 'radical' to deny national identities (not just that of the English) when they are relatively modern creations that, in their turn, deny the richness of our history, but a do take the overall point you are making. Ireland where I live is also subject to the 'kilt and shortbread' phenomenon that you identify in the form of what some Irish people call 'plastic Paddies', incomers from the US who buy up what they believe to be their ancestral land in some rural area and then complain that they can't get all the services and consumer goods that they want. I had another curious experience of this the other day when I went into a shop I've been using for over a decade and the owner was giving a hate-fuelled speech about 'immigrants' to several other customers. So I place my goods on the counter and went to walk out. He called me back and when I said I found his speech against me offensive he said "But you're not like them, you're ...." and then tailed off when he realised that it was impossible to finish that sentence without either contradicting himself or sounding like an out-and-out racist. I find it almost impossible to believe that a country will one of largest global diasporas in modern history can be so hateful towards immigrants. I expect many people from outside Ireland have heard about the recent riots in Dublin, supposedly sparked by the stabbing of a woman and child by an immigrant. Not many news reports here in Ireland or overseas, however, have included the fact that it was a Brazilian immigrant who put his own life on the line to save the victims whilst many Irish people stood and did nothing. I'm so sorry to rant and ramble but I do feel very strongly that national identities are more a source of disharmony than of unity.
@@danielryan570this is why I will continue to just call myself what I was raised as and understand myself to be. English mixed with Scottish. Im not Anglo-Saxon the same way what we call AS prob didnt call themselves that. I dislike how people are now saying the term Anglo-Saxon is racist or that even being English and British is racist. So I dont want to develop some weird and fake "proud" identity crisis and suddenly start calling myself AS like how some black Americans turned Afrocentric and claim they were the first black ppl everywhere. I knew who I was before all this and never used the term Anglo before despite etymologically-speaking that is the origin of England (Angleland). Ppl can call me racist all they like. I didnt pick my genetics any more than they did.
The Angelen lived in a very small region. It can't be a very large group to migrate. Saxons were a large group, actually living more to the easter part of germany The frisians lived along the west-and northcoast of the Netherland and the north- and northwestcoast of germany. They drowned in that region because of the rising sealevels and moved abroad. Frisians were known with Brittons by trade and working in the roman army. Old english and Old frisian are very very similar. So...
The Angles lived in a smaller area than the Saxons but that doesn’t mean they had less numbers to migrate. Many Saxons remained in Europe and as you will be aware there are still Saxons in Germany. The Angles all moved to Britain in their entirety or as a political entity and no noticeable numbers remained in Denmark/Northern Germany.
There is a viking account which states that as he sailed along the Western Baltic, that the islands on one side used to be occupied by the English. If true, this expands Angeln considerably, possibly into Finn Island. Add that Jutland was Western Germanic speaking before its later occupation by Danes, and the Angelcynn, if not the Anglish alone, dwelt in a large area. Then, we can understand how the Angles may have had enough manpower to fight Scots/Picts for the British, and still have enough men left over to expand within Britain. The idea that Anglen was just a small area seems to memetic, i.e. the notion is not contested at all, just copied from one source to the next.
Regarding the 'French' DNA found in southern England the Guardian's report on the Oxford University 10 year genetic study of Britain (completed 2014) makes the following comment: 'People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago'. So, not a migration at the time of the 'Anglo-Saxons' but thousands of years earlier - a quite different conclusion to the later study referenced in the video.
The French inclusion in both studies are not the same. The PoBI study has 2 separate populations included FRA14 and 17. The FRA14 is indicative of pre- AS arrival, whilst the FRA17 component arrived later. The authors argue for it being possibly representative of AS DNA, but Frankish would make more sense.......or perhaps even French during the Norman Invasion?
@@AlexIlesUK This from the University of Oxford 'People of the British Isles' : 'The most intriguing European contribution is that from Northern France, (EU17 red). This clearly post- dates the original settlers since it is entirely absent from the Welsh samples. It is, however, widespread elsewhere, even right through the north of England and Scotland to Orkney. It is also especially prevalent in Cornwall and Devon. These results suggest a previously not described substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little, if any, impact on Wales'.
I'm not an Anglo Saxon, for all I must be at least the 100th generation of my family. In the area of N/E England I'm from. We have lower than 3% Anglo Saxon DNA. In fact I'm pretty certain I've more Asian DNA in my genealogy than Anglo Saxon.
Can I ask where are you from? Which test did you do interesting with what you've said as the body of data is quite different in regards to the DNA of the region.
My Y chromosome is Saxon according to a family dna test. However, 23 and me says my dna is most similar to people living in Northern France and the German border (Alsace). This jives with the video's conclusions.
Interesting material, most of which was already known to me but some not in the depth that you have shown. To me the whole thing seems an enormous melting pot, looking at earlier migration periods often a groep moves into an area and joins with a native population sometimes peacefully but often violently. The elites take over and the common people mix and become a hybrid of the two groups. Also, most people set family and their lord as the main priority and identification of their ethnic identity. This makes for blurred lines between ethnic groups, I feel something similar happened in the early middle age period.
I used to watch time team channel 4 and loved it but when they found an Anglo Saxon grave with goods they assumed it was Anglo Saxon but because someone is buried in England doesn't make them English I believed that the programme was wrong in identifying graves because someone has Anglo Saxon grave goods doesn't mean that they were Anglo Saxon and the Welsh were here 10 thousand years but more DNA research needs to be done there are lots of unanswered questions about this period of time my believe is that English people are 50 % Welsh and Anglo Saxon and other we maybe closer related than we think
The Anglo-Saxons were not Anglo-Saxons before they arrived in Britain. They were of diverse folk and tribal confederation origins. The ethnogenesis of the English people occurred in Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were not merely transplanted from the North Sea coastlands of continental Europe, they evolved in Britain, through interactions among themselves and with the native peoples of Britain.
@@AlexIlesUK Worth emphasising in a more concise fashion. Many people think that that the first North Sea coastal Germanic person to set foot in Britain immediately became an Anglo-Saxon. There was even a sound shift that affected 'Ingaevonic' speakers in Britain that did not occur on the continental 'homelands'.
Anglo Saxon is barely adequate to describe the Germanic influence on Britain. A vast amount of Germanic peoples were already in Britain, especially on the east coast, during the Roman occupation as they were employed as soldiers to the empire. They had many different tribal origins; Jutes, Frisians as well as Angles and Saxons. The term Anglo Saxon was not in use until theVictorian Royals Saxe-Coburg wanted to put more emphasis on Saxon for obvious political reasons. While it’s true there were Angles and Saxons in the English origin story, however the epithet Anglo Saxon would have meant nothing to pre Victorians in England, who identified solely as English.
I'd agree mostly up to the end, the question of how much the Roman soldiers affected the genetics is one for another day! it's Alfred who creates Englishmen. Even Bede is refering to his Northumbrian race prior to that, and that's a new identity fof many in the region.
@@AlexIlesUK the point I’m making is that your every day Englishman wouldn’t have much identified as Anglo Saxon before the Victorian period. They just identified as English. That’s what I read anyway.
@TreforTreforgan thanks for clarifying yes I get your point, before the 're-discovery' of Anglo-Saxons English would be the identity for the area of England, even today few would identify as Anglo-Saxon.
@ I understand that it’s an identifier that people have become quite romantic about. Probably even more so since the discoveries at Sutton Hoo. The name Anglo Saxon and the Sutton Hoo Helmet seem to be welded together in the imagination despite it only having been two or three generations since its discovery. I think the American WASPS have been the ones that have driven the negativity that there is around the term, as it’s undeniably linked to white supremacy. My only problem with it is I don’t feel it adequately describes the complexities of the migration period. In view of the findings of the Oxford Genome Project Germano-British has more historical pertinence surely.
I love the male vs female Briton burial comparison in Gretzinger et al (Nature 2022). It corresponds well with the idea that the home (run by women) holds traditions much longer than society at large (run by men who often more incentivized to assimilate to gain status).
Im from a long line of Yorkshire people, east Yorkshire. My DNA is predominantly Anglo Saxon and Danish. A tiny amount of Belgian thrown in. It veriies a family legend of a Belgian bareback rider in a circus ancestry. Fascinating .
It seems it’s pedantry to say that the people of that time, didn’t call themselves Anglo Saxon, there’d one the term is not useful. But the term has become established to mean those peoples from saxony, Jutland, etc., and so it is meaningful to distinguish them from other Germanic tribes, including the Danes. Scholars and historians know who is meant. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t call themselves that back then. The terms are related to the people being there, as reflected in names like “East Anglia”, Sussex, Essex, etc.
I understand much of the frustration that people have but the point is to show that the culture didn't just come pre-made into the British isles and the kingdoms formed in the late 6th into 7th century.
