info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University finds
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hayes
Oct 24, 2015, 1:15:52 AM10/24/15
to
Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University
finds
A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
Anglo-Saxon England
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
6:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2015
Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th
Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into
our genetic make-up.
Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically
similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the
Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.
In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical
to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK,
suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415
years.
Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional
identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to
birthplace is DNA deep.
The most striking genetic split can be seen between people living in
Cornwall and Devon, where the division lies exactly along the county
border. It means that people living on either side of the River Tamar,
which separates the two counties, have different DNA.
Similarly there is a large area in southern and central England with a
shared genetic heritage which coincides with the boundaries of
Anglo-Saxon England. Likewise, separate genetic groups can be found in
areas of North and South Wales corresponding to the ancient kingdoms
of Gwynedd and Dyfed.
In the North, specific groups were found in the North East, tallying
with the area of Bernicia which was colonised by the Angles from
Southern Denmark. And, intriguingly, a small genetic cluster was
spotted in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which coincides with the
former small kingdom of Elmet, one of the last strongholds of the
ancient Britons.
Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said:
“What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British
population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel
between areas and genetic similarity.
“It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I
expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference
lies directly on the boundary.”
Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of
archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of
perhaps 1400 years ago.”
The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039
people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all
born within 80km of each other.
Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents,
the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors,
allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before
mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.
They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within
the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles,
using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were
able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic
groupings.
Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for
Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations
differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such
exquisite and fascinating detail.
“We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle
differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are
closer genetically.
“In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North
and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland.
“And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the
North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.”
The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic
group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other
genetically.
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the
Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out
communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a
significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the
invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing
population.
But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though
they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th
century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and
then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.
“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is
from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the
intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,”
added Prof Peter Donnelly.
“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the
English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the
differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms
of population movements.”
There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up.
The research, which was also carried out by University College London
and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, was
published in the journal Nature.
https://t.co/w6MrFLN3xa
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
finds
A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
Anglo-Saxon England
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
6:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2015
Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th
Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into
our genetic make-up.
Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically
similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the
Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.
In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical
to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK,
suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415
years.
Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional
identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to
birthplace is DNA deep.
The most striking genetic split can be seen between people living in
Cornwall and Devon, where the division lies exactly along the county
border. It means that people living on either side of the River Tamar,
which separates the two counties, have different DNA.
Similarly there is a large area in southern and central England with a
shared genetic heritage which coincides with the boundaries of
Anglo-Saxon England. Likewise, separate genetic groups can be found in
areas of North and South Wales corresponding to the ancient kingdoms
of Gwynedd and Dyfed.
In the North, specific groups were found in the North East, tallying
with the area of Bernicia which was colonised by the Angles from
Southern Denmark. And, intriguingly, a small genetic cluster was
spotted in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which coincides with the
former small kingdom of Elmet, one of the last strongholds of the
ancient Britons.
Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said:
“What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British
population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel
between areas and genetic similarity.
“It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I
expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference
lies directly on the boundary.”
Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of
archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of
perhaps 1400 years ago.”
The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039
people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all
born within 80km of each other.
Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents,
the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors,
allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before
mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.
They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within
the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles,
using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were
able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic
groupings.
Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for
Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations
differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such
exquisite and fascinating detail.
“We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle
differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are
closer genetically.
“In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North
and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland.
“And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the
North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.”
The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic
group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other
genetically.
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the
Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out
communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a
significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the
invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing
population.
But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though
they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th
century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and
then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.
“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is
from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the
intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,”
added Prof Peter Donnelly.
“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the
English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the
differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms
of population movements.”
There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up.
The research, which was also carried out by University College London
and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, was
published in the journal Nature.
https://t.co/w6MrFLN3xa
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 24, 2015, 3:05:18 AM10/24/15
to
In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62he...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
[]
Thanks for posting this; interesting.
Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two
paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus
to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it
is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is
that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary
would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still
interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic)
influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to
genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have
already discovered that people before even up to the end of the
nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of
where they were born.
It would be interesting to have another study taken without the
restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the
mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the
country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected.
Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I
find quite a lot of them are from local areas.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal
your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. -
Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
[]
>A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>Anglo-Saxon England
[]
>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>Anglo-Saxon England
>The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039
>people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all
>born within 80km of each other.
>
>Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents,
>the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors,
>allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before
>mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.
[]
>people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all
>born within 80km of each other.
>
>Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents,
>the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors,
>allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before
>mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution.
Thanks for posting this; interesting.
Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two
paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus
to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it
is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is
that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary
would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still
interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic)
influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to
genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have
already discovered that people before even up to the end of the
nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of
where they were born.
