ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- 'The Anglo-Saxon migration and the
formation of the early English gene pool' by Joscha Gretzinger and colleagues (2022) has answered some of the much debated and controversial questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England which began in the 5th century AD. The study finds that as much as 75% of the ancestry of skeletons from England in the cemeteries from that time comes from Germanic migrants from Germany and Denmark. In this video I break down the findings in a summary.
Read the paper here: www.nature.com...
This channel depends upon your support:
All Links:
linktr.ee/Surv...
Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
Jive, your excitement is palpable. Well presented! May the gods preserve you and your ancestors.
His name is Tom btw
dumb! why you dont pray that god preserve his off spring??!!! like ENTIRE offspirng until the end of timesss
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxyMagog ?? An Anatolian group
@@burtonkephart6239 Magog was never an anatolian group, learn history friend.
My family and I are as English as they come. Both of my parents are Anglo. Their surnames are Germanic and Celtic. Our phenotype is heavily Anglo-Celtic as we live deep in the North-west Midlanders, of Mercia, close to Wales. We have it all.
Also, most place-names are Anglo-Saxon!!! Our language, culture, laws, literature, all have Anglo-Saxon ROOTS. Why do they deny we exist?
I don't care if I am more Anglo-Saxon or Celtic genetically.. the Anglo-Saxons assimilated the Britons to create the English ethnicity. So as Englishmen, we are Anglo-Saxon-Celtic.
Also, I thought French people are Celtic (Gallo-roman) anyway, so we share their dna which is natural. Given the bell beaker folk and proximity (doggerland).
Awesome video 👍
The Romans moved large Hunic tribes into Gaul as part of treaties with thee Huns, so France is not really celtic.
Where can I find more on this @@crowbar9566
Wrong current DNA shows France with a mostly Gaulish with a slight increase in Germanic dna as you head east. The Huns were a confederation of Turkic and Mongolic tribes and never settled Gaul. Not sure where this came from.
Who exactly is denying the Anglo Saxons? I never realized anglo-saxon denile was a thing
you have to also remember when it come to the Romano-Gallic peoples of Gaul (France) had a small Germanic migration of Franks also.
So essentially The Anglo-Saxon-Britons (Germanic-Celts) were conquered by Franco-Normans the French being (Germanic-Celts) and Normans being (North Germanic-Celts)
Your work is much appreciated, Jive! You've done a great service breaking studies like this down and educating all of us
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
I am a native saxon from Westfalia northwest germany.....people from here founded the kingdom of wessex= westsachsen....
Cerdic, the founder of The Gewissae/Wessex and many early kings had Brythonic Celtic names - Cerdic (Ceretic), Ceawlin (Kollen/Colin), Cynegils (Cynglas, Cuneglassus), Caedwalla (Cadwallon). Ethnogenesis is often rather messy.
@@urseliusurgel4365 The nobles of the Gewissae were somewhat of an exception. In total not many Anglo-Saxon nobles had Celtic names.
It is amazing that we need science and DNA to prove things we already know. Like the langobards were Scandanavian. The Anglo-Saxons came from Denmark, northern Germany, etc...
Nice to confirm these things
Can you imaging calling into question, say, Jewish identity, and any historical connection Jews have to the ancient Israelites? There would be hellfire.
@@gguser9737 Yeah I could see see someone questioning if all Jews come from the ancient Israelites. Im sure there is a video out there. Its great to have scientific proof to back up anything. Its fascinating to find out the different influences of tribes that invaded, like the Jutes, Frisians, Angles, Saxons and now we hear Franks.
The Langobards were not necessarily from Scandinavian, though they were just another Germanic tribe living along the Elbe River (modern day Hamburg) in northern Germany to southern of Denmark, and later migrated to north Italy during the migration age and settled there permanently.
@@TheEggmaniacFrance invaded once we Anglo Saxon Englishman invaded France countless time France they messed up our language and they try to erase our Anglo Saxon history and heritage but the one thing William the gutless coward couldn’t change wæs our Anglo Saxon English blood and what William the bastard did to my people in northern England we English still hate him and the French for it to this day and people wonder why we English hate the French so much look up the historical fact of what William the bastard did to my people in northern England and you will see why Harold Gōdwinessunu wæs the true king of England and us English not that gutless coward William just saying his name make me 🤮🤮🤮
It is awful that we even have to have this talk. My father was born in 1950s America and he called himself/his countrymen Anglo-Saxon. Don't let spiteful mutants, nor your enemies, take your identity.
and your mother?
People in several other languages (French, Spanish, among others) still refer to the core Anglosphere countries as Anglo-Saxon (at least culturally), and rightfully so. In the name of "embracing diversity" we have been told we have no identity other than our modern political state. Both by American liberal media who think it racist, and British academics with an agenda to pretend there is no core ethnicity in Anglo nations who insist it's nothing but a historical period. It's not racist to acknowledge the core Anglo-Saxon culture and foundation of our nations and also acknowledge the diversity we've acquired since the late 19th century.
The idea that English people are part of a migrant group was an assumption made by a monk called Bede. Bead arrived at this idea in 720AD, despite never having ventured outside of his town of Jarrow in the far NE of present day England.
What do you mean, “spiteful mutants?”
@@ferretyluv , several authors have written about this phenomenon. It is where individuals carry high mutational load in their genetics, which often results in antisocial behaviors and poor physiognomy.
Anthropologist Dr Edward Dutton has spoken much on this. He goes by the name Jolly Heretic on TH-cam.
Why do all of these academics misrepresent the Germanic migrations to Britain? What’s their motivation? How is any of this racist?
They love to disrupt historic identities in Europe
@@jivetalk luckily we have you to keep fighting the good fight!
I think they react against the jingoistic victorian anglo saxon empire stuff and its adoption by racists but the anglo saxons were immigrants so they actually make us more diverse so its ironic that their model of only a elite and language replacement actually would make us more pure! cheers
The misrepresentation is the result of trauma from post Nordicist or other Germanic supremacist ideologies pushed in ww2 or somewhat pushed in ww1.
