Garrett Hellenthal - The Genetic History of the United Kingdom: the POBI project
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2015
- Garrett presents results from the People of the British Isles (POBI) project, an exploration of the fine-scale genetic architecture of the United Kingdom. Using the DNA of individuals sampled across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, Garrett illustrates the striking correlation between an individual's genetics and their geographic origins. Furthermore, by comparing the DNA of UK individuals to that of individuals sampled from continental Europe, we identify clear differences in ancestry among different geographic regions of the UK, reflecting the genetic imprint of the Anglo-Saxon and Norwegian Viking migrations from several centuries ago.
Garrett has a PhD in Statistics and currently works as a statistical geneticist at University College London, primarily on developing methods to infer history using DNA. This includes identifying periods in the past when worldwide populations have intermixed due to invasions or migrations. For example, he has helped quantify the genetic impact across central Asia of the armies of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, identify DNA related to the Arab Slave Trade in populations bordering the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, and unearth possible DNA mixing among traders along the Silk Road of Asia.
This lecture was presented at Who Do You Think You Are? Live 2015 (Thurs 16th to Sat 18th April 2015, Birmingham, UK). Please note that these videos are copyrighted to the presenter and should only be used for personal study. They are not to be used for any other purpose without the presenters express permission. Also, please note that because this is a rapidly advancing field, the content may quickly become outdated.
The lectures were sponsored by FamilyTreeDNA (at www.ftdna.com) and organised by Maurice Gleeson & Debbie Kennett on behalf of ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy at www.isogg.org). - Наука та технологія
Thank you for making this available on UA-cam.
Thank you
LivingDNA use the findings of this study for their genetic breakdown of UK regions. I found that my continental ancestry skewed my results towards the Southeast.
I'm half British (mostly Yorkshire with hints of Somerset, Sussex, Worcestershire and Irish), a quarter French (northwestern and southwestern/central France) and a quarter German (Hesse/Franconia). My (standard) results showed ~83% British, 9 Scandinavian and ~7% Southern European, with my British being broken down mostly into Lincolnshire and Southeast England. The rest was small quantities around Devon, South Yorkshire, Northumbria, the Northwest and so on. I hope that the company learns to differentiate continental from insular regions in future.
Conclusion: I'm a Belgian and most of you have more Belgian DNA than I have! High time to stop mingling linguistic and genetic characteristics.
Appreciate this presentation being posted here on google. I'm an American both doing my family history which goes back to 1600 Northampshire and studying the results of the human ggenome project, so it was great to find this intersection. A note though about accessible materials on POBI--the three peer review journal articles are restricted access. I can LOOK at the recent one in Nature, but not print or save the pdf. I am grateful for that. But does the project plan to release original findings to the public other than in academic journals? Given the shocking world-affecting migrations going on across the globe, more scope on our migratory past might provide some perspective in tense debate over modern migrations.
+Tanya Juli - northamptonshire! - they make race-car engines there!
Northamptonshire is full of incomers these days. I was born here but have no ancestors born here - all from Devon, Cumbria, Kent etc... Its mainly only when you go out into the villages, then you hear the real Northamptonshire accent and meet people whose families have lived here for centuries.
I've seen it claimed that the British Celts are more genetically similar to the Basques than they are to any other people in Europe. Does this data come from POBI?
What happens to the migration patterns if you examine mDNA and Y chromosomes?
Is there a PDF copy of his slide deck available anywhere?
Export video url to a subtitles extractor. Some editing needed but much faster than transcription, apparently.
Good study
Sure is great that England is still Celtic. Despite all those invasions, the original people of this island is still here.
I'm 70% Briton, 20 % Irish and never been in the U.K.. 'Traced meself back to Tudor era and beyond (sketchy) to Norman invasion. I knew both great grandparents well. All were typical Brits.
You should plan a trip to the land you are indigenous to...it is your ancestral homeland and your birthright...
Interesting stuff.
If you look at Y-DNA (male) studies you will find Eastern England inherited alot of genetics, R1b-U106, in & around the area that is now called Frisia.North Germans are mostly Istvaenic & carry more Scandinavian I1, where as the Frisian group are Ingvaeonic as are the early English.Old English was an Anglo-Frisian Ingvaeonic language not an Istvaenic language which the Saxons (Northalbingia - origin homeland, North of the Elbe) spoke, although there were arguements about which language group Saxons belonged to.The original Frisians retreated from Frisia & supposedly entered neighbouring Caukian (supposedly Istvaenic) tribal lands, due to flooding, but returned around the same time Frisians or Anglo-Saxons immigrated into England.Frisian & Caukian tribal confederations supposedly gave rise to the early Franks some 200 years later.
This study is about autosomal DNA, however.I wonder if further studies on autosomal UK DNA also picks up a more of a distinctive connection to the Frisian / Yngvaenic / R1b- U106 peoples.I also believe R1b-U106 is connected Noric Celtic / Halstatt culture peoples. R1b-U106 is normally referred to a Germanic haplogroup. It at least should be classed as a (proto) Germano-Celtic haplogroup if the Halstatt link could be proved.The German language is a combination of mostly Celtic, Balto-Slavic & Scandinavian etc. origins anyway.The language defines Germans.They are actually of mixed genetic origin.Y-DNA I1, I2, R1a & the 3 dominant R1b Northern / Mid European haplogroups.Germanic, in terms of genetics, is rather misleading.Anglo-Saxon is also misleading as 3 fairly distinct groups are supposedly involved in the migration to UK Frisian, North German (Istvaenic) - of dubious link to UK genetics, & Danish.Never mind the other distinct Norwegian Norse as well.
R1b Is the Yamayna steppe
@@joannechisholm4501 Yamnaya
@@KristinaUSA-x5n yes
@@KristinaUSA-x5n Yes, and this makes a mockery of 'Woke' and PC-'white supremacy' categorisation-sure British people can be bigoted, just like any other group. It is clear that we are by our history diverse with traces going back to Eurasia.
