Genetics and the Anglo-Saxon Migrations
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2024
- This lecture dives into a controversial subject when it comes to the study of Ancient and Medieval History and that is Genetics and Migrations. This lecture discusses the Angles,Saxon and Jute Migrations in the Post Roman Period into the British Isles. From place names to paganism this lecture covers a variety of subjects that most viewers will find enjoyable!
Attribution: HIST-416 (2009-2010-Fall): Medieval British History
By: Asst. Prof. David E. Thornton
video.bilkent.edu.tr/course_vi...
I am German from the North West part Westfalia..... there is a town near by called Beverungen the counterpart have been found in Sussex near Eastborne the name was Beverington.... After several trips to the southeast and west of England I met many people who looked similar as northwest Germans or Dutch.... I would guess the Anglosaxon DNA is still alive..... we are very much connected.... ❤️🇩🇪🏴
@Son of Wessex I don't think genetics have cultural biases or preferences.
It's kinda sad that Britain did not side with Germany during both World Wars, it feels like a Germanic Civil War💔
The prevalence of shared genetics, historical origins, culture, beliefs, values, etc, amongst the people of England & Germany always highlights, in my thinking, the terrible tragedy and intense irony of the slaughter inflicted upon one another by these two nations in the 21st century. When consciousness of human history is forgotten, blurred or denied, we do ourselves injury through the loss of ties that would otherwise bind us to one another, internationally-speaking.
@Son of Wessex i watched a documentary about the Battle of Monte Cassino a few months ago, and there was an old German veteran talking about when his squad captured a few British soldiers. He's chattering along in German about the reactions of these POWs being taken to the battalion HQ of the German paratroopers and suddenly imitates one of the prisoners exclaiming, "For Heaven's sake, you all have English faces!” Then he laughs and switches back to German and says, "Well, what did they expect us to look like?!" In my opinion, this anecdote really demonstrates the power of propaganda...These young soldiers had grown up in GB at a time when influential powers in British society manufactured & negatively-emphasized many stereotypes and false attributes, as well as a general sense of undesirable, foreign "otherness" in connection to Germany & German people. One of the best examples, of course, was the label "Huns" that was applied to Germans. The infamous Huns of the ancient world, as a result of their invasion of Europe that led to the fall of the Western Roman Empire, left perhaps the most traumatic psychological scar ever passed on in the writings & stories of ancient Europeans. Thus, the Huns historically embodied the idea of undesirable, foreign "otherness" in the collective European consciousness...making the label of "Hun" a powerful epithet, in deed. And although it is so obvious to us today as to not need to be stated, ethnic German people do not resemble the Hunnic peoples, who originated in Mongolia as nomads. Nonetheless, the visible similarities & commonalities shared by the Germans and the Englishmen at Cassino clearly came as a shock to the captured Tommies.... It's almost certain that negative labels such as that of "Huns" not only affected, but in large part, formed the false perceptions and expectations that these young soldiers held of their German cousins. The moral of the story, obviously, is the importance of knowing who the influencers in your world scope are, recognizing their motives and informing yourself on relative issues, rather than adopting the popular perspective. We are fortunate enough in this day and age to have the ability to access almost any information, anytime we like
@@GermanicWorldOrder What !!?? Stick it up your rear
I like this teacher, wish I could follow more of his lectures. I don’t care how old. I trust the genetics combined with ancient artifacts much more than just genetic studies at this point and time.
I remembers seeing whole this course at the webpage of Bilkent University.
What about the LIGURIANS Greek Ligues) and their kingdom of Alba in to-days Scottland, and the primitive name of great Britain ALBION ?
The Ligurians were a group of related ethnies that colonised nord west Europa after the last glaciation and was the predominant potency on east Europa, from Scotland to Sicily and from the.teutonic forest to
i Iberia BEFORE Arians went to chase them ( Celts, Romans, Germans...).
As non- indoeuropeans the Ligurians are Bloodgroup A Rhesus- negative
@@ezzovonachalm9815 Are they Basques?
@@MeanBeanComedy No.The Bascs lived in Euskara bevor the last Glaciation and survived in north Spain that was not covered by ice during the whole period.
@Jac K oh thank you
The Vikings did have a significant impact on the genetics and population of Britain. The main impact was from Danish not Norwegian Vikings. Genetically Danish Vikings are inseparable from Anglo-Saxons so it is hard to see the different waves of immigration.
I enjoyed your English History Lecture very much.
You're a great teacher. 😎
Had to pause because of the strangeness of this situation. Through this channel I've listened to a bunch of decade-old lectures from a particular professor at a Turkish university. Love it.
I’m loving this! Free college classes! The Israelis post great lectures too.
HillSpawn the magic of TH-cam
A link, I am in need of a Link, please!
My understanding was the Celts did not farm heavy clay soils. But the Anglo-Saxons had developed suitable plows on the North-German Plain. Thus, the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons were neighbours, occupying different types of land. The clay soi;s were more productive, which gave the Anglo-Saxons an economic advantage.
Also - The Angles/Invaeones had the Frisian cow. This wonder of nature converted swampland into cheese - something everyone wanted.