So the academics try their best to contradict germanic history as much as possible, one to make England or other countries look like they have no relation to Germany like Austria, Switzerland or the Dutch.
Two, to dispute Germanic ancestry.
Or etc.
@@antonyreyn yeah but whites arent diverse, remember?
I got chills when the saxon chieftain said "It's saxin' time!".
If England and northwestern Europe means saxon I'm 46 I got 22 Scottish then 22 germany. What's the difference between Germanic Europe and England and northwestern dna? I also have a Darker phenotype. Euro say I look German American think I look like a big Italian. 6,22, 230 big skull bones. Mytrueancestry says I'm Celt and Cherusci.
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
How does the video creator explain why modern English people look so “Celtic” and so unlike the taller, longer face, broad forehead, blonde haired phenotype on average? In the mixing did the British features just remain dominant?
@@PhiloLogos777 They don't though? Unless they specifically have notable Celtic heritage. Have you seen a Scotsman or an Irishman? They look much different to an Englishman.
i got bloodflow.....but that might have been a misunderstandin
also don't forget a lot of Anglo-Saxon men settled in normandie 1001 when a norman married the king of England
I am half English and I am blessed to have no french dna. I am pure blonde.
by the way, "Frankish" is not french. Fränkisch is German (Rhine)
I have seen the question posed which is, "Are the Franks French or German?"
The answer? Neither. This is an inconvenient answer to most. For those seeking to understand how a people existed independent of and before another people people, it fits.
Facts 🤜 feelings.
Englishmen are Anglo-Saxon. Yes u have native Briton and Norse blood, but the Anglo-Saxons created England. Protect England's heritage!
The Norse added to English heritage. If not just that. The English if from Denmark, are then afterall Norse like the Danes and Norwegians afterall.
Denmark made England, England made Britain, Britain made the world. Denmark made everything then.
@@christianwithers7335 if I invented scissors, would that automatically make me a surgeon? Your statement makes no sense.
This paper totally slays the premise of Susan Oosthuizen's The Emergence of the English (Past imperfect) book. Which denies an Anglo/Saxon invasion, based on grave goods.
I’m from the northeast UK and done a dna recently 50% English, 25% Celtic, & 25% Scandinavian… and I have RH negative blood which is found mainly in European peoples. Super interesting video of the history of the British isles
Where did you test your dna and how much did it cost?
25% Scandinavian is way too high, I don’t believe you.
@@solce809There are brown Brazilians with that amount of Scandinavian blood, I shit you not. There was a genetic survey over here and the average person in the brownest states had close to 30% Scandinavian DNA. Features such as skin color and facial features are a small part of one’s genome and only account for some alleles from recent ancestors.
I'm 62% 'English' 28% Celtic (Welsh+Irish only) 7.9% Baltic 2.1% Scandinavian (rapie)
I found matches to Polish (Baltic)
@@crowbar9566Myheritage cost me £35 on offer that is ran often through the year.
So Bede and Gildas deserve a big apology 😁
Haha, Gildas the salty Briton 😂 but yes.
@@keighlancoe5933 can you blame him?
@@keighlancoe5933He mourned the invasion and decimation of native Britons by Germanic invaders. Can you blame him?
@skymaster4743 No, but as the offspring of the invaders I find it amusing.
@@keighlancoe5933 Understandable. The Anglo-Saxons were tough warriors who changed the course of human history.
Fascinating! I’ve been searching for this paper every few months since I saw you mention it a couple of years ago. Glad it’s finally here! Very good summary
Damn it! I always miss these live. Still my favorite channel!
🤔I am a native Saxon from Westphalia northwest Germany.... during my several trips to England I met a lot of blond native people especially in the southeast and southwest parts..... so I have no doubts the english have still very much Anglo-Saxon DNA.... As well the presenter of this documentation he is 100%Anglosaxon.....🏴🌹🇩🇪
I thought Westphalians were mostly Franks?
@@tancreddehauteville764 Westphalians were western branch of continental saxons!
@@tancreddehauteville764Alsatian’s
Thank you for this down to earth analysis. I found the last part as a West-Frisian myself very interesting. Dutch history learnt me that there was a migration of peoples to coastal Holland in the late Roman period, and my father always pointed me that some words in West-Frisian and English are the same, like twilight and tweilichtig.
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
Bravo Tom. Great overview.
Cheers Dan!
A very informative video as usual, Tom. Concerning the Frisian question:
I gather this study has but one data site for each of the two northern Dutch provinces. In the eastern one, only the coastal, clay grounds were historically Frisian. That province is named after the long dominant town, Groningen, which has never been Frisian and is located on the tip of the inland sand grounds. So I wonder where exactly they sampled in that province.
Had they included more sites from Frisia proper, not just Midlum, it would have been riddled with red dots, I’m sure.
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
This isn't anything we haven't already known before, with Bede and Gildas writing about exactly this. But it's still interesting to know the genetic side of things.
yes but historians and archaeologists have spent fifty years denying what those authors said.
@@harrynewiss4630 I think they have been questioning it, which is what they do.
@@Oxnaforda No. There was an ideological fixation against it. Very different.
@@harrynewiss4630 you cant just take the word of those authors as truth though, they are biased sources you need evidence to back it. Archaeologists and historians work off solid evidence.
@@Oxnaforda really? You don't say.
what a nice and concise explanation of english genetics, a question I as a half anglo-celtic (mostly english but also Scottish and Irish) person have been trying to answer for a while now
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy magogs are Jews this is a historical fact,
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Cimmerians were Iranic not celtic, and what is Magog? I1 is a haplogroup of the western hunter gatherers and we don't know any of their names
@@Sssseeeeyyyba.7452 Get help, faceless antisemitic b0t. American гаts...🤦😅
@@celtofcanaanesurix2245 You who don't master the table of nations, don't know the origins of peoples, but we do. And read correctly: I said Celts are 1 Cimmerian race, not the same people as Cimmerians, only descended from them. Cimmerians (Gomer) orinated in the north to Iran, south Russia, and only later invaded the Iranian plateau and Anatolia. They were defined by haplogroup R1. Hunter gatherers is just a meaningless modern invented term that doesn't exist in reality, and has nothing to tell us about a specific race and it's original name - mine does. Magog is ancestors of Germanic peoples.