Yeah, the sources I've come upon point to the same direction. Obviously the Basque connection runs through the Gallia to Iberia, so the remains of the same genome as in Ireland and Basqueland that we find in between in England and France shows tgat pwopkw qere always related closest to the next village, or more like the tribe..
Then of course England and France have had many waves of immigration, The genes are very mixed, yeah. Yet in England each wave left usually about 5% new genes, or at least less than 10. Some areas got more of some genome, like some areas in Northern England have more Scandinavian in the mix than the national averagel for the Dane period.they had, etc.
Yet the majority group in England is also that Old Western European, common with the Irish and the Basques. It's actually pre-Celtic. So that's the Stone Henge and Menhir people, and what are those stone graves in Ireland, are by the same culture.
There are some records of the Celts mentioning that the 'Ancient People' erected the stone structures. By the blood most Western Europeans are still related mostly to them.
Rhe Cekts were the 1st conquerors. But thwy did the same as Rome and Anglo-Savons later: they became the rulers, and it was like in the UK colonial times: all the subjects of the crown learned the ruling language. But they brought their accent, some grammar too.
Celtic languages have some grammar that no other Indo European languages don't. Even English shows some Celtic grammar features that the related Germanic languages don't. Like the use of DO verb with other verbs. Well the whole DO itself is just English, and comes from some Celtic source. And the use of the -img structure, like I am dancing, is not found in the continent - the auxiliary use. that is the verb to be is the auxiliary. They have the corresponding form only as in 'dancing girl' - so as an adjective.
And it's sounds are -end(e) or -and(e) - looks like a different source.
I imagine these like a certain colour (certain genome) was first coming to an area of Europe. And Mediterranean was different from the north of the Alps. One of the earliest mixing of 'colours' was in Spain. There even N Africa was in the mix. So long before Rome or Arabs. But there were many nations already before the Celts came there too. celts were the wagon lords. That technique died out as old fashioned in the Roman era, But the wagons explain the vast and wide spread of the Celts from Ireland and Spain to Galata in what's now Turkey. North of Rome and Etruscans, and Greece, they ruled, though there were others here and there.
This is just a part in saying the Celts were already versatile with their background, though something related to Irish is still seen in places like Southern Germany, where some people even look like the classic image of Celts. Well, their stronghold was first the Donau area in Austria, Southern Germany. Halstatt archaelogy tells of them. A few place names are remaining of the Celtic era, and some legends go to that time. Some local folk legends have located them a Celtic village or burial site.
So the very Irish background is older than Celtic, shared in lesser amounts with all the people west of Germany and the Alps. Well, Northern Italy shares some of that too.
It appears since this, the DNA was better specified, so for English DNA it's average 37% Anglo-Saxon, 20% West Germanic, 11% Dane, small % other Scandinavian DNA and 20 "Celtic". It matches my own DNA analysis, which was about 70% Germanic and 30% "Celtic", as almost all my ancestors came from Northern England, and a few from Lowland Scotland.
The English are self-proclaimed Germanic, but they are actually brown Latins.
@@user-vj7hp7ge5y LOL! No, they aren't. Some Neanderthal and perhaps some Neolithic DNA causes an occasional swarthy complexion.
Do you have proof of “since this, the DNA was better specified”? Because according to this the English are around 40% Pre-Roman Doggerland Briton ancestry and the Welsh about 80%. If we include the Danubian Neolithic component, the native Briton ancestry jumps to about 70% for the English and about 85% for the Welsh.
Anglo-Saxon is not a specific ethnic group but more of a grouping of people who spoke similar West Germanic dialects between from 450AD to 900AD.
@@markiec8914 Yes, exactly. Specifically the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
Very interwesting, but why didn't you sample people from the ice age refuges? I was also unsder the impression thaty there was no genetic distinction between Danes and Saxons. Are you looking for a distinction or researching the migration paths?
This is brilliant thank you. I just wish you had dated the third genetic contributor you identified. Just for people to speculate on what it might have been.
Very interesting but, I'm very surprised that you haven't included Ireland in the British Isles and then totally ignored Ireland's effect on the UK's gene pool!!! Also, some of your historic inferences are very suspect. Other than that, good work.
It's about maintenance of a pure German race, how the art studies reject envisioned
The genetic science i fairly complicated. My understanding is that there are similar genetic markers among different Europeans, even territorially fairly distant. Some differences may point to either a bit more German or Slavic heritage, for example. The current commercials, inviting you to determine your ancestry suggest that they can for example tell you that you are 40% German, 40% Italian and 20% something else. I was told that this is impossible to so precisely determine.
I know this is older, but I might donate my DNA, or have my male cousin donate his.
Fantastic! They should do these DNA studies for all countries in Europe, AND, they should also test for traces of African, Jewish, Middle Eastern, Melanesian, and Australian Aborigine DNA that is found in European people.
Why stop at Europe? How about the world? We’d love to see how much European ancestry the world has.
10.33 if you go back in time you share a common ancestor?
thanks very well explained
All very interesting. I have (three tests taken) between 90.1% and 97% British Isles ancestry, and I know that - on paper at least - that this is correct. Nevertheless, those regions from which I SHOULD have ancestral descent (N Somerset, Wiltshire and mid-Wales) and don't SEEM to have, coincide with the least concentration of samples as per the map on page 9, where the 2,039 sample areas are illustrated. This suggests that far more areas need to be examined for properly reliable results for POBI.
Congrats you are a full Native Briton Celt.
How can you make a difference between the anglo-saxon migration and the danelaw? Aren't they mostly the same people?
You con the Angles were from the same as the Danish vikings
@@joannechisholm4501 Yes? The same culture just a bit time between?