My understanding is the 2022 study does not support the theory popular in recent times, of A-S migration as an influx of warrior elites grafting to a base Briton population over time. The suggestion is it was nearer to the other end of the spectrum - a significant genetic cascade which passed through the entire population in large areas of now England during this period(ie:tended to be replacement of genetic and cultural identity) - though western and northern areas, exhibited more genetically blended rather than replaced populations and cultural identity. An interesting question would be - the retreat of a dominant Roman presence was opportunity, but what factors fuelled this extended period of migration from now north-central Denmark,southern Sweden and lower Saxony
My question is did the Romans as we understand them actually leave? If you read the sources it suggests that they broke off from the main empire but did not 'leave' also Bede mentioned that Latin was one of the languages spoken during his time. What if that's not just church Latin but actually people talking lantin as their language? It's a fascinating period!
.....I'm just letting my imagination run free on this...I have no evidence of course....undoubtedly there would have been an ongoing roman "presence" including a persitent use of latin but I guess the character of this presence might consist in a scattered and much diminished elite and other ranks {possibly Germanic and other peoples in any case)...and possibly facing adaption as renewed waves of Anglo-Saxons began to arrive@@AlexIlesUK
That study draws very sweeping conclusions from a very limited sample. It makes unsupported assumptions about how the heterogeneity should be interpreted. It assumes that their cemeteries reflect the whole population. It assumes a cultural homogeneity where fewer grave goods indicate lower status.
@AlexIlesUK If that were the case then one would expect insular Latin to have left more traces in placenames for example. The Romans were keen on written / inscribed records and literature. There is practically none of this in post Roman occupation Britain. There is no evidence that Latin was widely spoken by the populace.
MAYBE not using click bait titles would get uou less comments and you'd really hate that, right? Anglo-Saxons wouldn't call themselves by that term. The Welsh wouldn't call themselves "Welsh"; Deer wiukdn't call themselves "deer". Therefore, there were no deer in the 4th Century. And YOU don't like the term Celtic"; How about "Pillock"? Or "Berk"? "Git"? Maybe you are one third each. Maybe not. Great visuals, though! I learned a lot staring at your walls.
it would be good to see what the ratio of Native British Y chomosome vrs Mainland Saxon, Anglo, Jutuish DNA. If the amount of native british Y Chromosomes are diminished vrs Saxon/Jutish/Anglo would indicate "replacement" or genocide. all other topics are irrelevant to the discussion.
I’m from very near West Yorkshire. Over there there is a region called Elmet, lots of villages called “something in Elmet”, and apparently Elmet was a Celtic kingdom that survived while the Anglo saxons conquered all around them, and it held out against the Saxons. Maybe that is why they is a different marker in West Yorkshire?
Welcome back. You have raised a lot questions and I’m glad you have. Nothing is carved in stone yet!
Thank you
The way the Vikings behaved as Pagans makes me hope I do not come from them but deep down in me it is not impossible as my father was born in Aberdeen in 1916 and he and the family were fair with Blue eyes and strong and uncles were tall and my 3 brothers blue eyes a d blond hair as boys and I have green eyes yet I learned last year my mother was Jewish and her mother also and my parents met in WW2 and my eldest brother born on London in 1945 in London and being in RAF my parents were were moved to East Anglia and I was born in Norfolk so I have no idea where my real original roots with my DNA is from my Father original name was Davidson on his mother's side
Fascinating stuff as always and it's exciting to be alive during the unfolding of such an elusive aspect of British history. Nothing brings us closer to the past than trying to understand how the past saw itself in its present.
Really glad you're enjoying the episode!
If the term 'Anglo-Saxon' was good enough for Alfred, it's good enough for me. 👍
Sing as Alfred really created the term and propagated it, then that's exactly correct !
And me!
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Let's just call the Anglo saxons, German boat people
Oooh that's going to put the Cat amongst the pigeons. I almost want to put it as the pinned comment for the video just because of some of the comments and responses I've had to read over the months!! 🤣
Yes I am a native Saxon from Westphalia northwest Germany the homeland of the germanic Saxons..... that is Westphalia, LowerSaxony and Twente NL..... we share the Saxon horse on our flag with Kent....... our closest cousins the english❤🏴🇩🇪👱👍
Interesting
@@AlexIlesUK there is a town called Beverungen in Westphalia.... you will find a Beverington close in Eastbourne east Sussex... a remain of the old village of Beverington.... which was founded by continental Saxons...
Just because the the early 'Anglo-Saxon' in habitants of Britain did not identify themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon, does not invalidate the label 'Anglo-Saxon' given to them. The inhabitants of what is now termed 'Celtic' Britain and Europe did not identify themselves as 'Celtic' at the time. Neither did people in what we term 'Medieval' societies identify as Medieval. These terms are useful identifiers to label particular cultural, political, linguistic and social phenomena in order to give coherent historical timeline. The current attack on the term Anglo-Saxon has its origins in people who have a particular political axe to grind and an agenda to undermine identities they don't like.
I think it's made complicated by people who don't understand why academics are challenging these definitions. If we say everything that's within x area is Anglo-Saxon, because that's how it was taught we fail to see how things changed, developed and how much each region was so different and unique in this period. I think there's not a push to invalidate or have an agenda in the UK. The USA I'd agree a lot more with, but it's a small group of Academics not the whole bunch. Also I don't use Celtic as it's so wrong and tied up in nationalism way more than Anglo-Saxon is.
@@AlexIlesUK Whilst there may be a legitimate debate about the spread of (for want of a better phase) ‘Anglo-Saxonisation’ over the regions in England, this is no different to the Romanisation that progressed, over a period of time, that is encompassed in what is termed ‘Roman Britain’. A term that is not under the same threat.
However, the current ‘Anglo-Saxon’ controversy is not driven primarily by legitimate academic debate, but by a small number of socio-political activists within academia who usually end up getting their way. A case in point is the subversion of the International Association of Anglo-Saxonists. A virulent campaign was launched against its name led by its 2nd Vice President Rambaran-Olm. Her main concern was a more inclusive future for Medieval studies and the dislike of the term Anglo-Saxon which she associated with white-supremacism. When she initially did not get her way, she resigned. Then several ‘academic’ activist groups weighed in (including Queerdievalists, The Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship and Medievalist of Colour) and her cause was also supported by the likes of Adam Miyashiro (whose article ‘Decolonising Anglo Saxon Studies’ betrays his particular motives). The IAAH did what all establishments do when faced with a cancel-culture backlash and a fear of being labelled ‘racist’ - they capitulated and changed their name.
This is very interesting, and I guess you could say that many people have an agenda. Some seem to want to look at the Anglo Saxon period as foundational and downplay the various peoples (apart from the Danes) who inhabited the land. Simply labeling these people as Celtic or even Briton may not be sufficient and may be hiding some interesting connections.
@@brachiator1 I guess you could say that the Anglo Saxon period is foundational in that it witnessed, in earliest times, Germanic tribal incursions that then led to the establishment of individual kingdoms which eventually coalesced into the single nation 'England' that exists today. There is, of course, a sizeable amount of pre-Anglo Saxon genes in the mix but all were subsumed into a common English speaking identity along with aspects of their original culture. The same can be said of the Scot's incursions from Ireland into Northern Britain which led to them eventually absorbing Pictish, Brythonic and former English Northumbrian areas (in the Lothian area) into a Scottish Kingdom.
Well said @prydwen3
There is a lot of complexity contained within this period in history. A period that is only 'dark' due to by an unfortunate lack of written records. Maybe more will turn up at some point? Contained within the British people is the history of these islands. My ancestry, I am told via DNA and written records, is English (Anglo-Saxon), Irish and Scottish in almost equal measure, with a bit of Norse thrown in to complete the picture. This is pretty common in the modern UK, it is simply the percentages that vary. The 4th and 5th centuries AD were a time of mass movements of peoples within Europe, as the ailing Western Roman Empire folded-in upon itself. We are still missing huge chunks of the puzzle. The exciting 2020 discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa were quite an eye opener too, and proved that what we thought we knew about the time post 410 AD was wrong.
I'm hoping to do something on Chedsworth but I'll always be late to the party!!
@@AlexIlesUK - It would be a good subject. A mosaic laid in the mid to late 5th century is a game changer. The heads of historians and archaeologists are still spinning.
English is Bell Beaker DNA. English doesn't mean Anglo Saxon DNA.
@@ajrwilde14What on Earth are you talking about?
Only if you mean it's the foundation of western European DNA, but that's incredibly loosy goosey.
Good to see you’re back! I watched over your old videos recently as I genuinely missed your Saxon-focused content.
I'll try to keep it up
@@AlexIlesUK Please do. And whilst I'm here, I'd also like to invite you to the Jarrow Hall Museum & Anglo-Saxon farm. I'm a collections volunteer there, but I also get involved in experimental archaeology sector at the Museum. We recently received some funding and will be refurbishing a lot of the village. There are already plans to paint the thirlings in the main hall with authentic Saxon art. We're currently in the process of installing a beehive centre, with authentic Saxon 'skeps'.In the near future, the museum will also be setting up a wooden replica of the auditorium based on Ad Gefrin - the screens and all! We plan to test how well they worked, whether the screens indeed helped etc. All in all, some really exciting projects which could hopefully inspire some videos?