This is the Cimmerian lineage👉
*GOMER* (Cimmerians):
*Ashkenaz* (Scythians: Poles, Russians, Slovaks, Czechs, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats - Slavs)
*Riphat* (Gauls: French, Belgs, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Picts, Britains, Swiss, Spanish, Portuguese, n.Italians, Australians - Celts)
*Togarmah* (Phrygians: *Minni* e.Anatolians - Armenians, Azeris, Bashkirs)
Important to note that the northern and eastern halves of France (even some southern areas) are undistinguishable from (or very similar to) the Rhineland / south-west Germany, Wallonia, Luxembourg and Switzerland genetically speaking.
Not IA France
This really is utter nonsense.
@@meh2972 how so ? all the genetic data I could gather points to this conclusion, even mainstream dna tests lump France and Germany together
The distribution of paternal haplogroups alone completely refutes your claim.
@@meh2972 it doesn't, Germany as a whole has a higher frequency of R1a and I1 only because of East Germany and Schleswig Holstein respectively. I was talking about Southern and Western Germany
Great stream, you really boxed that paper up nicely. Interesting, for me as my YDNA is L21 but always wondered why my pca showed I was close to Dutch people. I am abit surprised no guess was made as to why there was this sudden migration and why they came to Britain.
I womder if the Justinian plague came far enough north to make a difference. This all makes sense so far.
Yeah.
I mean when the Indo-European Beaker folk came to Ireland and Britain around 2500 BCE, they came over from Netherlands and Flanders anyway.
So there is still the L21 (Celtic) haplogroup in Holland as well, not just the U106 (Germanic).
Even without any Germanic influences, we Britons and Irish are still linked to Holland, as that’s where we came over from in the first place. 2500 BCE ish.
🤺☦🇷🇺Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
Hello! Thanks for your summary. As a Frisian I was very curious about the results, because of the strong connection between English and Frisian. I'm not surprised though! The new Frisians (from the 5th century) were a mix between Angles and Saxons. Maybe there's still a small amount of old Frisian DNA (from the Frisii) in me, but the scholars will never agree on that haha! Besides, the Frisii were a North Sea Germanic tribe too, so I think they already were the same (genetically) as the Angles and the Saxons. I'm looking forward to your next video. In groetnis út Fryslân! 😁
There's more frisian dna here than the apparent french dna
@@ShireTommy_1916_Somme-Mametz that's 100% true. Because Frisians are Saxons.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 And Angles. A previous study (Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration) found the DNA of people tested in Central England to be indistinguishable from that of Frisians.
@@elskewietzes9963 I saw this study.
@@ShireTommy_1916_Somme-Mametz a lot of Englishmen fought in the Crusades. When they were defeated they returned home with French/Belgian/German wives... thus Frankish ancestry. Also Northern France was occupied by Englishmen in the 100 year war so a lot of breeding happened? Throughout history women accused of "sleeping with the enemy" were exiled.
Angles, Saxons, Jutes. The perfect people!
there were definitely frisians too
Anglo-Saxon is awesome, it is an amalgamation of Germanic tribes
The friends of Frea (lord) Ingu.
Francis Pryor , Tom Holland , Janina Ramirez , Alice Roberts , etc ... you would think would be enthralled with this paper as it falls within their field of expertise . And yet , not a peep . Maybe Prior is rewriting his masterpiece Britain AD telling us how wrong he was.
As for the Vendel thing:
I think your second answer is more probable. The “package” was more widespread but the sampling is simply skewed. For instance, check out the brooch from Wijnaldum (Frisia). Fits right in with the Sutton Hoo hoard. Nearby in Hallum they found pieces of helmets identical to those in Vendel, Sweden. And not too long ago they dug up a great example of a double ravened fibula in a field at Swichum. Its style classed as “Scandinavian.”
Out of interest my son's (very left wing) history teacher told him he was upset by these findings...
Excellent
Lovely stuff. Francis Pryor locking himself in his shed with a bottle of scotch and a service revolver.
What's this about Pryor? What does he think about it?
I watched Time Team a lot in the day, and Francis Prior suddenly seemed work in an anti Anglo Saxon narrative at any opportunity, often supported by other members of the team. I thought a bit strange at the time, and I’m glad to see it debunked. 😂
Brother!!!So glad to watch your vids again. I took a lil time off but am glad you have posted some new stuff! Always bad ass stuff. Keep kicking ass my man! More Celtic stuff please lol Im selfish lol
I am English. My dna test had no french or belgian dna. I'm a Midlander, family been here since the beginning.. my ancestry is mostly North-Sea jüdtland (Dane and German), Baltic and native Brython.
Commercial dna's database almost nevers detect french dna in a living person's dna.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 they banned it because france is very diverse genetically
@@Anglo-Saxon_familie which sucks and means French DNA can only use skeletons for proxy. But can only detect signature percentages contemporary to the times. But not the cluster of the dna nor current descendants.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 simple. French dna doesn't exist. You cannot compare a breton to an ardéchois or a norman to anyone from Elsäß-Lothringen (Alsace Lorraine). French is a cultural identity which explains why napoleon went from being an italian to a frenchman
@@Anglo-Saxon_familie French dna is just detecting Gaulish dna.
same haplogroup as me... nice video my ridiculously distant cousin!
Just found your channels. Glad to have found a channel that speaks on, and is educated in these topics. keep it up mate!
My French girlfriend did a dna test. She also has 37% English/Anglo-Saxon dna. She's Breton.