@@mweskamppp yes they did something on the face of briton they say the NE of England is 75% Anglo Saxon
I'm from County Durham and we feel we are norsemen/Danelaw, our language is somewhat simular .I am a greenman too, odinism seems to be on the rise also, for years now people have been looking over theirshoulders to their ancestry, and so they should, hail brothers.
@@geoffwheadon2897 that’s dumb
Interesting talk. The admixture results are highly speculative though. The original results from The Face of Britain suggested a much larger Anglo-Saxon contribution than what was inferred here. Maybe too much shared DNA from the two groups?
Frisian.
The french are mostly celtic dna wise.A lot of Germans in north eastern germany have slavic roots, but that's not a secret or unknown it simple is that way because north eastern germany was settled by slavic tribes that later were conquered and assimilated by germans, mostly saxons, pushing east. There are many studies on dna from many different countries and they all come to very similar conclusions. Things are quite clear. Have a look at what is labeled as russian origin about rurik and his vikings, now thats propaganda. They tested the rurikid y dna line and it turned out to be northern russian eurasian, not scandinavian.
Nack Jicholson That Rurikid y dna line is Northern Eurasian, haplotype N.
Which doesn't mean it's Russian, genetically, or culturally. It means the family line is Uralic, not Russian, nor Scandinavian, but more indigenous to the Northern Eurasia. That area is now part of Russia, because Russia took it step by step, from about the 12th or 13th century forward, until about the 17th century.
Haplotype N belongs to the Uralic populations, who are since the Ice Age, the indigenous populations from the Baltics to the Urals, over to Western Siberia, to the Northern Ob river and its tributaries. This means Finns, Estonians Sámis (Laplanders), Livlanders, Karelians and their cousins in what's NOW Russia - only recently, max 1000 years. Karelians live partly in Finland, partly in Russia, and speak a language that is basically a Finnish dialect. They have mixed somewhat with the Russians, as is expected, but share the N haplotype component. Their cousins are Vepsians and Ingrians, Votyans, plus maybe some other smaller nations I don't remember. The Sámi live In Scandinavia, Finland and Russia, near the Arctic Sea.
Then there are related populations in what's now Russia, called Mordvas (on the verge to become 2 separate nations), Maris, Udmurts, Permians, Ugric Hantis and Mansis. These 2 are the closest linguistic cousins to the Hungarians, though they live just east of the Ural mountains, though the Hungarians have very little of this N haplotype, they mostly look by their genes like the Slavs and Germans next to them.
And then there are Samoyeds by the Arctic Ocean just north of the Urals, more though in the Siberian side, like Taimyr peninsula. Some people doubt them to be not related to the Uralic people, but the are usually counted as Uralic also. Might have forgotten some. And there were some now extinct nations, tribes in the Moscow area, and from there up to Archangel. Merya and Murom were called the 2 extinct nations around Moscow, but they formed some part of the early population of the city, because the standard Russian language shows some features of the Uralic influence, whish are not found in it's cousin languages, like Ukrainian and Belorussian.
Back to Rurik and Rus. While there are not that many haplotype N representatives in the Scandinavians ('Vikings'), there are some. Rurik's line carries a version of the N haplotype that is, or at least was, only found in Sweden. The likely developement there is that some Finnic person from Finland or Estonia or Livland moved to Sweden, and one of his grandsons rose to power. Or maybe Rurik couldn't find his place in Sweden, for being of a bit different background, and was eager to go to another country. and his son, Rus gave his name to the nation. His son was already Slavic by name was it Svyatoslav - so the Vikings assimilated quite quickly leaving their genes to the nation.
So, Rurik had Uralic ancestry, but was a Scandinavian, maybe a Viking. He brought some people with him to Kiev, the capital of Russia at the time. The Scandinavians have a certain haplotype, that is mostly found only in their genes originally, the haplotype I (=i). I think it was I1, and the Balkans have I2 (or the opposite). They have given that influence to the mixture of the Russian genome, like the Uralics gave the N haplotype.
The Slavs including Russians have R1 as their predominant haplotype, the so called Eastern European marker. Yeah, the Russians have many genetic influences, having so many neighbours, and so many populations gone through the area. And we have to remember, the Russian homeland was originally the lands East of the Baltics and Poland, South of what's now St. Petersburg (south or around of Dvina river running to Latvia in the Baltics), West of Volga (or even West of Moscow), North of the plains near the Black Sea, roughly speaking. Later they got more and more the Northern Eurasian blood from the Uralics and the Balts (who have 20-33% of that also - they likely were Uralic first).
These genetic influnces you can see only in some physical features, which will anyway mix with the others in few generations. Hard to track these influences without the modern science (like in the ancient times soon after the assimilations), when the skin colour of these populations is about the same, anyway. A Viking's son might have dark hair and eyes, the Uralic people have a bit higher cheek bones, but some Slavs or Vikings might have close the same, and in a few generations such things hide and mix. Later came even some Mongol influences, and especially Turkic. And then some others, all of which I don't even know. So all those genes were assimilated to the Eastern European main genome. Later there came the Caucasian populations, and people East of Volga etc. And if the language is common, the culture of the language normally dominates, getting only some influences from the other cultures. Which we take in anyway, whether there comes any genetic or linguistic impacts. Think about some technical borrowings, and fashion winds, for example.
So I'm thinking the old Chronicles of Kiev were roughly correct, Rurik came from the Scandinavia. Culturally he was about as Viking as his fellows, but he had some Uralic forefathers, whose genes we can only now find out. Who knows, if it was something Rurik didn't want to advertise to this Viking mates, if he even knew of such ancestry. Though the Viking leaders where quite keen on the genealogies, proud of their forefathers, for what we know of their culture.