@stannypk5k9 have a chat with Alice, I'm involved with training your volunteers! I tried to do a bit of filming today at the Thrillings but it was too dark by 3pm! Would love to chat further as I'd really like to do more filming there and work with you all on further projects!
Great to see you alive and well. Now I get to sit back and enjoy as always
Thank you! Hope all is well over the sea!
Hello Alex, I loved this truly well researched, highly informative episode. What a great teacher you'd make.
I hope this finds you and the family well and happy.
I said to my wife yesterday that I would like to have teaching as some part of my future, but I know it wont be in a school! Thank you!
Eh, if we’re talking about genetics, it’s worth remembering that samples from Anglo-Saxon and Dane graves have yielded indistinguishable results
That's flagged up in the paper but they use samples from before the Viking age and after the Roman period.
I would think so, where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from are very close to Denmark and even part of it.
@@AlexIlesUK The thing that most people overlook is that Y-DNA doesn't change like that of mt-DNA, so if some chap in what is Central Germany now spread his seed to all these NE European areas, these brothers and now cousins are family with differences in their Y-DNA.
You say that there was no concept of English identity until the time of Alfred the Great and that people would have identified themselves by their family, tribal group or kingdom.
Yet 150 years before Alfred and 60 years before the very first Viking raids which supposedly created it, in the year 731, Bede wrote his *Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum* . Am I wrong to assume that Bede saw exactly that: a common culture shared by all the people south of the Forth and the Clyde who were not the successors of the Romano-British inhabitants? If so, why did he use the word "Anglorum"?
Hi Keith,
Bede isn't creating an identity, such as a national identity,and many scholars believe he's referring quite specifically to Northumbria as a tribal affinity rather than anything else.
@@AlexIlesUK But iirc he mentions the Jutes settling in Kent, IoW & Hampshire, so I think it is fair to conclude that he was interested in the whole history of what we call the Anglo-Saxons, though not so much the British
@@AlexIlesUK what difference does that make they are still the people that made the english
@2frogland over time, the culture became English.
@@AlexIlesUK thats the point , the difference between the english and the rest was the "anglo saxons"
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand
If I were English I wouldn't bear the idea of having 40% French DNA. What a bloody shame! And Waterloo was for nothing?😀
3rd Generation British (Saxon) German American. Subscribed!
Loved the Saxon Chronicle Series!
How do you know your British side is Saxon? I’m currently looking for the dna tests that show this
Thanks for subscribing!
My British side did some background research. My last name is of Saxon origin.
@@FrederickDunkley-vs8ut In what is now England last names came into use for the mass of the people in post Norman times.
@@seanbouk
Indeed, is not possible.😊
Wondering if geneticists would have issues distinguishing Anglo-Saxon DNA from Danish or other Norse cultures? Are they not very closely related?
A later paper about Scandinavian aDNA touches on this but it is possible.
@@AlexIlesUK In my observation north-eastern Germans - never mind any other part of Germany - look very different to Scandinavians. Never bought the nordicist Anglo-Saxon trope for this reason alone.
@Northsideman1 please read the paper and also one of the issues with that is your comparing people from 1600 years ago with today.
Stricly speaking, nationality-based DNA mostly does not exist. For example, R1b DNA is R1b DNA, not something else. It is found all over Europe. What we have is correlations between similar and identical genes that may have mutated free of tribal ethnosis. There may be no single type of DNA that is found in Northmen that is not also found in Englishmen, etc.
Nice and informative video... Thanks...
You're welcome!
Procopius, a Byzantine historian wrote in the mid 6th century, "Now in Britain there were three very numerous nations, each ruling over a portion of the island: the Angili, the Frisians, and after these the Britons." (Book VIII, Chapter 20).
Thank you
@@AlexIlesUKyou : Chatbot or real person reacting?
I'm a real person. Something I'm just short of time to write long replies
I'm from Scotland, Aberdeenshire. DNA said 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, mate of mine did a test, he was 92% Celtic, 8% Finnish, know another man from Barra, outer Hebrides, he was similar.
We are too far away from the south east of Scotland to have any Anglo connections. I was surprised we have no viking connection though.
Thats really intresting - I did a video on Pictish aDNA too. The Scandinavians did not get everywhere in Scotland and there is a really intresting paper on Scotlands DNA with a sub part on Orkney's DNA - have a look here: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904761116
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for that, I've had a quick look, and will need to look at it really in depth to understand. My son is studying Genetics at Uni, he is very interested in in your channel. Although I am from the Angus Aberdeenshire boundary, nearly all my heritage is Highland, cleared from their lands in the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the abuses of the landlord system. I come from an area of Scotland not recognised for being part of the Ghaedhealtacht, but nearly every place name is from Gaelic, and some from the Cruitneach (Picts). One other point, but this is hearsay, Bho Gaidhealtach (Highland Cattle) are said to be connected to the Yak, that came with the Finns from east of the Volga, not sure if its correct, but there are no other cattle like them in Europe, tho todays version have been bred with other European cattle, their may be a strong connection with Aberdeen Angus / Galloway cattle? I once worked with a Shetlander who told me Shetlanders are Picts, but with the culture and sense of the Norwegians, which I think they are, very progressive people more so than most of Scotland.
I am of Saxon descent and live in Twente in the eastern Netherlands, a Saxon region. According to the results, I am closely connected to the people in the region where I live, but also to the people in Moray and Aberdeenshire, I am 51.2% Saxon. , 36.1% Scandinavian, 12.7 Frankish
@ I’ve never heard of the Aberdeen Dutch Saxon connection. Could be true. There was a lot of trade between Aberdeen and the Low Countries, going on for centuries.
I am Anglo Saxon and will remain so!
Do you mean your English, because I don't think you grew up within the geographic area of England and in culture and mindset of 5th - 11th century.
Murray is a Scottish Gaelic Celtic name so how can you be Anglo-Saxon? English people are a mix that includes Celtic Britons, Danish Vikings, Normans, etc
@@realitywins9020 according to Ancestry DNA I am 12% Irish, 14% Scottish 3% Norwegian & 70% English. Ancestry claim (I take this with a considerable grains of salt) accurate to a 1000 years!
From family history research, I have heritage in Leicestershire, Nottingham, Devon, Essex, one potential line in Yorkshire, Counties Cork and Kilkenny in Ireland. Cork being the origin of the family name, not my male line (illegitimate birth 1877). Where the Scottish comes from? Run away after the Boyne (1690?) or the Jacobite rebellion of 1745? Who knows!
So I will go with my 70% and assume, until someone disproves it, that my English was in England 🏴 prior to 1066, therefore Anglo Saxon!
Good enough case?
@johnmurray8428 entirely possible, but I think you've missed the point of the episode.
@@AlexIlesUK probably!
Thank you very much I really enjoyed this video God bless and protect you and looking forward to learn more facts ❤
Much appreciated and God bless you too.
I was born in Germany in 1949 of a German mother from an old family in the western Danube region.
My father was probably a lonely American GI. 😂😅
My mother was unmarried.😢
I had my DNA run a few years ago, and they said I am 59.1% English. 28% Italian and the rest Bulgarian and Scandinavian. I guess my father was Italian American.
Why do they not say that the English are German because of the Anglo Saxons instead of saying the Germans, like me, are English, if we are that closely genetically related?
That's alright. I love the English. All that I have ever known were lovely, kind people and even said the Germans are their cousins.😊
Anglo-Saxons were Germanic peoples not German. There is a difference.
There is but the same root,
There's some interesting connections in the middle ages between Germany and Italy, so that could be your family history. I'd not be able to comment on recent history and sadly don't know much about it
@amandasmith3716 German is an umbrella term that covers various Germanic tribes that still have a certain distinction even today, including Anglo Saxons.
Germania is the Latin term that the Romans used for that region of Europe.
Have a great day!
@AlexIlesUK You could have a valid point since I remember my mother had a definite Mediterranean appearance.
However, a man came to the orphanage I lived in to see me when I was only a few years old.
If he were in Italy, people would assume he was a native southern Italian.
He was also wearing a kaki shirt with no shoulder rank emblems.
I surmise that he was an American officer and further surmise he was my father.
Silk stockings and a box of chocolates would get an American soldier a long way with a German girl back in the 40s and 50s. 😆 🤣 😂
The people of northwestern Europe have been mixing since the time of the ancient Egypt. Marrying , and taking slaves was common throughout our history...Isn't it easier to say that all of the people from that region are basically the same, with minor regional and tribal differences? Thanks for a great site and all of your insight.
Thank you.
From Jutland, Denmark and other than Scandinavian DNA my test showed markers from Scotland/Ireland and East Europe. I have no known realatives from either EE or Scotland/Ireland so it may reflect where a certain seafearing people went or maybe comes from later historical events, cause a lot of history has happend since the “Viking age” afterall.