Southern England her dna is primarily shown
@@ArtBriton20not here in the East Midlands it’s not we here have no French ancestry and we our proud of that fact as well
@@Angle-saxon-94
no need to show your obsessive hate towards france your making englishmen look weak and obsessed
Great point about being 75% anglo in the migration period because as the country became unified and peaceful the Celtic fringe would seep back in to England making us 50/50. Also huge population shifts in Industrial revolution, i am English haplotype I1 but have 3 separate lots of Scottish ancestors. Great video Tom. Cheers
@@danielhowes6947 hi i did mine as part of University of Leicester they wanted people from small villages mine is Redmile where they found an Anglo Saxon tomb slab. I would get one with the Haplogroup test included because its the one part of your DNA that does not change. Cheers
@@danielhowes6947 Depends on what you're looking for. I've done ancestry and exported that data to familtreedna for free, 10 dollars to unlock their tools. Familtreedna is excellent for testing Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA, which ancestry does not offer. 23andme offers some degree of Y DNA, however it is not as advanced in that feature. Again depends on what you're trying to achieve.
@@CaomhanOMurchadha great answer cheers fellow Atlantic Archipelagos
Same haplogroup but my ancestry is Irish (Norman surname), English, French Canadian (ancestors came from Normandy), and Swedish… I’m a yank but my haplogroup is I1.
I think that it is a possibility that those living within the confines of the civilization built by the Romans may have been somewhat removed from their ancestors traditional lifestyle and thus really struggled to survive the collapse. It could be that the invaders and people living outside the larger population centers collaborated to differing degrees.
Wait... you are telling me I'm part French? And I really was starting to like this channel...
🇨🇦some how i got unsubscribed from this you tuber an excellent topic.Subscribed again.Anglo Saxons Rule!
Pure blooded white Englishman and women our direct descendants of the Anglo Saxon and we our proud of our history and heritage it’s nice to see a Canadian showing respect to our ancestors ✊🏻👍🏻
On the Y DNA part you did not mention that some of those saxons on the research were tested positive for J2b-L283(5 of them).This clarifies that this haplo was brought to britain with them, not with the romans, as it was previously thought.
Thankyou for this, mine threw me out as I got j2-l24, yet I'm 100% European literally British to the bone with some German. The j2 really really threw me, guess it could be Saxon after all I was thinking possible Roman or norman.
I imagine it could have came indirectly from Romans. Perhaps some of them were assimilated into their tribe? Perhaps some of those were already descendants of Foederati, maybe bastards, who might have collaborated with the invaders. I would want to see a break down of that particular haplogroup and all the downstream SNPs before making any judgement. I would also like to see the downstream SNPs of any phylogenetic siblings, cousins, of that said marker. To see if one branch might be more largely distributed in a different place.
I am from (south) East Sussex. The Seax (Saxon) is the sword the Saxons were named after, as they were so skilled with it. So Sussex is the South Seax, Essex the East Seax, Wessex the West Seax and so on. Our history is all around us!
Great video! I have a question: could some of this Frankish/French signal also be a result of the Belgae in southern England? The Belgae would have Frankish admixture and would be generally Gallo-Germanic. Do you think that could make sense?
Definitely, I would agree that this would account for some of the French signal.
The Belgae did migrate and consolidate themselves in southern England, long after the Britons and Irish had settled in Britain and Ireland. Yep.
And there would have been an influx of Frankish genes after 1066, when William and Henry’s men and their families came over. Even though they were culturally French-speaking Normans and everything, their DNA was Frankish (mostly Gaulish with some Germanic). Even though the Franks had a Germanic culture, I’d say they were still largely Gaulish, or Celtic, or however you’d like to call it.
@@emmanuelgoldspleen2905 "All Gaul is divided into three parts..." The Belgae were North Europeans.
As a proud-Welsh Borderer with no Anglo or French genetic markers it's still all very interesting to hear about. Certainly I like the story of the Iron Age Celtic man being buried within the barrow and the Seax. Clearly very high status and well respected amongst the Anglo-Saxons as I'm sure many more fierce Celtic warriors who came across to them were. I think this split hints at the late AS kingdom separations too. If inter-mixing was higher in Mercia than Wessex (or Kent for that matter) it may have drove some narrative to separate them.
Respect is respect. If the Saxons faced a very powerful heroic Celtic warrior they'll give him respect.
I live close to Wales. Welsh mam. I have no french dna either. I got a lot of Anglo-Saxon dna it's better than this apparent french
Wessex had a number of kings with Welsh names including the founder, Cerdic (Ceredig)
@@realitywins9020 well what you expect? We English are all half Anglo-Saxon and half Briton. No such thing as pure dna
I am half English and I have no french dna either. Which is good.
Well done Tom, great summary
Denmark included southern Sweden until the end of the 17th Century.
Fascinating new evidence and entirely supported by the ancient sources. The Franks may have had a significant presence in Britain as early as AD 296. Lain accounts describe how Constantius crushed a mutiny in Roman Britain: "Hardly a single true Roman was killed in your victory. I am told that the plains and hills were littered with the fallen bodies of our loathsome enemies. But these were the bodies of barbarians, or those that had adopted their clothing and style of long blond hair. […] Invincible Caesar, the eternal gods had indeed granted you the destruction of all your enemies especially the Franks. For some of the ships carrying your soldiers had become detached from the fleet as they sailed through the sea fog. Losing their way, the soldiers headed to London where they intercepted the remnants of the barbarous horde that had survived the battle". The Panegyric on Constantius Caesar (passages 16-17)
Very interesting. I do wonder
In ancient times where i live in the East Riding of Yorkshire when the Romans arrived the tribe was called the Parisi and it is said they settled there in around 800BC from the Paris area. The Roman army that maintained a presence must have been heavily populated by the Foederati basically mercenaries from the Germanic tribes, in Holland is as far north as they where able to conquer so it would of been the tribes they would have had direct contact with immediately in front of them as it achieves 2 purposes, it allows the Romans to conquer other barbarian tribes in England and it also keeps the tribes who they are dealing with beyond Holland weak enough to not make war, when the Roman pay masters left they had 2 options either go home and be unemployed or send for their families to come and rule, i also predict the cooling event in 536AD that triggered the Great Migration Period also played a part with tribes coming down from the north making war with people England would have seemed like a safe place to escape the raging hordes...