It would be interesting to have another study taken without the
restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the
mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the
country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected.
Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I
find quite a lot of them are from local areas.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal
your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. -
Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14
Steve Hayes
Oct 24, 2015, 3:29:09 AM10/24/15
to
they had changed *from*.
If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little
sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere.
Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the
others may have migrated from.
Graeme Wall
Oct 24, 2015, 3:37:41 AM10/24/15
to
On 24/10/2015 06:16, Steve Hayes wrote:
> There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up.
They need to look at Roman history. Who were the "Romans" that formed
> There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up.
the occupation force in Britain? They weren't all, or even the
majority, natives of a small part of the Italian peninsular but drawn
from all over the Roman Empire so their genetic footprint would be very
diffuse.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 24, 2015, 4:13:02 AM10/24/15
to
In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is
misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience).
watch talented people make cakes. So there. - Alison Graham, RT 19-25 October
2013
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62he...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>[]
>>>A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
>>>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>>>Anglo-Saxon England
[]
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62he...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>[]
>>>A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
>>>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>>>Anglo-Saxon England
[]
>>It would be interesting to have another study taken without the
>>restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
>
>I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what
>they had changed *from*.
>
>If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little
>sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere.
>Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the
>others may have migrated from.
>
I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little
>>restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
>
>I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what
>they had changed *from*.
>
>If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little
>sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere.
>Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the
>others may have migrated from.
>
cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is
misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I quite like being cosy and complacent, I'm not doing any harm. I like to
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
watch talented people make cakes. So there. - Alison Graham, RT 19-25 October
2013
Graeme Wall
Oct 24, 2015, 4:45:47 AM10/24/15
to
On 24/10/2015 09:12, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62he...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
>>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>> []
>>>> A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
>>>> between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>>>> Anglo-Saxon England
> []
>>> It would be interesting to have another study taken without the
>>> restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
>>
>> I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what
>> they had changed *from*.
>>
>> If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little
>> sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere.
>> Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the
>> others may have migrated from.
>>
> I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little
> cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is
> misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience).
There have been earlier studies which have come to much the same
> In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62he...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
>>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>> []
>>>> A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement
>>>> between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in
>>>> Anglo-Saxon England
> []
>>> It would be interesting to have another study taken without the
>>> restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration".
>>
>> I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what
>> they had changed *from*.
>>
>> If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little
>> sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere.
>> Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the
>> others may have migrated from.
>>
> I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little
> cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is
> misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience).
conclusion so I am not sure what is so different about the current one.
There's even a book, called The Tribes of Britain which goes into it
at great length. Basically it refutes the classical ideas that the
Celts retreated westward into Wales and Cornwall under pressure from
first the Romans and later the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and even Norman
invasions. Arguing that the peasant classes remained on their lands
while the leaders may well have been routed or killed. Given there was
little mixing between the ruling and peasant classes in either society
then one would expect exactly this result.
Steve Hayes
Oct 24, 2015, 8:01:39 AM10/24/15
to
they show progress as the findings are correlated.
The most immediately useful thing is that it means that when you go
back before censuses, and start looking for people in the mid-18th
century, you needn't think "they could have come from anywhere" and
not know where to look. Chances are they came from somewhere nearby,
and you should therefore look in neighbouring parishes. They *may*
have come from further away, of course, but studies like this show
that it is worth looking in the neighbourhood first, unless you have
information to the contrary.
Ian Goddard
Oct 24, 2015, 4:35:04 PM10/24/15
to
On 24/10/15 08:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> by limiting its focus
> to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it
> is obviously biased to immobility.
I felt that the criteria were rather lax. I could manage all 4
> by limiting its focus
> to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it
> is obviously biased to immobility.
grandparents, indeed all 8 ggparents born with 8km.
Rather than rely in the Telegraph's report here are the links back to
research:
http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/
http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/nl6.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/extref/nature14230-s1.pdf
The paper seems to be somewhat misnamed as it extends to N Ireland. OTOH
if this is its full scope the project is also misnamed as the paper
omits the bulk of Ireland.
From an ecological point of view the most striking thing is that the
map divides between the lowland & highland zones of Britain. The
lowland zone is somewhat homgenous and the highland zone is subdivided
into a number of geographically distinct clusters. The authors see
these clusters as originating largely in pre-Roman population divisions,
a possible break-down of these in the area of Roman occupation and then
a superimposition of AngloSaxon settlement. I think relative ease of
communication in the lowland zone vs the highland zone may be another
factor.
This goes a long way to explaining one facet of genealogy. There seem
to be a lot of genealogists who consider it feasible that everybody in
Britain/UK/whatever are descended from Edward II/Edward
III/Carlemagne/whoever whilst to others it seems completely infeasible.
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
0 new messages