I'm going to do an episode on Scandinavian aDNA and you'll hopefully be pleasantly surprised!
Excellent video. Thank you!
You are welcome!
Wasn't Gilda's from arounds Strathclyde area when it was a Brythonic Kingdom? I know it's difficult to differentiate the Saxon root "wielisc", Welsh / Briton / Insular Celt / Roman Briton, but just calling him Welsh doesn't really do it justice, and maybe confuses modern geographic Wales / Welsh, for Medieval Welsh and what I think your talking about, but still love your videos.
People keep trying to guess where he's from and they throw the net as wide as Dumfries and Galloway right down to Devon and Cornwall, but he doesn't like the Welsh princes that's for certain!
Its a hard one for 'Welsh' because I need to keep it at a level where everyone can understand with little background and also short enough that people will watch so I know, I would love more nuance! Thank you that you like all the same!!
@@AlexIlesUK yes and have subscribed 👍
Do you have any videos on NW england and isle of man where my english ancestors and mother's family comes from.
It's on the list because I have had a few requests. It takes a while for me to plan them but stick around and I'll do some research
@@AlexIlesUK great because my english bit and some of my norwegian bits come from NW england and Isle of Man. I am mainly about 39% scandy, abit of german and a bit of fin as well. I have less english than my brother and sisters, and no irish or scots like they have.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 I have DNA results from all the main sites. They don't agree very well. And they change over time as their database increases and improves.
@@akaDorM yes I have Ancestry, 23&me, and heritage and they all say the same thing. I am 39% Swedish with a touch of Nowegian. My viking heritage is Baltic, but part of my scandyness comes from NW England. NW England, Isle of Man is where my mom's family comes from and Varmland Sweden is where 3 great grandparents and 1 grandparent came from with a touch of Finland and Germany. My great great grandfather was a German brew meister in Varmland Sweden who had 5 children to his upstairs maid and that is the branch i am from. My maiden surname is May which is old German and came from my great great grandfather. Now, my younger brother and sister are not quite 30% scandy with touch of German and finland (my dad's side) and the rest are NW England Ireland and Scotland.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 Remarkable that it's so consistent. Though if it's a deep ancestry in one place that's represented in all their databases that makes sense.
Britain was, and still is, Roman Britain. The Roman population stayed after the army left, 2nd-3rd centuries. All these Britannia mysteries exist because no one gets it.
It is true the Romans stayed and there are buildings and items that show Roman culture was important into the 6th century but there was a fundamental change and by the 7th people are copying the Romans. Roman Britian did end.
did romano britan exsist? because most of the troops were not roman and they were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the britons
It's a book review watch the Anglo-Saxon DNA episode for more info
I am so called “northern Germanic Tribes” in my DNA, with some Swedish and Irish/Scottish as well. My grandparents all came from the British Isles. I’m guessing the northern Germanic tribes would be Anglo Saxon.
Depends! Which test are you using because that's a very interesting name to use. In some ways more specific than Anglo-Saxon
Does a DNA test give you a definitive answer? I am English but would be interested to know what exactly that means. Thx.
It depends, some tests help to explain but all of them work off where people get the most occurrence of that DNA where it exists in the world today which can make things harder to understand.
@AlexIlesUK Thank you - it rather creates more questions than it answers! (smile)
Can we skip the preamble?
I'm sorry you're the only person who has asked for that, it's important to set the scene and explain the data.
Well, since I'm Dutch.
What do you think.
Cousin... Is that you? ;)
East Saxon Essex, in East Angl-ia, disappeared under the Danelaw, reappeared in Alfred's England, and has continued to be addressed as both Anglian and Saxon ever since. The Angle settlers of Brynach (Northumbria) initially preserved the name in translation (Beornicia: Land of the Bear), and they are also considered Saxon-ish (Sassenach) by their Northern neighbours. Memes transcend genes.
Brynach actually translates as the land of the mountain passes.
@@AlexIlesUK Bryn (like Bjorn, Beor, Bear, Brun, Brown) is a euphemism for the Unnameable beast (Arth/Arctos/Arthur...). The earliest record of an Arthur ("He was no Arthur" Y Gododdin) came from this land.
Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (1953:701-705)
@@AlexIlesUK As in Bernicia & Deira ?
Yes.
Where is Merseyside and Manchester on the Anglo Saxon scale? I'm an American with 40% percent British DNA, mostly in Merseyside, Manchester, Lancaster and some in West Yorkshire.
Less Anglo-saxon, more native but the issue is it can change a lot depending on who your ancestors were and who they paired with.
@@AlexIlesUK thank you!
The DNA from south East England that is from Iron Age France- maybe they were Roman Gauls who fled the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes to a place - Britain- safe from those attacks and where they could continue to live in a Roman style? I did hear there were refugees who fled to britain at that time
It's really interesting as it shows two way migration across the English channel and North Sea.
I think this is highly likely. There is already a link with the Atrebates in both Britain and Gaul and also the Belgae. And there is evidence of close trading and familial links between the Cantii and Gaul, which continued after Jutish settlement. It is possible that the DNA evidence is now supporting the historical and archaeological findings.
If I were English I wouldn't bear the idea of having 40% French DNA. What a bloody shame! And Waterloo was for nothing?😀
A very interesting video. Thank you. 👍
You are welcome!
I remember when at university a post doc was very fervently arguing that ‘Celtic’ was not an accurate term to describe the early Britons, even though they spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, made Celtic artefacts and lived in Celtic model settlements. His argument was that these were mere waves of influence on the populace.
I said then, and say now, if that is to be believed then there was no such thing as Romans or Anglo Saxons either.
Are you an academic?
@@AlexIlesUK No. I did a degree but didn’t proceed further than BA.
I would argue the diffrence between the title 'Celtic' is diffrent than later Romans or Anglo-Saxons is because of how it is used. The Celts are first metioned by the Greeks in the 6th century BC, while the Romans subdivide them into Britons, Gauls, Iberians etc. They dont even call the people living in Northen Italy Celts but Gauls. So the term Celt was used in the 19th century to apply it to items, peoples and language, while we have Romans (a identity that could be gained, granted or adopted rather than biologically determined) and the Anglo-Saxons who developed in the 9th century as a identity in contrast to the Danes to create a political unit. We do not get Gildas refering to himself as a Celt or the welsh princes calling themselves Celtic, they are Britons and see themselves as being connected to the Roman world. Thats why I would disagree with that post doc.
As far as I'm aware when I had my DNA test the conclusion was I am mostly/overwhelmingly Celtic, not surprising as I am Scottish and traced my ancestors many years ago and found my family originates from The Isle of Skye, on my mother's branch of the family, and the Blair Athol area of Scotland, the true centre of Scotland, for my father's. I found this interesting as I had no idea there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon DNA.
With all of these we are putting modern names onto ancient groups, but you can see groups of people moving at different times with this study and understand migrations, and groups in the past.
Is Isle of Skye DNA purely "Celtic"? I thought there was a substantial % of Scandinavian (Norse) + Gael + original British.
I'm reading Ivanhoe, written in 1819 and an eye opener to someone raised under Hollywood's false influence, and has led me to research what he got right, or not, about the social and cultural aspects of the time. And has brought me here.
Well I'm really glad you've come here and I hope you are enjoying it!
Thank you Alex. What is an Anglo Saxon? A dirty word for UK Post colonialism etc. I'm fascinated. We don't know how pre/post Roman people wldve described themselves. Iron age tribal groups fits the bill. I'm from Liverpool. River Mersey I believe means boundary river. Age 83
I think I understand, while I've made points about the use of Anglo-Saxon I'm not against it. I need to look up the meaning of Mersry
Would there be an argument for referring to the Saxon settlers as Danish and not Germanic? Considering the larger land mass of Denmark during the medieval times compared to today, and the fact that Germany didn't technically exist until 1871.
Although I am aware the Romans used the terms Germani and Germania as early as the fourth century B.C.
So it refers to the cultural group of Germanic peoples. Denmark doesn't exist until later.
Thanks Alex. Well presented and considered.......though still not fully convinced by the modelling done in the most recent AS DNA paper....
Can I ask why?
@@AlexIlesUK of course. If I'm remembering correctly, it was firstly the selection of Southern French IA populations to represent the hypothetical Frankish input, rather than the more Northern populations. Some of hose individuals are paractically British IA on a lot of PCAs. Secondly, with respect to moderns, and county level inputs, again if I'm remembering correctly, was the use of Irish as a blanket representative for IA equivalents. We know from the York paper, that the gradation from English-Welsh- Scottish then Irish is not insignificant! If possible the authors should have perhaps selected Welsh populations as bieng reflective of Enlish IA populations. Finally, although the recent British IA paper, did not show PCAs for them, I have seen private PCAs that indicate a lot more variability in the IA populations alongside the Viking and AS paper. The 'author' found that many imodern ndividuals (of course not the PoBI dataset) could be effectively modelled with qpAdm just bey British IA and AS inputs,, without the high order of magnitude of AS input, at least not to the same degree............so for me jury is still out
I would add the caveat., Iam probably remembering certai details of the AS paper incorrectly. It's been a while since I read it. Probably got the Irish blanket wrong,.......