I really enjoyed this, many thanks. Now I will have to watch your video on the Celts and hope that it reveals something new about the origins of the mysterious Magonsaetan of Erging.
Hey, Tom. I like what you said about how the Goths claimed to be from modern Sweden, historians questioned this, but the genetics proved them to be right. The English claim to be descended from Anglo-Saxons, many intellectuals questioned this, but the genetic studies prove that it's true. My question is, what do you think about another group, the Hungarians, who claim to be descended from Scythians, every single Hungarian chronicle starts with the Scythians, and until 150 years ago, the Scythian origins of Hungarians was regarded as a fact, only recently the intellectuals began to claim that this is nonsensical. Do you think genetic studies will once again prove a 1000 year old claim to be right?
I think the term Scythian was used willy nilly. Scythian could refer to Scandinavians at one point! In this case it may have referred to the Huns and anyway Huns definitely descended from Scythians
As a French/Scottish/Ukrainian Canadian (because of course), I can tell you I always found Francis Prior's theories to be bunk since I first watched him present them over a decade ago.
Love to the Anglo Saxons from Canader.
I require a more detailed DNA test, but the one I have taken fits rather well with this paper. After western Europe (modern northern France and the Low Countries), my next largest DNA source is related to the modern nations of Denmark and Norway. And I also have some Celt/British stock. One half of my ancestors came from all the parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland; the other - from Germanic background. The accounts are correct despite what some what to re-purpose our histories.
Which land are you from nowadays?
I wonder if the Franks came over as mercenaries? The Roman’s used them as mercenaries in Gaul before the empire fell. Regular Roman legions did not wish to be stationed in Britain so I wonder if the “Roman’s” stationed there were really just Saxons, Franks, and Nordic mercenaries… and when Rome fell they decided to take over as warlords?
That's pretty much what I think.
We know that the Romans had Auxiliary forces from Gaul, Belgium (Belgae) and Batavia (Genetically very similar to Frisian and Franks) stationed for along period of time in Britannia. There’s also Belgae tribes in southern England prior to the Roman invasion 🤔 I do think it’s more complex than Celtic and Anglo-Saxon… Im no expert mind.
This makes sense. Roughly half my ancestry is English and the other Danish. Whenever I upload my 23 and Me data to genome sites, I get linked as similar with a lot of ancient Scandinavian samples, very little Celtic.
Amazing video. Thank you so much for your insight. I am a fellow I-m253 (subclade - i-l22) and I have been trying to find out from which migration my paternal lineage came into britain. Now I know, if you don't know how your paternal lineage got here, that I have little to no chance of finding out whether mine came from anglosaxon, viking or norman etc. As frustrating and disheartening as that is, it is also a relief. I've really been enjoying your videos and this information was personal to me so I just wanted to say thank you.
On a French-language history channel, I learned that Anglo-Saxons also settled in Northern France at the same time they migrated to England, but that the Franks later expelled them. My guess is they would have fled to England.
Incorrect. Rollo was given a 'dutchy' in Northern France by the Frankish King, as a payoff for promising not to sack Paris again (he had done it twice before) & a Frankish bride. His decendants became the Normans.
@@darrylhenry5839 you are off by about 400 years
Once again, excellent video. The facts are the facts.
Continue speaking the truth brother, no matter what they say. Maintain the shieldwall. As a mixed English/ Welsh/Scots person, we need to celebrate our history I think. What a history though! We are stronger together As an Anglo Celts we have nothing to be ashamed of. Norman Gallo Franks...not so much.
I'm Canadian of English heritage and it's nice to learn all this.
Based
Same here but from America
@@noahtylerpritchett2682: Just like with George Washington
@@AngloSaxon-yx8tk hahaha. Ironically I'm part Welsh. Like George Washington. Not just solely English. Funny how that works.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682: Well what's even funnier is someone said the Washington family came from Israel. However the Washington family didn't come from Wales, they go back to the 12th century up in Durham country England.
@@AngloSaxon-yx8tk his maternal great grandfather was part Welsh mate. Not everything is direct patrilineality
FamilyTree's autosomal DNA test claimed I was more than 99% British Isles. My Y chromosome test was consistent with my (English) surname, and traced to the border region of Germany and Denmark.
I'm 100% British on that platform, yet I'm 1/3 irish. It's not the best, most autosomal DNA tests don't go back that far. My Y DNA came out the Netherlands, likely Saxon or Frisian.
@@A-C100 Ireland tends to be included with British Isles in these tests; which only show where your genes can be found. That being said, I also doubt the accuracy of their databases, but for reasons of my own. My heritage is 100% pre-Revolutionary American, with Genomelink finding 11% indigenous American and 2% Asian. Genomelink's findings were much more consistent with my physical appearance than than FamilyTree's findings. However, FamilyTree's findings did corroborate paternal family history, while implying I was not related to my mother.
@@et76039 FTDNA did separate the British and Irish component a couple of years back. Weird thing is i notice Scandinavian matches on there who have some Irish DNA and im at 0%. At least Ancestry DNA got me at 1/3 Irish, which i know is correct from records.
A lot of evidence emerging for Germanic settlement during the Roman period especially in East Anglia and theories the Saxon shore could even be not a defence term but the settlement shore of the Saxons. Cheers
Exactly and Eutropius talks of the coast infested with Franks and Saxons in 285AD.
So as a German, if I'm 75.8% North and West European and 17.5% English, I'm basically very very germanic?
probably yes
"The Saxon Shore" means the shore belonging to the Saxons who live there. This is confirmed by the shoreline already having Germanic place names during the Roman era: Andereda (on the roads/anchorage), Othona, Clausentum, etc.