While R1a is mostly found in southern parts of russia and moved north over time, N can be found all over russias northern half and while mostly found in finns and balts is not bound to their cultures(obviously). Do you have any proof for the claim that Ruriks y dna marker is swedish? I've seen some people claim this before after it turned out not to be of scandinavian origin but as far as i know there is no legit proof for that. People like the slavs were just like their neighbours a make up of many haplogroups and it's much more likely that rurik was the leader of a northern slavic tribe or warband.
Nack Jicholson People like to pull homewards. I believe Nestor to be more impartial, than people of our time. Russian sources exactly want to lift up Russia.
Like I said, the Russians were first mostly R1, quite much later they became more mixed with the people of what is now Northern Russia. Remember, these Uralic people were not simply Balts (Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians) or Finns. I listed a long list of other nations, Estonians to Samoyeds. They and some of their extinct cousins were not Russians for a long time. they are originally Uralic, native to their area. Some still are. We should not think by countries, but by cultures and communities, even down to families.
Rurik by name is a Scandinavian name. If Nestor calls him Varyag or other Scandinavian, I trust that more than modern studies, taking sides. For Nestor it was important to be as honest as he can, respect the forfathers. Modern researchers mix politics there easily. Someone finds honour if the forfathers were Viking, some if they were Slavs etc. The Uralic people tend to be neglected in these stories, but Nestor lists people, nobles of his recent history who came to Kiev for some meetings. Some where Uralic names, though only a few. Anyway, no matter who our forefathers should be respected for who they were.
We have hard enough time to prove who our forefathers were, so if we find genetic evidence, we should look at the other evidence available. Like here a historic Chronicle of Nestor. That man wrote as honest a evaluation of his recent history, as was possible by the knowledge they had available at the time. With what we know about archeology and history, we can then build a proposition of a theory. While it's true, by the genetics Rurik could be Northern Russian, or Viking, or Balt, or non-Russian Uralic person (All these populations have the N haplotype y chromosome), the witness of his time, Nestor tips the scale for me.
He had no real reason to embellish the story. He might have written down some hear-say, but then he just wrote down the tales he had heard. Family histories were important for people of those times - they didn't have any archives on servers, many couldn't even write, they had to rely on people's memory. Rurik and Rus are Scandinavian names, Svyatoslav, the 3rd generation was already Slavic. If anything, Nestor could have pulled the story 'homewards', towards the Slavic honour, if the son of Rus still had a Viking name. But, more likely, it just happened more or less the way it's been told.
Very interesting. Appears that bulk of English DNA derived from the Beaker people (steppes.North West Europe ) who more or less replaced earlier inhabitants around 2500 BC. Then in the 5/6th C there was a large influx of Anglo Saxons ( 10-40% of population ) who did not mix/mingle with the earlier Beaker people until the 7/8th C. There is a story to be told here.
haha Stephen Oppenheimer's was right the British are indeed Basque? Anglo Saxon was a myth made up by Gildas and Bede.
No Carly Oppenheimers Basque DNA people can only be found on the fringe of so called Celtic lands but the Beakers held to derive originally from the Steppes predominate everywhere in the British Isles. The Anglo Saxon DNA however is still substantial and not a myth.@@joannechisholm4501
Yes we have been on this Island a very very long time
@@anthonylondon3366 My grandad had a rare name Cadby only 519 people in the UK have it said it was an Anglo Saxon settlement were a family lived.
Yes interesting Carly though suspect the (by) in name is actually indicates Scandanavian rather than having Anglo Saxon origin.@@joannechisholm4501
I'm quite astonished that the study gives the date of the 'Anglo-Saxon' contribution to the population as 858CE! Garrett says this makes some sense as the intermixing would not occur upon initial arrival (from 400CE onwards), but would occur after years of settlement. But a whole 300-400 years of little to no intermixing between Britons and Germanic settlers? This flies in the face of the emergent archaeological consensus.
I'm almost tempted to say that this study shows that the Germanic contributions to British DNA cannot be definitively pinpointed to a specific period of mass migration, and that a trickle of migrations occurred throughout the Isles history simply because of proximity; with the post-Roman/early medieval 'migration period' Germanic settlement of England being just one of many.
All right by me, we Celts are pleased with the news that we are still indigenous. That the Anglo Saxon no was very small and out ancestors been here for like 10,000 years.
yes after what the Anglo Saxons did to the Native Britons would you mix with your enemy I wouldn't? Not till I trusted them.
Yes I agree it seems ludicrous that no intermingling took place for 300years! Burials with skeletons of both saxons and britons dressed the same in the same burial
@@joannechisholm4501 the dna shows you are wrong, stop trolling ffs
@@daveystayn9284 An ancient DNA study of a very early "Anglo-Saxon" cemetery showed the highest status burial was a native British woman, buried with Germanic grave goods. Another burial was of a woman of mixed British and Continental Germanic ancestry. Intermarriage happened almost immediately.
Since the Anglo Saxon component makes up such a large % of the Britons in SW England this might also give a false indication that the mixing was more recent than it actually was. Why because the recombination would much more frequently have Anglo Saxon DNA recombine next to Anglo Saxon DNA making the segments larger and hence appearing to be more recent. This I don't think was considered as opposed to the populations not mixing for many generations, which has some plausabillity yet seems generally unlikely. Perhaps the standard deviation in these segments could be used to prove this or eliminate it either way. If the variation is greater this should prove my hypothesis.
No doubt a great and informative video, the explanations and statistical methods were demonstrated very well in my opinion. Bravo!!!
they got a date 858 AD that when the magic happened. for 400 years they kept to them selves.
This test is pretty good and gives a pretty decent picture of British genetics. But honestly to be more accurate, I think it should have been conducted solely with ancient samples from continental Europe, ancient Briton, ancient Roman Britannia and ancient Angle/Saxon/Jute/Frisian/Viking samples because populations over time do fluctuate in ancestry due to migrations of neighbors and in some cases, foreigners.