Very interesting. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it
I've just googled "A DNA" - wikipedia states that it is one of three structural forms (A,B & Z) that DNA can take. It does not mean "ancient DNA".
I suppose the term "A DNA" might have two meanings.
Try Ancient DNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20human%20aDNA,good%20conditions%20for%20DNA%20preservation.
Best wishes
@@AlexIlesUK OK, I see that "aDNA" and "A DNA" are different! Rather confusing nomenclature!
I think a time machine's required.
I think that regularly
Bede and Gildas we're talking about two different forms of Christianity. Gildas was early (Celtic) Christianity, Bede was Catholic christianity. At the time Bede was writing the majority were Catholic Christians and this benefits his church as gifts (money) were donated to his church. The pagans (read the rest of Christianity in Britain), didn't make absurd gifts which they saw as useless, either God would take you to heaven or he wouldn't, giving money to a large business was a waste of resources. That's why Beds castigated the 'pagans'. - just my take on this argument 🤔
People make far too much of a distinction between the Celtic and Roman church - when ultimately it boils down to a haircut and when Easter was. Bede would never have referred to other Christians as pagans as his whole aim is to ensure orthodoxy in the church. The 'Celtic' believers made just as many wealthy gifts - just look at Whithorn and other sites on the West of the British isles!
I've always found it interesting that Gildas never mentioned the Irish invaders. He must have been aware being originally based in Wales. Presumably didn't fit his argument since they were Christian at the time.
Would it not be correct in saying we are an Germanic people. Also people forget about the yamnaya dna across Easter, and western Europe that connects us.
So that's a bit tricky because of mixing and changing cultures. Some people do some don't! Can't give you a straight answer but the people who do give you a straight answer have an agenda!
I am a great, great, great, great grandson of Harold Godwinson. I have Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Scandinavian DNA...
Can I ask where you got that genealogy from it's always interesting to hear what programs or services people are using
@@AlexIlesUKMy lineage is well-documented - feoffments and suchlike - in my family's history. You will understand if I choose to remain "incognito", I trust. Certain members of the family might think it a little odd that I post comments for public scrutiny. But I do enjoy your channel, very much. Regards...
A secret Royal! have fun, your not Prince Harry Now are you?
@@AlexIlesUK Ah, humour... very droll. Keep up the good work.
@Jezza-m5k I got married on the same day as him!
I am always amazed with people that call them selves Anglo Saxons or Viking or anything else , what research did they do to prove this? A dna test from ancestry or myheritage won’t show anything but recent ancestry (250/ 400 years back in time). I know that primary school teach that the English are Anglo Saxon, but what is left of it since these Anglo Saxons arrived and many many others have migrated here since. Who look pretty similar to what was here. Especially if you are from big cities chances are very big that you have a lot of recent foreign ancestry.
This is a very important point, genetically we are not the same group and a lot of changes have happened since then! Your comment is a breath of fresh air!
When I did my DNA most of it was Scot and Welch. Surprised that 30% was Scandinavian, but our English ancestors came from Norfolk Coast of Britain across from Denmark.
It's really interesting to see the North sea connections
Im English American but my dna is majority native Briton dna it seems. To be fair my mothers family were mostly of lowland Scots ancestry though with most of those families being historically "Anglo-Norman" such as my mother's surname of Montgomery. I was expecting to find more Germanic dna considering my fathers ancestors overwhelmingly came from England with a small distant component of Scots, and Welsh.
Very interesting!
Normans intermarried with natives as did the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanics, so your DNA shouldn't be that surprising. Robert the Bruce was a Norman, but his mother was a Gaelic speaking Scot
If I were English I wouldn't bear the idea of having 40% French DNA. What a bloody shame! And Waterloo was for nothing?😀
I was stationed t RAF Mildenhall in the early 1970s and took a monthly salvage run each month to RAF Molesworth. It fascinated me that as we passed beyond Cambridge we entered a region that had small villages about every 4 to 5 KM. It was interesting because one village was peopled with tall, blond, blue eyed people while the next might be short, stocky, dark haired, brown eyed people. It became apparent that these folks didn't travel or intermarry much. It would seem that figuring their lineage would be a bit more simple than you are explaining.
Looks do not corilate directly to DNA
As an American I found it striking. I don't claim to know the full story but apparently f you checked the census records through to the 70s I think you could isolate some pure strains of differing population. They looked alike enough to be clones.
I am German and during my several trips to England especially in the southeast and Middle I met so many blond english🤔
What about basque adn in Britain .
I've not come across that in my reading.
Weren't aliens involved somehow? ;)
Nah m8, that's the history channel.
ALEX: PROPS! this video is top tier/first rate. As it went on i realized "this is very much like--is essentially--a conference presentation, and rates among the very best Ive attended across 40+ years". EXCEPT that i just watched it on my phone @ home, early on a Saturday morning: what a treat!
"Full disclosure" Your topic falls in a field which Ive never studied formally nor worked in, altho it is adjacent to mine--or the next over...or perhaps in the next valley🤔--and so broadens my horizons.
For which you are a fabulous guide. I know just enough about migrations of peoples and the New DNA-ology (if i can say that) to be able to follow YOUR extremely lucid presentation.
I would tag this video a "review essay", meaning an overview/precis of what is known currently about a topic and the questions/directions for further research.
Its true that I am unfamiliar with the researchers & studies that you cite, but your presentation bears the hallmarks of someone who has that literature at their fingertips and who is analyzing and synthesizing it with sound methods and without an agenda (other than love of their topic).
And, i enjoyed your response to the internet orcs who attacked the comments section of one your previous videos😂
Thank you I really appreciate it! I'm enjoying filming again and hope to share more with everyone shortly!!
Northern Francia wasn't French (Gaulish or Gallo-Roman) but Germanic, i.e. the people were Germanii. Anyone who was Angle, Frank, Jute, Frisian, Saxon and later Dane, were all Germanii. You say the Franks are a new population that we didn't know about, but at least one Welsh poem from the 5th century that speaks of "I sit across the fire from the Frank (a mercenary) to whom I cannot speak." There are other historical references albeit short to Franks being in Britain during the late Roman period throughout the migration period. Perhaps later historians (Victorians) just ignored the evidence?
In the 5th Century the Franks crossed the Rhine so they did migrate into Northern Gaul. It's interesting period but yes there must have been a lot of Franks around the place! Maybe not ignored, but not thought it was possible for them to be there!
From the end of the 2nd century AD there was a constant flow of Frankish migrants into Gaul in the regions north of the Seine river. Mercenaries in the Roman army, peasants where labor force was required, many names of localities in these parts have a Germanic origin. Where they were most numerous, the Franks imposed their language, as in Flanders or on the left bank of the Rhine river, elsewhere they were assimilated to the vernacular Latin language in the following centuries. But Germanic dialects are still spoken around Dunkirk in French Flanders and near the German border in Lorraine and Alsace. But little by little people there are being Frenchified, especially in the last fifty years. The dynamics of languages are the same everywhere. People learn the most useful language where they live.
@@hugues-v8i Thanks for the confirmation of the Frankish presence.
Quite true. For simplicity sake the term Anglo-Saxon is perhaps more of a modern application by historians to describe the Germanic peoples that began settling across the old Roman province of Britannia. Even though Alfred introduced the term his purpose was likely more about the continued unification of all the peoples under his watch. It's not reasonable to believe that the average person of those times would even use of the term Anglo-Saxon, let alone see themselves part of some larger nation state. People would more likely refer to themselves (in terms of self identity) as from whatever village or area they were born and raised in. Most people did not travel far from where they lived, except men that were needed in times of conflict. There were no professional soldiers, all were farmers, smithys etc. Identifying as from a particular village or region was the norm for centuries and likely all the way up to WWII. During the War of the Roses men identified as from the village they were born, then if they were Lancastrian or Yorkshireman, but rarely would suggest they were English, that probably only came into their vocabulary if fighting oversees. Identifying as part of a nation state, as in being English or British is something very much post modern, and that has likely come about through it being repeated continuously through all our school years. So in fact we are all programmed to identify as being English etc.
What about strontium - the gas that can tell where these people were born and lived ...besides just dna... which can be hard to extract? Although the fact that you CAN get ancient dna ASTOUNDS me.
I've got an episode where I explain the strengths and weaknesses of that method: ruclips.net/video/Hps4bM2mZ2E/видео.html
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you. I will watch this. I just ran across your video.
Fantastic! It doesn't get many views because it's quite archaeological, but I hope it's useful
@gravegoods and identity - it seems to me that this question is treated differently when it comes to this period than when it comes to the start of the Roman period. I wonder why so much (more) stress is put on ethnic background and who they identitified with when it comes to the AS when compared to the Romans.