The Saxon Shore was first names as defensive line to keep Saxon invaders out. Many of the fortifications were manned by Germanic mercanaries however.
I know my beliefs Are Tolkien influenced by nature not a ground breaking discovery. But I believe the Swedish connection is shown by Beowulf legends. So I assume that the Anglo-Saxon England was a 3 way shift of segregated apartheid.
That the Kings. And commanding aristocratic chieftains were Geats.
Sutton Hoo man was a Geat.
A Geatish elite.
But that most Germanic peasants the vast majority are German like peoples from Denmark and Germany and Netherlands.
Of course trying to differentiate Denmark and Germany and Anglo-Saxons from each other is modern trivial projection.
But if you met a king he was a Geat. A standard warrior or craftsman a Angle, Saxon or something else like Frankish. Or who knows.
And your low class slaves and unfree peasant serfs farmers were Celts.
If there were Gauls I'd imagine some were with the Anglo-Saxons and Franks and some were with the Britons but there's no substantial evidence that the Gauls were important in Britain in the 400s unlike previous centuries.
@Survivethejive, can you step back one more step to where the NW European Anglo Saxons came from???
So my Green's History of England written in 1888 is vindicated, and Francis Prior may have to rethink in light of new information.
One thing I will add is that we have some gaps in the data. We can’t presume a post Anglo-Saxon entry of French IA-like ancestry, due to the following:
1. We lack samples from Roman Era Britain
2. We lack samples from large parts of late Iron Age Britain (East Anglia & the Midlands in particular) where French IA-like ancestry has the highest concentrations.
And if we use R1b-U152 as a proxy for French IA-like ancestry (per the Patterson study), then we see that U152 shows up in Britain post-400 BC; U152 is only in 3.9% of all post-400 BC samples. Additionally, the Patterson study didn’t have samples from the Midlands and East Anglia, where the modern percentages of R1b-U152 are above average.
This paper’s results may also imply the following:
1. The Hallstatt, La Tene, and Belgae arrivals in Britain are indiscernible from WBI or
2. The aforementioned three groups left no detectable genetic impact on Britain.
I’ve also read that if they only used Eastern and North Central French samples, they would have replicated where Hallstatt and La Tene came from (plus ou moins). I have a feeling some of this French IA-like ancestry, came before the Anglo Saxon period.
The issue i see is that France, German Rhineland, Luxembourg and Belgium, skeletons from all archaeological periods and living people today, are genetically under-studied. Not well understood or sequenced or complete in any database. Therefore whenever a genetic study says anything about France, I always have a train of salt.
Not merely a grain.
I remember a study a few years ago says England Midlands 40% French.
Came to England, last 10.000 years. Ok and? That's not useful lol.
1. we don't need roman era samples to determine if a post AS migration occurred. The amount of French DNA increased since AS times so it is clear this occurred after AS times.
2. the highest concentration of French is in the south according to the paper>
as for: 2.1. There are no Hallstatt migrants to Britian - the Celtic migrants came from France in the LBA and are included in the definition of WBI since WBI refers to IA British isles.
2.2. they didn't say that
@@Survivethejive hey jive. When regarding to French dna, how accurate can they be given the grossly understudied nature of French dna and ancestry from all France eras?
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 pretty accurate. French DNA is no mystery. the source is clearly a population with more EEF than natives of Britain, and the most plausible and closest source is France. Any other source is less plausible
@@Survivethejive well I always knew the English had French ancestry. Just the population source and by how much I never understood.
I was excited about the 2021 Gaulish study. But this and that study still leaves some mystery to me.
For example my own dna test said im 0% French but some of my ancestors have Norman surnames lol
One question - where does this leave the theory that the British are still mostly of pre-Celtic invasion, Beaker dna, than any other group? If the Anglos came in and for the most part, genetically cleaned house, then surely that will be a fallacy?
@@michaeltaylor8030 we know for certain that some came at the time of the Franks, and some after the Normans and all came from France
Well, the Anglo-Saxons, Franks and Gauls all themselves came from the Bell-beakers anyway. Just different groups of Bell-Beakers
Most is post Norman
It's just wrong
The Welsh Chronicles say at this time Britain was hit with a comet and wiped out the island the Welsh moved to brittany until Britain recovered so the Welsh living in what is today England were wiped out 😊
Goddamn that sounds brutal.
Genetic analysis must be one of the greatest tools for tracing human ancestry and migration
I'm of Mexican/Spanish heritage, so I ostensibly don't have a stake in this topic. But as someone who enjoys history and British history at that, the slow migration theory never made sense to me. Even before this evidence with the available knowledge regarding the topic, slow migration seemed unlikely.
It seems absurd to me to believe that the dominant culture of a nation would completely change Itself including language to a slow "peaceful" migration. When to my knowledge this has never happened in any other point in history.
we are all r1 b haplogroup. England is north west european.. we are German and Celtic
A lot but many are I1 including me and STJ, I1 originates in Scandinavia, but obviously we will have many R1b ancestors too. Cheers
@@antonyreyn the English are Germans it is why we are Anglo r1b and Saxon Frankish are both German too
@@proudanglolatina6189 there is a difference between German and Germanic. The Angles were from Jutland in Denmark which is Scandinavia where the I1 Haplogroup is common, the Saxons were from North Germany. Someone with I1 haplogroup can have thousands of R1b ancestors and vice versa. Cheers
Yes... Im English and a sizable chunk of my DNA is from "Germanic Europe" aswell as the native British portions of "Welsh" "Irish" and "Scottish"
Based
Interested in whether the South-Western Swedish link could be Geats- a possible link to the Wuffingas and the Beowulf story?
I've only watched a couple videos of yours but it's refreshing to see someone cover historical topics by sticking to what happened and not narrating it by their own social judgement.