@@joannechisholm4501 They may also have enslaved the Britons and then killed or castrated the males thus ending their culture. There was a big market for slaves in Saxons society and all round Europe. This way a certain component of British DNA was preserved through the female line in SE England as 1st generation female slaves were probably seen as fair game. By the time the Normans arrived 10% of the people recorded in the Doomsday Book were slaves which was long after the initial Saxon invasions. Probably all the people who didn't flee West became enslaved.
The brown cluster at 36:20 is probably the Belgae
Morini
You have a brown cluster in your underpant
@@thebrocialist8300 And you have one in your brain... it's called 'cancer.'
I wonder if the old Danish DNA in the UK is actually British DNA (or not British but same as British) from an more distant past, let say Bell Beaker culture (from northern Jutland), that ended up in Denmark. That makes a lot of sense to me. ... it connects all the dots. For example Danish, West-Norwegians and Frisians all have relative much "British DNA".
I’ve read that Angles, Saxons, Frisian, Danes (Vikings) , Jutes, Norwegian are all of the same haplogroup people group who diverged from modern day Germany area going their separate way around before 400 AD. Those from that group who crossed to the British isles after the fall of Rome around 450 AD became the Anglo Saxons who mixed with or pushed the Celtic “Britons” west where they became what we now called “Welsh.”
There is a great series on Britain about this.
@@thehumandominoeffectgame7671 yes I think that's the case indeed. But I have doubts about the saxons. I think there where a mix with a significant component of Chauci people. And I think the Chaucii where of mixed celtic (hallstatt) germanic origin, from the Harpstedt-Nienburg group.
I just know I'm a yellow. So complicated!!
37:00 It seems Irish (and British from Northern Ireland) are the most Spanish ua-cam.com/video/KgqjLMESS78/v-deo.html
Each Brit should just do their own personal DNA test......or they'll just never know exactly what the hell they are. No two sources ever tell us the same thing.
If you're a white Brit with no recent immigrant background , you likely have large amount of ancestry from what is now France , Germany, Austria , Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and smaller amounts from Spain and Italy. But these countries didn't exist in their current form when these migrations occurred.
No two Brits will have exactly the same variations of these mixes......so do a test if you're curious.
That is true but the same can be said for the French and Germans, they have alot of variety as well, its all regional
In the Danelaw were the Danes? What a surprise 😏
You’d need to make some adjustments to this study to be much more accurate. First one is, you’d need to throw out all the modern samples as people’s genetics change over time and this could skew the results. Second would to be to add ancient Frisians to the list among the ancient Anglo-Saxons. Third would be to get samples of ancient Britons from before the arrival of Ancient Rome and then samples after Ancient Rome but before the ancient Anglo-Saxons arrived. You do that and you’ll have a more true picture of British DNA and will be able to pick out how much DNA is pre-Roman Briton, post-Roman British migration and Anglo-Saxon migration (which also includes Frisian and Jute DNA). This study while very revealing is nowhere near as accurate as the hypothetical one I’ve suggested.
36:22 - 37:00, genes from Northern France, Belgium, (The bluish light turquoise he turned brown)
could show the affect of the Normans. Geographically could match them.
The Scotland group could mean populations that inhabited some castles,
and their relative amount was somewhat conciderable in a quite scarcely populated area.
I don't think this diagram clearly shows a time period of the gene impacts,
he spoke something about that Nortern French impact being older than the anglo-Saxon migration,
if I got him right. I think it shows more like the amounts certain migrations affected procentually.
So I'd like to suggest that contribution being the Norman effect. Plus of course those areas in Southern England
had been in contact with the continent since before the Romans, So, yeah, there's some ancient contribution
from France as well. Bretagne can have affected Cornwall since ages, and vice versa.
The columns 5-7 are evidently Wales, and 1st of them could be that Southern area, where some English migrants have moved.
He said these results came from before the Anglo-Saxons. Would that make them from the time of the collapse of the Roman empire and rise Frankish rule in Northern Gaul? Maybe a refugee population.
@@frankmitchell3594 Then it would be the Romano-Celtic refugees, not yet Frankish people, who came to France about the same time as the Anglo-Saxons went to Britannia.
If it's the Frankish genome, than it's the migratory period. Admittedly, I don't know if the Franks were on the move a bit earlier than their Anglo-Saxon cousins. But I think the fifference is mainly in decades, not centuries. If not about a 100 year difference.
@@timomastosalo it’s likely a Danubian type Neolithic ancestry from northern France. It should then be counted as native Briton ancestry. We can see that rather than native Britons all being one homogenous group, they were not and were different percentages of ancient migrations of Doggerland peoples, Atlantic Megolithic peoples, Danubian Neolithic peoples and Celtic peoples. That puts the English at 70% native and the Welsh at 85% native and everyone else in the UK between those two.
How long ago did the Germans and Scots migrate out of hell? I know it happened since that's the only way you can explain my ancestry.
This view of the genetic history of the Anglo-Saxons in England is radically different than Stephen Oppenheimer's ,whose book on the genetic history of Britain maintains that Anglo-Saxons make up about 20% of the British. They were like the Romans, Norman French and Scandinavians who controlled, but did not displace the native population. Hellenthal's methodology does not seem to be in accord with Oppenheimer's so what is the cause of the discrepancy?
Oppenheimer's book is badly out of date, it relied on looking at just Y-DNA haplogroups and their distribution, even than given that it dates back to 2006 (first human genome was only published in 2003) even than it only used a limit set of Y-DNA haplogroups.
Now adays not only has price of full genomes collasped ($1,000-$3,000) but we also have ancient DNA from archaeological contexts.
Well maybe the upto 40% is indicative of the Danelaw contribution, and their Genetic input (dna would be almost the same as the Angles and Jutes), for me the date then of 840 s mid 9 Century, makes much more sense, i.e the east coast of England receiving "a Double wappy" of invader dna, this to me, seems to be the most plausible explanation.