I think it's because so many nations see their 'foundation' in the post Roman period, so ethnicity becomes a aspect of this. A lot of it can be traced back to the 19th century!
Very few Romans from Italy settled in Britain. There was a wider mix from the rest of the Empire. And some will have left when the legions withdrew. So the bulk of British DNA is either Pre-Roman or Post-Roman, and the Roman bit is very mixed.
It is pleasing that the evidence largely did not support woke academias attempts to rewrite Anglo Saxon history, and in some cases write them from history completly.
It should not be a revelation that the Anglo Saxons were not the only tribes to migrate/invade, or that peoples were already here. The Angles and Saxons became the dominate tribes over the centuries, much like France is named for the Franks or Belgium for the Belgae, both were still made up of many other tribes
Like all things there's exceptions to the rules and also nuance. I would really like more data from the North, but it may never happen due to the soils being more acidic.
Indeed. How about the migration of the Ingvaeon/Ingwine peoples as a more inclusive term for the early migrations? Ingwine may have been something they all indentified with at the time
@'Frankish dna' - I wonder if we should call it thus. The 'Franks' were originally from the NE Netherlands and/or from the Middle Rhine areas, and these people would be different from 'Iron Age France'. Now my questions would be this: do we know when this dna enters Britain? Because in my humble opinion (i'm NO dna expert!) we could also be looking at people who migrated to Britain during the (later?) Roman period, as Roman citizens.
Hi Robert, I should have clarified this more! So this aDNA is not present in Roman or Late Roman British aDNA samples, it comes in during the Migration period. I believe it's been referred to as Frankish due to the connection to items referred to as Frankish and the fact this aDNA has been found in the Rhineland. Hope that clarifies!
@@AlexIlesUK NE Gaul was Belgae? Didn't some cross into Kent before Caesar? I have a vague memory the Romans wrote the Belgae thought of themselves as Germans rather than Gauls.
Thanks for mentioning the Britons were never considered Celtic by the Romans. Their Celts were in todays S Germany & Bohemia. The Gauls/Britons/Germans were just another, related, part of the Indo-European language group.
I sound abit too certain in these paragraphs. I'm happy to be corrected.
I always take the historical sources with a pinch of salt but with the distances over the channel migrations would have occured more easily. From the paper this aDNA is definitely early medieval though which is interesting in itself. Don't need to apologise you've done your reading, which is great!
Thank you, Alex for this interesting presentation and for recommending the Gretzinger paper.
I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail yet but the finding that you mentioned at the end of your presentation touched on something I already wanted to ask you about. I sometimes read that the Norman Invasion didn’t have much demographic impact because only the elite was changed and they represented only about 2% of the population. I don’t think this is true. The histories of England and France were intertwined for 300 years (to the end of the 100 years war). France had a much bigger population than England during this period and led England in the development of towns and trades. I think this would have led to a slow but ultimately significant migration of French and Flemish (also heavily populated and more urbanised) people migrating into England; mainly craftspeople moving into the growing towns. I think the Frenchified English language as we know it today was nurtured and developed in this environment.
In Gretzinger’s paper, the addition of the French Iron Age ancestry is inferred by comparison with the contemporary British population. I would suggest the this is not the addition of a French Iron Age population but rather the addition of a French Medieval population. I understand that France is rather behind on using genetic studies to unravel its History but presumably this could be tested.
I think they clarified it by saying that the human remains analysed were all from the early medieval period (400-1066), so that they couldn't reflect later migrations. But it's a valid point, the Normans and later groups did settle Flemish populations in the British isles.
I would say that the Leslie et al. paper was also highlighting the geographic effects of isolation and mixing between populations. The paper was essentially looking at small-scale genetic differences between populations. The major reason that the South and East, and indeed Midlands of England has a more homogenous population today than elsewhere, is that people in those areas were in lowlands of a very similar nature, with few natural barriers to movement. Unlike the more genetically diverse highland regions. Movement between highland regions is more difficult due to physical isolation and diverse local conditions. Movement from the lowlands to the highlands, and vice-versa, is made even more difficult by differences in agriculture. A farming community, family or individual peasant can move between areas of lowland - say Norfolk and Hampshire - quite easily, as both areas have almost identical reliance on mostly wheat-based cereal crop farming. Highland agriculture is very different, being mostly reliant on grazing cattle and sheep, and even the crops are different, oats and barley predominating. People moving between areas having very different agricultural conditions would be at a severe disadvantage, not knowing how to make the best use of the land. It is, therefore unsurprising that the lowlands would have a thoroughly mixed together, almost homogenous population and the highland regions have populations distinct from the lowlands and each other.
That's one possible reason - a nice hypothetical. I like it
Hi Alex - I remember hearing (but I can't remember where) that the first time Anglo-Saxon was used was at a 6th century continental European meeting of bishops where it was to differentiate the British from the continental.....
Could it be Procopius describing the inhabitants of Britannia as Britons, Angles and Frisians?
@@AlexIlesUK What do you think to the book 'Age of Arthur' by Morris. I know it was panned by historians, but it made sense to me.
a) AS invited in, rebelled
b) The Britons halted the advance at Mons Badon.
c) Plague devastates the Britons more than the AS
d) AS take over unoccupied lands, inviting in more AS families
Morris (from memory) thinks that unlike Gaul it was not a elite takeover, but families. Explaining the loss of the British language because the women talking to the children were AS. In France there was more intermarriage of warriors with local women. If 'Arthur' had lost at Mons Badon, it would have been warriors marrying locals.
@@AlexIlesUK Oh my name & DNA says British not AS. So no dog in the fight.
I think it shows the academic work at the time, he researched and presented his argument based on what was known at the time and it's an enjoyable read but it is of its period.
@@jcoker423 Was there really a British language when the Roman Empire withdrew? Some will have spoken Latin. Most people would have stayed local. Even a thousand years later the dialects of distant districts were barely interpretable (if understandable at all). Judging by modern dialects, the move to English was primarily local, with English becoming the lingua franca of the ruling class who needed to converse over greater distances. Incoming germanic mercenaries or invaders didn't speak brythonic and British rulers who invited them would have had an incentive to communicate clearly with them.
Irish/Scottish mothers don't seem to have stopped Icelanders szpeaking Icelandic.
Well I’m 83% Irish Scottish & Welsh .
11.4 % Greek & South Italian
5.6% Baltic .
I’m from north Lanarkshire in Scotland & I knew my dad was Irish & my mum a Scot , the rest came as a surprise. No English DNA so I know at least there was no mixing with any southerners.
And if there had been would that have been a problem for you? Also if it's bunching Irish, Scottish and Welsh together it is likely is grouping the British isles DNA together so it's quite possible you have ancestry from the Southerners.
I'm from Aberdeenshire, 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, that Baltic you have may be Finnish also!?
Have a look at Tolkien's translation of the Battle of Maldon..the narrator stated that the 'English' fought with the fyrd..were they Angles possibly from Mercia or East Anglia? Also it is likely that many of the Anglo Saxons were Frisian. Some studies indicate that the Dutch and English have close DNA..
Yes, the Dutch and English are very closely related.
Anglo Saxon or German Small Boat People
Could you do some Irish DNA mate which is more my lot
They'll need to publish a paper! I'll see what I can find.
Cheers mate. The world is awash in Irish DNA@@AlexIlesUK
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Especially Iceland where West Irish sex slaves were most valued.. Green eyes/black hair... I had bad luck and ended up with an east irish ginger
I `ve ended up with too many hair/eye colours mate@@SunofYork
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Well at least they have hair, so it could be worse....
l just love this episode. l never knew that the english were so keen on the anglo/Saxon concept. l come from Sweden and we do call the period 793/1066 the Viking age but of course they didn't call themseves vikings. Why would it be so important to have your roots called Anglo/saxon?
Its a very good question but it really affects some people that they connect their identity back to it, without really understanding what they are saying.
There is a theory by Wilson and Blackett that in the 18th Century when the German Royal family came to throne they changed history and introduced the Anglo-Saxon perspective, we’re all from Germanic heritage in order to calm down anti-German sentiment at the time. There were ancient Brits here before.
@amandasmith3716 that's been disproved by the genetic study that I've quoted in this episode, but I'd also say that there was a political push to connect the Hanoverian holdings and England for the Georges.
As one of my sons put it - We come from where they make white people. Over three-quarters of our dna is from the British Isles. English. Irish and Scottish. The fact that it does not include Welsh is kinda weird as we were all over the British Isles. The other part is ...Viking I do believe. In the latest round they included Iceland ... which is REALLY weird because that is a VERY small group of people
Many DNA tests show where the DNA occurs most today and as Iceland has Scandinavian and Irish DNA that should not be too much of a suprise!
My brother just had his dna done. I can find only 1 ancestor in 200 years who was born outside Yorkshire or north east england. They were Irish. However his dna was 45% celt 30% English. 20% viking.