I’m like 30% English according to ancestrydna and 40% Irish. My haplogroup is from Scandinavia and my surname is Powers (Norman surname). I don’t get a typical haplogroup though for some with Irish ancestry… so at some point my male line came from the Vikings.
I do have a question about the people in Cumbria (Northwest England), sure they might not have been impacted as much by the Anglo-Saxons or Franco-Normans on arrival, but were they not impacted by the Danish Vikings in the 800s?
There are a lot of place names that's are of Old English and Old Norse around there.
My Father is from Cumbria and he speaks an old dialect of Cumbrian-English that is Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse, or is that almost purely a language shift?
Very interesting. Does this mean we can claim reparations from the Danes and Germans? The problem with this is that it ignores other evidence which may lead to a different interpretation. For example Tacitus tells us that the Aesti spoke the same language as the people of Britain. ' Tacitus, however, describes the language of Aestii as closer to that spoken in Britain than that spoken by other neighbouring tribes' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesti
He also tells us that the Caledonii were of Germanic origin. And the Silures of South Wales were dark and swarthy and unlike the rest of the British people.
We also have the fact that the Belgae were in Britain before Roman times and were related to thee Belgae of the north west coast of France and europe. Caesar distinguishes the Belgae from the Gauls. He also never mentions Celts in Britain. They were in southern Gaul at the time.
It's perfectly possible that Germanic speakers lived in Britain. Quite possibly having moved in as Doggerland got flooded. The dna of Cheddar man is an ancestor of the later I2 haplogroup and not that of the much later R1b type.
i didn't even know there was any doubt regarding the anglo-saxons.
It is interesting how there is a slight Germanic signal in highland scots and Irish, but not a French signal, despite these places being settled and heavily influenced by Norman aristocrats but not Anglo-Saxons. Must be from England having a larger population and so just gradually giving slight admixture to these places
The fact this guy repeatedly equates Romano Britains with a racial group "Celtic" makes me turn off. "Celtic" is a style of decoration, a cultural fashion. It is not a racial definition.
Right, you know it's a group of languages too right?
Google "Celtic DNA map" some time.
Truth will always be vindicated
Very interesting. I have to say I always thought the 50 year campaign to discredit the traditional account failed to explain language even before the DNA evidence. We have the two examples of the influence by the Danes and Normans. The Danes brought a significant population change, and a partial change in leadership, while the Normans exherted a total change in leadership and high status culture. Also from this evidence a steady flow of French settlement carried on through that period. And yet while both had major influences on English, it was not replaced either by Danish or French. The idea that a warrior elite, ruling many shifting kingdoms could somehow influence the Britons to entirely give up their own language for an entirely different one, in the space of 5 or 6 generations is patently absurb. Look at how Welsh survived under English rule for hundreds of years.
I think it's to do with the dominance of archeology in the study of our history since the sixties. Because the iron and wood artifacts of the Anglo Saxons survive so little, their importance diminished. Where are the battlefields and the mass graves the Archeologists ask? Of course there were probably many small battles, rather than a single conquest with big battles, and only a tiny proportion of graves survive from the period anyway. I think however this influence of "If we can't find proof of it in the ground then it didn't happen" idea is very powerful.
It's also an ideological thing. Lots of archaeologists have been desperate to deny large population movements into England in the migration age due to strange political obsessions.
Some good points . Regarding archaeological evidence of battles , I have just read on wiki that there is no archaeological evidence for the battle of Agincourt although the site of the battle can be pinpointed with a fair degree of certainty thanks to contemporary accounts . As most folk will know a large number of men were killed in a short space of time in a very small area , so obviously bodies and weapons and armour piled up everywhere , and yet nothing has been found . I suspect this is the case with most battles from ancient times
The no proof of battles theory is nonsense.
We know of very recent battles fought with lots of metals and ordinance and relatively huge numbers of participants and even now the sites can't be fixed or found.
Ancient battles the bodies would have been stripped for even clothing had a higher value back then, let alone weapons and armour and the battles would have been much smaller affairs.
Didn't St. Gregory mention the Angles? "They aren't Angles, but Angels?"
Yeh - non angli sed angeli. But i prefer Non Angeli sed Angli. Cheers
A while ago I read a book called the Barbarian Conversion where Anglosaxon kings who converted to Christianity were quoted as believing their own kingdoms to be part of the Frankish empire, long before the Norman conquest.
?
Sounds like revisionism to me.
Thank you for this. The revision really surprised and confused me. Now I see what they're trying to do. There is nothing to be embarrassed about. Conquests and migrations have been par for the course from day one. The difference is how much ground gets covered and for how long. Protracted migrations will likely yield more genetic contributions.
🤺☦🇷🇺And thank me for this too (it's even better)...Anglo-Saxons, as all Germanic peoples, despite mixing with the Cimmerian race of the Celts (=Riphat R1b), are the race of Magog, defined by haplogroup I1
Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden , in Scandinavia we don't really use the term Scandinavian peninsula , Scandinavia is a term agreed by a group of leaders from the 3 countries due to our shared history and common Scandinavian language , the name come from Scania modern day Skåne/Skaane in Southern Sweden , Skåne is a Danish name because it used to be part of Denmark
Nordic countries are the 3 Scandinavian countries plus Finland, Iceland, Faroe Island, Åland and Greenland
Its said the population of Scandinavia in the 536AD cooling event was halved by 50% so im guessing even the DNA of Scandinavia changed over this period as it did in Denmark as people come down from the far north...
Not sure the low Swedish DNA component necessarily is very surprising. The East Anglian royal family could still have a Swedish connection despite this - I think the theory always was this was a royal connection rather than a mass migration from Sweden.
Possibly
Great video - thanks. This confirms what I have always suspected - the 'Saxon Advent' was either more violent or more complete than some modern scholars suggest. It is very hard to learn a new language competently, and merely replacing the elite does not achieve that, otherwise the Romano-Britons would have spoken Latin, and after the Norman Conquest, we would have been speaking Norman-French. Large scale (although not total) replacement DOES explain the language that we now speak, and the genetics that we have.