Stephen Oppenheimer's was right after all
@@joannechisholm4501 no he wasn't, read Paul's reply above. My guess you are Latin American, they often have a weird obsession
@@joannechisholm4501 If you bother to watch the video and LISTEN ....he obviously wasn't "right after all"
R1B on moms side.Scottish and Hessian on dads. Look Middle Eastern ?
When we see common genetics between British people and those in Europe we assume that there has been a migration from Europe to Britain. But how much of this could also be due to the reverse. For example, maybe the Danes took British captives to Denmark who contributed to the gene pool there. When one group conquers another there is often a reverse flow. Look at all the Indians, Irish and Africans in Britain today. They never conquered Britain rather the opposite. I wonder how many Britons were taken by the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Danes and Normans to continental Europe to contribute to the gene pool there?
You bring up a very good point and question. This very well could be a factor. It to our knowledge, the only significant British migration to the continent was in Brittany, France. Hence the name Brittany. So if the reverse did happen in other areas, it may have not been significant enough to lather the genetics of the population as a whole enough to matter.
No Ireland? Irish Gaels had Kingdoms in Britain, and left their DNA all over the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales, to England. Liverpool and Manchester, in the 19th Century, were practically Irish cities, thanks to the Famine. Engels, who lived in Manchester, and had an Irish girlfriend, wrote about it. Much of Yorkshire was conquered by Dublin Vikings, with mixed heritage, and London's Irish population is even in Oliver Twist, which is really set in an Irish slum in Farringdon, Islignton. North East England, on the last DNA survey, was reporting 27 % to 30 % Irish DNA. Odd, to say the least, to leave Irish DNA out of the study.
This shows close to 40% pre-Roman Briton ancestry from Doggerland, Atlantic Megolithic sources for the English and about 80% for the Welsh. The Cornish, Scottish and Northern Irish are in between the two. If we add Danubian related Neolithic pre-Roman ancestry, the English are at about 70% pre-Roman Briton ancestry and the Welsh about 85% and the Cornish, Scots and Northern Irish in between. The English being Anglo-Saxons that replaced the native Brits is a lie, according to this.
The "Anglo-Saxons" were mixed race (see Daily Mail Updown) and the Britons were colonised by Anatolians (see Mass Migration to Britain in late Bronze Age) - so, really, the British are Turks!.....
@@johnpatrick5307 Wrong. Modern day Turks are not the same race as the ancient Anatolians. In fact, they only harbor less than 25% of the same ancestry. The Bronze Age people that entered Britain were around 2/3 ancient Anatolian and 1/3 Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherer. Modern Turks are the amalgamation of various invading peoples that wound up in Anatolia over time. Different peoples. The people in the world today that are most genetically like the ancient Anatolians/EEF are the Sardinians at about 80% similarity. So the ancient Bronze Age people were more like Sardinians than Turks. But nearly all Europeans descend from the Bronze Age group of farmers to various degrees. It’s one of the components that makes up Europeans.
As for Anglo-Saxon being “mixed race” I don’t know what you’re trying to mean by that. Mixed European ancestries or mixed continental races from continents outside of Europe? Anglo-Saxons were the mixture of Angles and Saxons as well as some Jute admixture so it’s really just a Germanic and Nordic type of mixture, all very similar European ancestries genetically and culturally.
@@IslenoGutierrez
This "Anglo-Saxon" stuff is actually rubbish - they weren't Germanic/Nordic types.
They came from all over Continental Europe - and Africa. (see: Daily mail Updown).
person, people
Britons are Native to Briton R1BS21 very very old.
the English should be a celebrating Celtic culture not Anglo Saxon one
@@joannechisholm4501 it's Anglo celtic
@@joannechisholm4501 did you watch the video?
@Searlait Loughlin the Celtic people in England themselves we're not wait out we're just took on the germanic culture
@Searlait Loughlin that's not what the DNA said the Celtic people in England we're not eradicated
When the Romans no longer spoke, the Britons shook off the yoke.
Thats indeed they did
Rome is still here were about to be slaves again a new Tower of Babel/Babylon
Brittan will shake off the yolk.
The WORD
YAH bless.
Christian natives of the
WORD.
YAH bless
@@Krawn_ No stand tall.
YAH bless
How does it matter, people matter not DNA .
people = dna
But in old times there were celts there
Well I think the problem is that they were never just Celts. We see the DNA of the British people as made up of ancient ancestry from Doggerland, Atlantic Megolithic, Danubian Neolithic and finally Celtic. The populace may have become culturally Celtic but were only partially Celtic to begin with. The Welsh are 80% of the ancient Briton ancestry. England is about 70% and the rest of the UK is between those two populations. They all do descend significantly from the Celts, however.
They've studied the East Coast of England, the villages that have been in the same spot since the Roman time, or even before. They haven't really come up with villages that have been burned down and destroyed. The archeologists know very well the marks of such incidents, they have them earlier and later in any places in the British Isles.
It seems the Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' happened much more peacefully, than has been thought before. I'm not throwing this in as my hunch, there's an English documentary video about it here on UA-cam. In the Eastern Coast of England they took the dna samples of a village from a time that was clearly of the Anglo-Saxon period, the artifacts proved them post-Roman and non-Celtic. Well, at least by style. The dna was about the same as in the periods before the Anglo-Saxons, Celtic of the British Isles. 2 individuals were found, who were identified to be from the continent, from the Saxon homeland area. But they were slave girls!
Maybe you've heard this, but the closest genetic population to the English are the Basques. And most of France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands are close there. So it just proves the Western Europeans have long been about the same background, relatives. All have had some other influences, but the Northern Germany, Anglo-Saxon homeland, is genetically more different from the British Isles, than the Western Europe mentioned above. They do have the Western European ancestry also, just not as strong as in England etc. Vikings left some impact in the Danelaw area, but they just proved how the
pattern have gone for millennia: new occupiers bring their language and customs, but they are a small factor in the genetic flux.