I'd say any Genetic test telling you that you are Viking is not to be trusted. There were populations of Native Britons who lived side by side with Anglo-Saxons and intermarried, as seen by the paper this is based on.
Commercial DNA tests are not very reliable. The most they can do is compare your DNA to the DNA of the testing company's other customers. My mother had her DNA tested a while back and it came back as 85% British Isles. But I know from documentary sources that her maternal ancestors were nearly all Rhenish/swiss/Prussian going back to around the year 1530.
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes (Viking) all come from the exact same genetic
Population! There is no way to be able to distinguish them from each other except through age or distance
Big Weather Change around the 6th Century AD that would be caused by an enormous Volcanic Event in either the Americas or SE Asia.
Entirely possible
Another really helpful video, thank you so much for keeping them appearing. I've watched the Anglo-Saxon and Pict ones so far and can't wait for the others.
For me, all the harsh comments on the 'Anglo-Saxons Didn't Exist' video represent an inability to get past modern national identities - whether 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Celtic' (both terms that I think muddy the waters even further) - to appreciate the greater fluidity of cultural, spiritual and social identities in this period. Personally, I think there is an argument for calling this the 'Early Medieval Migration Period' rather than the A-S Ages or, worst still, the 'Dark Ages' and applying this same descriptive to much of western Europe at the time. But again, the problem of modern national identities causes this to be a contentious term because of the perception of migration in that context. Finding out the fascinating truth about the past of the place you live in doesn't mean you can't be proud to live there, it just means that you can acknowledge cultural expression outside your own and celebrate that too.
I think you make a good point. However I think its that the English people are tired of being told by progressives that their national identity is problematic, does not matter and that they need to look beyond it as you put it. When the opposite is true
Thank you both @snufkinhollow318 and @danielryan570 - I do understand both positions and see why the Radicals on one side denying any identity in England is really frustrating. To give you a prospective from me, I was born in Scotland, but don't sound Scottish so because of that face hostility from a minority of Scots as I can't be a part of their national identity (but any American can as long as they buy a kilt and some shortbread on the way!) I think the important thing is to say that the first settlers were not Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon were not English, but these identities grew out of events and people who mixed and became the next thing. I see myself as British but this feels like a dying identity.
@@danielryan570 I don't think I singled out the English for criticism here, rather as you say 'the opposite is true'. My point was that modern national identities have a tendency to exclude any period involving migration from areas outside their national borders from history (or their origin mythology) because it is perceived as a threat to their 'purity'. Whereas, for me, it enhances the richness of their history and should be celebrated. If pointing that out makes me a 'progressive', then, yes, I will happily sit in the camp of progress. I am of Welsh ancestry, born in England and now live in Ireland, all countries that I love for their natural beauty, and I have travelled around the world too, sometimes to places where I felt completely at home within days of arriving. But do I feel like I 'belong' to any of the countries I have been to or they to me? No, I belong where my home is and where I feel safe and if there are national identities that come into conflict with that, I will criticse them, wherever they are.
@@AlexIlesUK I'm not sure that it is 'radical' to deny national identities (not just that of the English) when they are relatively modern creations that, in their turn, deny the richness of our history, but a do take the overall point you are making. Ireland where I live is also subject to the 'kilt and shortbread' phenomenon that you identify in the form of what some Irish people call 'plastic Paddies', incomers from the US who buy up what they believe to be their ancestral land in some rural area and then complain that they can't get all the services and consumer goods that they want.
I had another curious experience of this the other day when I went into a shop I've been using for over a decade and the owner was giving a hate-fuelled speech about 'immigrants' to several other customers. So I place my goods on the counter and went to walk out. He called me back and when I said I found his speech against me offensive he said "But you're not like them, you're ...." and then tailed off when he realised that it was impossible to finish that sentence without either contradicting himself or sounding like an out-and-out racist. I find it almost impossible to believe that a country will one of largest global diasporas in modern history can be so hateful towards immigrants. I expect many people from outside Ireland have heard about the recent riots in Dublin, supposedly sparked by the stabbing of a woman and child by an immigrant. Not many news reports here in Ireland or overseas, however, have included the fact that it was a Brazilian immigrant who put his own life on the line to save the victims whilst many Irish people stood and did nothing.
I'm so sorry to rant and ramble but I do feel very strongly that national identities are more a source of disharmony than of unity.
@@danielryan570this is why I will continue to just call myself what I was raised as and understand myself to be. English mixed with Scottish. Im not Anglo-Saxon the same way what we call AS prob didnt call themselves that.
I dislike how people are now saying the term Anglo-Saxon is racist or that even being English and British is racist. So I dont want to develop some weird and fake "proud" identity crisis and suddenly start calling myself AS like how some black Americans turned Afrocentric and claim they were the first black ppl everywhere. I knew who I was before all this and never used the term Anglo before despite etymologically-speaking that is the origin of England (Angleland). Ppl can call me racist all they like. I didnt pick my genetics any more than they did.
The Angelen lived in a very small region.
It can't be a very large group to migrate.
Saxons were a large group, actually living more to the easter part of germany
The frisians lived along the west-and northcoast of the Netherland and the north- and northwestcoast of germany.
They drowned in that region because of the rising sealevels and moved abroad.
Frisians were known with Brittons by trade and working in the roman army.
Old english and Old frisian are very very similar.
So...
It's interesting as the Anglian's cover more of the geography of the British isles, it'll be one for future research for certain!
The Angles lived in a smaller area than the Saxons but that doesn’t mean they had less numbers to migrate. Many Saxons remained in Europe and as you will be aware there are still Saxons in Germany. The Angles all moved to Britain in their entirety or as a political entity and no noticeable numbers remained in Denmark/Northern Germany.
There is a viking account which states that as he sailed along the Western Baltic, that the islands on one side used to be occupied by the English. If true, this expands Angeln considerably, possibly into Finn Island. Add that Jutland was Western Germanic speaking before its later occupation by Danes, and the Angelcynn, if not the Anglish alone, dwelt in a large area. Then, we can understand how the Angles may have had enough manpower to fight Scots/Picts for the British, and still have enough men left over to expand within Britain. The idea that Anglen was just a small area seems to memetic, i.e. the notion is not contested at all, just copied from one source to the next.
That's an interesting one to read more into!
Regarding the 'French' DNA found in southern England the Guardian's report on the Oxford University 10 year genetic study of Britain (completed 2014) makes the following comment:
'People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago'.
So, not a migration at the time of the 'Anglo-Saxons' but thousands of years earlier - a quite different conclusion to the later study referenced in the video.
The French inclusion in both studies are not the same. The PoBI study has 2 separate populations included FRA14 and 17. The FRA14 is indicative of pre- AS arrival, whilst the FRA17 component arrived later. The authors argue for it being possibly representative of AS DNA, but Frankish would make more sense.......or perhaps even French during the Norman Invasion?
The paper clarified this, the Iron Age French aDNA is not found in previous populations. It's really interesting.
@@AlexIlesUK
This from the University of Oxford 'People of the British Isles' :
'The most intriguing European contribution is that from Northern France, (EU17 red). This clearly post- dates the original settlers since it is entirely absent from the Welsh samples. It is, however, widespread elsewhere, even right through the north of England and Scotland to Orkney. It is also especially prevalent in Cornwall and Devon. These results suggest a previously not described substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little, if any, impact on Wales'.
key word "share" why would we have 40% french dna?
@@NordiCrusader7
See my second post above for the answer.
I'm not an Anglo Saxon, for all I must be at least the 100th generation of my family. In the area of N/E England I'm from. We have lower than 3% Anglo Saxon DNA. In fact I'm pretty certain I've more Asian DNA in my genealogy than Anglo Saxon.
Can I ask where are you from? Which test did you do interesting with what you've said as the body of data is quite different in regards to the DNA of the region.
My Y chromosome is Saxon according to a family dna test. However, 23 and me says my dna is most similar to people living in Northern France and the German border (Alsace). This jives with the video's conclusions.
Good to see that's the case!
Interesting material, most of which was already known to me but some not in the depth that you have shown. To me the whole thing seems an enormous melting pot, looking at earlier migration periods often a groep moves into an area and joins with a native population sometimes peacefully but often violently. The elites take over and the common people mix and become a hybrid of the two groups. Also, most people set family and their lord as the main priority and identification of their ethnic identity. This makes for blurred lines between ethnic groups, I feel something similar happened in the early middle age period.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Well, I guess you could say. It may have been... I may be American. But I'm a Texan.
And as we all know, Texas is A different country!
Always assumed that 'Anglo-Saxon'
refered to a linguistic group rather than an ethnic people.
So it's a language and a branch of the western Germanic peoples
Very well done!
Thank you!
Interesting talk I've had my ancestral dna done and its 56% Anglo saxon 27% welsh 10% nordic and 7% greek .