Great points. Their is evidence that word order could have been affected by Celtic this could indicate children being taught by non fluent speakers ie Celts a similar thing happened in Iceland but not in Scandinavia . Cheers
@@antonyreyn That evidence is far from convincing. The linguistic issue was always a massive one for the elite replacement squad and some of their later attempts to get round it by claiming various Celtic subtle influences on English were pretty tortuous and/or stretched.
@@harrynewiss4630 Yes the DNA evidence now speaks for itself, but the invasion was not instantaneous or complete , the borders were fluid it is inevitable that the Anglo Saxons could have had Celtic wifes, slaves, neighbours and client kingdoms. Cheers
@@antonyreyn no one ever doubted that I think. But the elite replacement people went far further than that, all but denying the migration happened at all
The fact that British Celtic and British Latin do not significantly influence Old English indicates the Anglo-Saxon replacement was total in most of England.
I didn't hear you address the discrepancy between the genes of modern English men and women. I remember reading about a study of Y chromosomes versus mitochondrial DNA (one being passed only on a male line and the other only on a female line). The study results I remember showed that most of the men in England (especially in areas most heavily settled/conquered by AngloSaxons) had Y chromosomes from CNE whereas the females mostly had mitochondrial DNA from the British Isles. This suggests that the relatively rapid genetic replacement of Britons by AngloSaxons was more thorough and complete among men than women. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Sounds like the Saxons offed the men and ravaged the women.
The study explicitly states that this is not the case. It was not a mostly male migration.
How do they differentiate French DNA? Parts of France are of majority Germanic descent. The Normans were of scandanavian ancestry while the rest of France are Celtic and Mediterranean.
All of France has more EEF than any of UK or Germany
@@jivetalk My father from Northern France is 44% EEF and 42% "Yamnaya".
It's bs cus we don't have french dna
The Normans where overwhelmingly Celtic within a couple of generations. Even their ruling class took French wives, thereby diluting their Germanic ancestry. Ordinary Normans were native Gauls
@@realitywins9020 Do you pull that information out of your ass? The Normans were primarily of Germanic ancestry like most northern French are today. Put a sock in it.
fantastic talk Tom, your knowledge is brilliant because you take the time to put the work in properly and do the research, there’s such value in your content, thanks Tom.
I wish the Flemish expulsion never happened. Be curious to see what England would be like genetically as the Flemish could be a Anglo-Saxon flickle who would of shown a continuation.
Hello bro. Anglo-Saxon as you already is solely the collective name for all Germanic tribes living in England, anyway, so Flemish isn't something to lose sleep on.
@@Fatherland927 that's true bro. Just a bit unfortunate Is all.
Scotland was largely a Flemish project as a result😂
Read, Scotland & the Flemish People by Alexander Fleming.
England's loss was Scotlands gain. 😂
forgive my naivety, but i don't see how this changes that we all (british/scottish/irish/welsh etc) have various mixtures of early hunter gatherer, neolithic farmer, and later indo-european ancestry that really connects us rather than seperates us
i am german from the nortwest part and I ve been many times in England....and I meet a lot of blond people in the south east and west of England.....aswell here in north Germany and the netherlands.....so it was definitly not a small amount of Anglo Saxons who came to Britain their progney still alive.....
i read somewhere, years ago, that they thought part of the reason for the successful anglo saxon takeover was a shortage of Briton fighting age males (possibly a reason for inviting the initial germanic auxilaries) caused by decades of troops being taken for roman civil wars, it was argued that population shrink might also be a reason for leaving the cities.
Perhaps so. I also just heard an argument that the Celtic Britons were largely still trading with the Roman Empire still existing after the Roman exit. The AS were , on the other hand, trading with their homelands back in Northern Europe
When the so-called 'Plague of Justinian' [first large-scale bubonic plague pandemic] hit, it travelled through the Roman trade networks and so hit the Celts badly and affected the AS much less. So when the AS attacked the Celts were greatly weakened and so the AS took over at first, the area which became England.
Just found out I'm part-French. Aside from that rather disappointing news I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
Lol
? French ethnicity doesn't exist. The Franks were a germanic tribe living in what is now the Netherlands. They overtook "France" . Makes no sense.
@@CanadianFreedom1 French genetic is real.
@@bonseraphin1119 how so? They’re either Germanic, Celtic or Mediterranean.
@@wulfsorenson8859 Does the English ethnicity exists according to you?
One could make a very similar argument for why it doesn't "exist" as well.
We're mixing the concepts of Frankish and French. Romans drscribed the Franks as Gemanic, originating from the right of the Rhine (ripuarian franks) not Gaulish at all. Later Franks had settled in present day Holland/Belgium at the time of Anglo-Saxon migration. So they were ethnically related.
LOL. French people are Gallo-Roman! Not Frankish. Look at their phenotype and language, for a start. French people will tell you - those who are not nationalistic - that France is Celtic. And so if the percentage of the 3 said groups are correct, then English people are more Celtic, genetically.
Anglo-Saxons and Franks had already mixed with the Celts prior to creating their kingdoms. R1B exists within both UK and France for a reason.
The people of England and France are both mostly Celtic, it's just England has a stronger Germanic heritage, while France has a Latin heritage.
This comes from a German, obviously Saxon and Frankish descent
He didn't say that the French are Frankish although some certainly are of that lineage. Did you even watch the video?
It's worth bearing in mind that there was a slave trade across the British Isles and Europe which continued into the middle ages. These unfortunates (whether bought at market, seized in conflicts, or self-sold to avoid starvation) would have added their DNA to the gene pool.
Many thanks I must send your way STJ. Whenever you open your word-hoard we are all enriched by its wealth
Much indicates people from today Sweden also setteled England. Just look at the findings at Sutton Hoo, Beowulf (from Geatland Götaland) and so on