I'm not the only one studying English, noticing it sounds different than its cousin languages on the continent and the Scandinavia. I think it was English scolars who said this first, to my ears. The former Celtic languages of England left their mark in the grammar and pronunciation of the Anglosaxon language(s), thus forming the first Old English.
Now to what I guess based on that documentary: To me it looks like there came some boatful of men, maybe those Horst and Hingist, or how were they called. And how many others, don't know. They probably took the positions of leadership in the 'Londinium' area, and some other places. Their rule came the rule of the country. Rulers make the laws, the laws and courts are run in their language, and the trade. This language then the local peasants have to learn. In effect, the Anglo-Saxons replaced the Romans, filled in that void they had left. Too many of the leading elite had been Roman, and they had left. There was seemingly no powerful military leader to oppose the Anglo-Saxons when they arrived.
Well, later in the West and North of the Isle things turned out a bit different. They hadn't be much dominated by the Romans, and were not going to be ruled by the new comers. Who, by the time they knocked on the gates of the Welsh and Scots, were in large parts Britons assimilated to the new Anglo-Saxon culture. Which was something similar, but something different than what happened in the Saxony of the continent.
Interestingly, when the Welsh and Irish introduced Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons in ernest, there was a natural link to the continent, so the preachers affecting England took along some new eager English friends, and went on to Saxony as well, and put the same wheels turnig there too. I say, I believe the proceedings were a tad bit different, than what the football tourists have later arranged.
timomastosalo Also considering that all the original founders/kings of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms that were to form into England, had "British" celtic names; coincidence? I think not.
It is of my belief that Anglo-Saxon England was really a Brittonic-Celtic nation under the guise that it was "Germanic". The Britons only adopted Saxon culture/language as a means of establishing a cultural/political alliance pact of sorts with the Saxons in order to have these Germanic mercinaries as fellow collaborates protecting them from other warmongering brittonic tribes such as the Picts. Even in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, it tells of the origination of Saxon tribes in Britain. It mentions "King Vortigern" asking of the help from the Saxons against north Pictish tribes and probably even Gaelic tribes as well.
Remember as well that English identity didn't really formulte till other invaders left their impact. Being Vikings and Normans. It wasn't till Cnut the Great ruled England that England actually had a name. He was the first to describe the land as one singular entity being "Engla Landes".
Based on these findings I can't help but think that the spread of the Angles and Saxon's culture far exceeded the genetic footprint they left on Britain. After watching countless documentaries, that all have slightly different versions of British history, I have concluded that culture and ethnicity are not always synonymous with each other. It makes sense to me that the Angles and Saxons being newcomers would adopt aspects of Romano/Celtic British culture especially if it was better than their own. It took nearly 350 years for the Angles and Saxons to carve out what they felt was their fair share of Britain....so that's probably why there are no clear signs of conquest. So along that 350 year long gradually displacement of Celtic culture I'm sure the Angles and Saxons took on Celtic wives and had mixed offspring. A nation's identity is more dependent on it's language and culture than it's ethnicity. I have a feeling that Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians ended up becoming the ruling class of their time period and most of the inhabitants of their lands were still largely Celtic in ethnicity but had been assimilated into the dominant Germanic culture that was put upon them. Those who didn't assimilate went on the reside in what is today Wales. The term Wales is actually derived from the Saxon word Wilisc which means stranger. The English we speak today is a hybrid language made up of Old English(Anglo-Saxon), Danish and Norse (The Vikings) and Old French (The Normans) and Latin (Roman Catholic Church). It's important to know that Latin was present in Britain since 43 A.D. over 350 years before the Saxons even thought about crossing the channel. Britain is a melting pot and has been for a long time. Britain's identity belongs to every group of people who has lived their since the stone age regardless of what language, culture, religion or ethnicity they may have had.
@@rexultimatum2588 utter rubbish, why are extrapolating for the whole country? Wessex is likely to be mixed britonnic and saxon, east anglia less so for example. The settlement was likely largely peaceful, and into depopulated areas initially. Enough migrants came to cause the change and create a mixed population
The genetic distance between basques and NW Europe is huge, Oppenheimers theory is outdated, this survery came 10years later down the road of genetics
Well before that, after the last glaciation there was the arrival of the first "British" inhabitants from what is present France, then, around 3000 BC, the arrival of the Celts still coming from France today....
English are just French is some way MDR
France only because Spanish Basques were there too ua-cam.com/video/KgqjLMESS78/v-deo.html
Christian people who worshipped YAHUAH, natives of the land, peaceful people, kind, compassionate, full of good ways..Brittan is not lost and not wanted, it has been found.
All GLORY TO YAHUAH
OUR FATHER who art in Heaven
Freedom indeed.
As usual Shetland has been ignored from the British Isles.
Yeah, but................all of this data was based on people with four grandparents from the same location. And, eh.......what percentage of people is that?? 10%? The rest have grand parents from all over. In other words, if I look at the genome of an average UK person I probably can say no more that "UK origin", or indeed "British Isles origin".
Having said, that, this is fascinating.
No Y and X chromosoms? So you can not compare and know your ancestors? You do not WANT KNOW THAT SERBS WERE YOUR RELATIVES who gave you life? R1 hapkogroup is specific for Slavonic people...
Axe to grind much?
Jasmina Peev
your way way off most of europe is R1, (R1=M173) about 70% of western european males are M269 aka R1b1a1a2, which as you can see comes from R1b (M343)...the ria1a1a2a1b2 type designators are called ISOGG
Somehow you are completely wrong and right at the same time. Britain's earliest inhabitants after the last ice age were haplogroup i2 (I-PF4135 or Isles A). They come from a line that leads back to Bosnia/Serbia which now has the largest concentration of haplogroup i2 in the world. So you were right, just not about the R1 part.