Glad you enjoyed it
I used to watch time team channel 4 and loved it but when they found an Anglo Saxon grave with goods they assumed it was Anglo Saxon but because someone is buried in England doesn't make them English I believed that the programme was wrong in identifying graves because someone has Anglo Saxon grave goods doesn't mean that they were Anglo Saxon and the Welsh were here 10 thousand years but more DNA research needs to be done there are lots of unanswered questions about this period of time my believe is that English people are 50 % Welsh and Anglo Saxon and other we maybe closer related than we think
I'm sure the British and native British population were far more integrated with the incoming Anglo-Saxons than we realised before.
The Anglo-Saxons were not Anglo-Saxons before they arrived in Britain. They were of diverse folk and tribal confederation origins. The ethnogenesis of the English people occurred in Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were not merely transplanted from the North Sea coastlands of continental Europe, they evolved in Britain, through interactions among themselves and with the native peoples of Britain.
I think I said this in the episode?
@@AlexIlesUK Worth emphasising in a more concise fashion. Many people think that that the first North Sea coastal Germanic person to set foot in Britain immediately became an Anglo-Saxon. There was even a sound shift that affected 'Ingaevonic' speakers in Britain that did not occur on the continental 'homelands'.
Ok... Are you asking me to make shorts?
@@AlexIlesUK No, nothing I am saying is directly aimed at your podcasts. I'm just airing ideas, in response.
@urseliusurgel4365 thanks for clarifying! I wasn't sure if you wanted me to be more succinct in my presentations
Anglo Saxon is barely adequate to describe the Germanic influence on Britain. A vast amount of Germanic peoples were already in Britain, especially on the east coast, during the Roman occupation as they were employed as soldiers to the empire. They had many different tribal origins; Jutes, Frisians as well as Angles and Saxons. The term Anglo Saxon was not in use until theVictorian Royals Saxe-Coburg wanted to put more emphasis on Saxon for obvious political reasons. While it’s true there were Angles and Saxons in the English origin story, however the epithet Anglo Saxon would have meant nothing to pre Victorians in England, who identified solely as English.
I'd agree mostly up to the end, the question of how much the Roman soldiers affected the genetics is one for another day! it's Alfred who creates Englishmen. Even Bede is refering to his Northumbrian race prior to that, and that's a new identity fof many in the region.
@@AlexIlesUK the point I’m making is that your every day Englishman wouldn’t have much identified as Anglo Saxon before the Victorian period. They just identified as English. That’s what I read anyway.
@TreforTreforgan thanks for clarifying yes I get your point, before the 're-discovery' of Anglo-Saxons English would be the identity for the area of England, even today few would identify as Anglo-Saxon.
@ I understand that it’s an identifier that people have become quite romantic about. Probably even more so since the discoveries at Sutton Hoo. The name Anglo Saxon and the Sutton Hoo Helmet seem to be welded together in the imagination despite it only having been two or three generations since its discovery. I think the American WASPS have been the ones that have driven the negativity that there is around the term, as it’s undeniably linked to white supremacy. My only problem with it is I don’t feel it adequately describes the complexities of the migration period. In view of the findings of the Oxford Genome Project Germano-British has more historical pertinence surely.
Nice video
Thank you
I love the male vs female Briton burial comparison in Gretzinger et al (Nature 2022). It corresponds well with the idea that the home (run by women) holds traditions much longer than society at large (run by men who often more incentivized to assimilate to gain status).
It is interesting!
A good analogy.
Im from a long line of Yorkshire people, east Yorkshire. My DNA is predominantly Anglo Saxon and Danish. A tiny amount of Belgian thrown in. It veriies a family legend of a Belgian bareback rider in a circus ancestry. Fascinating .
Glad you enjoyed it!
It seems it’s pedantry to say that the people of that time, didn’t call themselves Anglo Saxon, there’d one the term is not useful. But the term has become established to mean those peoples from saxony, Jutland, etc., and so it is meaningful to distinguish them from other Germanic tribes, including the Danes. Scholars and historians know who is meant. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t call themselves that back then. The terms are related to the people being there, as reflected in names like “East Anglia”, Sussex, Essex, etc.
I understand much of the frustration that people have but the point is to show that the culture didn't just come pre-made into the British isles and the kingdoms formed in the late 6th into 7th century.
I am first english then welsh . But ancestry only goes back to 1700s to find out more you must do your own work.
That was my experience too, but there's some interesting things happening in research and genealogical work that could help you discover more.
I’m 30% from the British Isles (English/Irish/Welsh). There may be some Anglo-Saxon in me (?).
That genetic test doesn't sound very specific, I'd need to know more information to say but it's likely
Ireland is part of the British Isles.
Don't say that to a Irish nationalist!!
@@AlexIlesUK it’s United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The Northern Irish are of course British. American’s often don’t know that.
@amandasmith3716 Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, Ireland is a separate landmass.
My understanding is the 2022 study does not support the theory popular in recent times, of A-S migration as an influx of warrior elites grafting to a base Briton population over time. The suggestion is it was nearer to the other end of the spectrum - a significant genetic cascade which passed through the entire population in large areas of now England during this period(ie:tended to be replacement of genetic and cultural identity) - though western and northern areas, exhibited more genetically blended rather than replaced populations and cultural identity.
An interesting question would be - the retreat of a dominant Roman presence was opportunity, but what factors fuelled this extended period of migration from now north-central Denmark,southern Sweden and lower Saxony
My question is did the Romans as we understand them actually leave? If you read the sources it suggests that they broke off from the main empire but did not 'leave' also Bede mentioned that Latin was one of the languages spoken during his time. What if that's not just church Latin but actually people talking lantin as their language? It's a fascinating period!
.....I'm just letting my imagination run free on this...I have no evidence of course....undoubtedly there would have been an ongoing roman "presence" including a persitent use of latin but I guess the character of this presence might consist in a scattered and much diminished elite and other ranks {possibly Germanic and other peoples in any case)...and possibly facing adaption as renewed waves of Anglo-Saxons began to arrive@@AlexIlesUK
That study draws very sweeping conclusions from a very limited sample. It makes unsupported assumptions about how the heterogeneity should be interpreted. It assumes that their cemeteries reflect the whole population. It assumes a cultural homogeneity where fewer grave goods indicate lower status.
@AlexIlesUK
If that were the case then one would expect insular Latin to have left more traces in placenames for example. The Romans were keen on written / inscribed records and literature. There is practically none of this in post Roman occupation Britain. There is no evidence that Latin was widely spoken by the populace.
When a powerful empire collapses, many of the empire's natives side with their former subjugates, sometimes decrying their own tribe i.e. treachery.
Could you explain what you mean?
MAYBE not using click bait titles would get uou less comments and you'd really hate that, right? Anglo-Saxons wouldn't call themselves by that term. The Welsh wouldn't call themselves "Welsh"; Deer wiukdn't call themselves "deer". Therefore, there were no deer in the 4th Century. And YOU don't like the term Celtic"; How about "Pillock"? Or "Berk"? "Git"? Maybe you are one third each. Maybe not. Great visuals, though! I learned a lot staring at your walls.
You've made me laugh, best comment I've come across on this episode, well done!
it would be good to see what the ratio of Native British Y chomosome vrs Mainland Saxon, Anglo, Jutuish DNA. If the amount of native british Y Chromosomes are diminished vrs Saxon/Jutish/Anglo would indicate "replacement" or genocide. all other topics are irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe it's covered in the paper, I put a link in the description and it's in the final pages.
I’m from very near West Yorkshire. Over there there is a region called Elmet, lots of villages called “something in Elmet”, and apparently Elmet was a Celtic kingdom that survived while the Anglo saxons conquered all around them, and it held out against the Saxons. Maybe that is why they is a different marker in West Yorkshire?
Elmet was brought into Northumbria in the early 7th century but yes that is likely.
@@AlexIlesUK I think politically it was brought into it but it remained ethnically an enclave for some time after, under Anglo Saxon rule
@krisinsaigon do you have sources for that? The reading I have done is very sparse on information for Elmet
Anglo-Saxons created England. English people are Anglo-Saxon-Celtic
Have a watch of some of my episodes on the Anglo-Saxons. It may help you.
@@AlexIlesUK I know my fathers ancestry and heritage.
Arguably the clear distinction between England and Scotland was created by the Norman kings of England and Scotland.
English and proud…..🏴
Congratulations
Very good brother🏴🇩🇪👱🌹👌
@ 🏴🤝🇩🇪
@@AlexIlesUK thank you……there was a time when to be born an Englishman was to win the lottery of life……I’m still hanging on to that quaint notion!
Good stuff. Makes you think.
Thank you!
I mean I’m in east England and my dna is 15% Denmark/Sweden
I've made the point before, but do you know when that DNA was added to the UK population?
@@AlexIlesUK unfortunately not precisely when. Though I would interested to know.
See in the east a silvery glow, out yonder waits the Saxon for We chant a soldiers song
Cool beans
Z209 haplogroup was likely progenitor of many peoples: Picts, Salian Franks, Gauls, and Anglo-Saxon
I would need to look more into that.