R1a is the slavic marker I thought
So they are vikings
No
The speaker gets so bogged down in all sorts of technical details that his conclusions about the percentage of “Anglo-Saxon” DNA in the genes of modern Englishmen is unclear. He rarely discusses his conclusions about this question, and even then only briefly and in passing. This is basically a lecture about the techniques used for the study, not a discussion of its conclusions. Very dull and frustrating for the layman
Before the Kalgeri invasion, 87% of GB had R1b in some part of their geneticx
I agree. I was expecting at least something about the genetic makeup of the different areas of the British isles. Very disappointing . I wouldn't have wasted my time if I had known he wasn't going to address the subject I believed was going to be discussed.
@@beverlybrooks7657 even the DNA tests don't distinguish between Welsh,Saxon, Angle, Jute, Scotch, Cornish, Pict, Norman. It just says British.
Watch it again..
Well the study does explain that Anglo-Saxon ancestry in England ranges from 10%-40%. That’s enough information to know that the claim that the English are Anglo-Saxon Germans that replaced the native Britons is a lie and the English significantly descend from the native Britons themselves.
Now test the Britons with this win the Middle East!!! Go on, I dare you.
1. Evidence suggests that there no longer are Britons in Britain.
2. The same components from Germany and France came to America (without stopping off in the UK) and made me 70 percent UK.
Unless you're from Wales (the most Briton of the Britons): www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-18489735
Ballocks I'm Welsh and my DNA is 96% ancient British so we are still here!
I'm having a test done soon, I have a feeling I'm at least part Britain on my mother's side. They look Celtic, short and stocky with brown-red hair and big noses. Made for mountains. I'm tall though, take after my dad. That side looks more Germanic. Hope I'm anglo-keltic. But who knows.
@@gwynwilliams4222 That's awesome! BTW which test did you take? My Grandma was of Welsh descent and I have reason to believe specifically S. Wales. I'd love to see how much I got from her. My other grandparents were Scottish, English and Irish so far as I've been told.
@@tinybears3859 take an ancestral DNA test check internet for best place to get one it costs about $100
Surely to base the UK comparison on a European MS study is to base it on a false premiss?
Premise not premiss
@@th8257 - Do check your O.E.D.
It need ancient samples to be able to tell us how much Anglo-Saxon blood, how much native Brythonic blood, how much Viking blood etc. using modern populations to explain ancient genetic impacts is not correct. Modern populations shift in genetics over time. Neighboring population movement shifts over time and this affects populations. I mean this study can put us near, but not exact.
British History was airbrushed and obliterated ,so that a Hanoverian dynasty, who had interbread for centuries with no credible claim to the throne, would be accepted by the people of England. A pre Hitlertarian Germanic master race ideology was championed by the establishment and the native history was deleted from record. The people's of what was to become England have been sold a lie so successfully, and they do not know that some regions of England were populated by their ancestors even before the Cymru Welsh . The English are in the main, ancient British like the Cymru. The true history of this island was taught in Welsh schools as recently as the 1920s. Get hold of an original school textbook to check this out. History is a fabrication and the echo chamber establishment so called academic institutions continues to reinforce this lie because their funding, employment depends on it.
Caesar said the Belgae didn't speak Celtic, and they were the predominant tribe in much of England at the time. The evidence in the video also suggests that the main genetic influence in England before the Romans was from Northern France/Belgium.
Hello Andrew you speak of Truth, can you help me please as History class is nearly over, timeing is important
Valent.
YAH bless you.
Absolutely...
@@mikehadley5485 Hi Mike. I agree with you.. many years ago archeologists found artifacts of the tribes of what is the east England today back in the time of Boddica had a very close similarity and relationship with the belgic tribe on the continent. It's very likely that a very early form of modern English was spoke in those regions during the time of Cesar and after... That theory has been suppressed or hidden over the years?
At, look how you ignored south east Wales!!! The most important part of all Britain.
In norway the vikings went
The Saxons came from what is now Northern France and Belgium. Charlemange and his Saxon wars forced them later to migrate inland into Germany, and the Frisians to move too the Northern Netherlands. Your 'Anglo Saxon' DNA is from the Viking period.
You got it all wrong. Saxony is and always has been in the north of Germany. And the Franks actually lived where you are placing the Saxons, after originally living north of the Rhine and expanding to the south. Frisians were not displaced, they've lived in what is now the Netherlands since at least the 4th century BC. More than a millennium before Charlemagne.
Thats the conventional view on history.. they teach this crap since centuries. Like Charlemagne ruled an Empire from the Pyrenees too Bavaria.. the Franks under Charlemagne went on military campaign every year, logistically impossible to cross these distances with an army. And many more reasons why almost all of orthodox history of Northern Europe is completely false.
Saxons come from northern Germany / southern Denmark a group of Saxons separated from the rest and settled in northern France they became the Franks. so no they did not originally come from France/Belgium.
Impossible for them to cross Europe? the Romans did it the Huns did it the Mongolians dit it the ottomans, do i need to go on? ever heard of sell swords? If the franks weren't capable of that than the holy roman empire wouldn't have existed and if they weren't capable why would the other empires that came before and after it be successful at conquering? For size the holy roman empire is pretty small and most countries that where part of it are located on the Northern European plains, so geography was in their favor and big parts where already conquered by the franks before Charlemagne even got a go at it.
There is no Saxon DNA in English people the Invasion was a myth made up by Gildas and Bede.
Who care at the end of the day we English are not Germanic but Native Britons descended from the Bell Beaker people we are Anglo-Celt. not Anglo Saxon. that came to the Islands 4.500 years ago.
Skull crushing boring presentation made worse by you trying to cram too much information into this presentation.
The brown in the bar chart is a mystery. Whatever is brown is ignored in European history. No surprise there.
The frisians were celts
One of the tribes of Israel.