German efficiency 🤣
Yes Q Celtic were heavly into catle herding
That is a rather antiquated view. The Belgae, and they were in Southern Britain - Attrebates, Regni etc. - as well as in Gaul, had heavy ploughs, with iron shares capable of turning the sod, well before the Romans arrived in Gaul, never mind Britain. What did happen after the end of Roman rule in Britain, was that marginal land, such as drained wetland, was no longer profitable to cultivate and was abandoned. This was because the export market represented by the Roman army on the Rhine frontier had evaporated.
Heavy ploughs didn't appear until the late 9th century, long after the Anglo-Saxons had consolidated themselves in Britain and a time when the vikings were rapidly converting to Christianity.
What a fantastic tutor that man is ! Those students are very lucky.
Maybe reflects UK education. Asking questions that the lecturer might struggle with is encouraged and lecturers consider it a sign of interest and engagement with them and the topic. Some other education cultures regard it as an insult to the lecturer or the lecturer is not used to it and bluffs leading to a cascade of erroneous note taking by the students who then regurgitate the error learned by rote in test papers. Talking in stereotypes, it's an easily an often observed difference between Northwest Europe and US colleges, universities, and training programmes - hence US tends to require a PhD to demonstrate critical thinking and analysis
The French talk of hors de sol and de souche. Meaning respectively those from outside the sovereign territory and those of a native, ethnic root. It's interesting that even in the early years after the fall of Rome Europeans not only had a distinct notion of the two. But also that an intimate connection exists between peoples and the land they inhabit, and those that do not.
That is the good side of ethno-nationalism. But we have learned of the dark side that has inhibited civic- nationalism.
There was no Roman Empire.
Dr Anatoly Fomenko, "History: Fiction or Science?".
Loved this. Tracking where we’ve been through our cooties is funny and incredible.
Love that this is 10? Years old and already partly outdated. Shows just how wild & interesting genetics into archeology is.
Omg I've been trying to wrap my head around all this. Im so badly trying to learn.
What do you mean by this comment?
in the past 10 years the methods he talks about at 25:00 have gotten much better and shown how populations have changed over time genetically.
@@SnowElf_96 there have been at least 1 study of the Y chomosomes across the UK and the east side (saxon shore) have mostly Danish and Netherland Y chromosomes, almost a complete replacement. Thus the men on the east side tend to be taller, and the men from the midlands and cornwall and wales and parts of Scotland tend to be shorter (one of the man differences between the Y-Male Chromosome). The Viking/Saxon/Danish invaders where mostly male and mated with native females. The Professor doesnt cover this possibility and thus this is old.
@@Arthagnou Celtic does not necessarily mean shorter. Usually it is poor diet these days that leads to shorter populations. Keep in mind that Highlanders who are mostly Pict and Gaelic were the tallest in Europe on average over six feet tall. Today because of diet, Scotland is shorter than England.
Interesting. So what is new then?
From what piece is the opening music?
Is there a list of all the videos in this presentation and there order? This is the third one I've watched so far
Have a look into the info box. There is a link to more lessons...
Very enriching and informative. Thank you for posting.
Proud to be Anglo-Saxon and Celtic
Proud to be a prod
What did YOU do to achieve that status ? I guess NOTHING
@@SunofYork What did any of us do to achieve our ancestry? NOTHING. Looks like you understand.
@@rev1ction Hooray you think like me. I refuse to be proud of anything I didn't plan, conceive, study for, build, create, learn, research etc etc. That is why I don't like team sports and underachieving cretins puffing up and saying "We won"... They steal 'Vicarious achievement'
@@SunofYork Our very births are the results of thousands of years of our ancestors' struggles, battles, and toils. We owe them homeage and gratitude, partly done by passing on the traditions that they did to us, and by continuing the struggle to hold on to what they did for us, should it ever come under threat.
Is there an episode which isn't on Thursday or "later"?
Very interesting. Great lecturer...I could listen to him for hours.
Our Paternal Grandmother’s Father’s people come from this area of Midlands England and have Norman DNA as well as Welsh & English: The Norman is from Denmark to Normandy and York settlements. “York” comes from the name “Jorvik”. This information came from our DNA tests. Also our Scottish DNA on our Dad’s father’s line comes partly from Norway as well as “PICT” which is Celtic and the term Picture is a name given to Scots because they painted pictures on their skin, especially for battle, with bright blue coloring. Evidence in last name makeup will be “son” on the end of the father’s first name. That is a Norse style name. They will, in Norway also put Dotter or fatter on the end of the father’s first name for their girl children to this day. They also used to alternate with the mother’s last name to keep both names in a family line. So a son of Henry becomes Hendry, Henderson, Hendrison, and such, to keep it interesting. So if you show that son or Sen on the end look for a Norse line in your family.
If your ancestry is from the English Midlands, especially the East Midlands, there is no surprise that you will find Scandinavian DNA there.
That is where I'm from and there are a significant amounts of the local population with +40% (I am one of them). There is evidence everywhere, especially in place names (ending in -by which is also common in Denmark)
I would suggest your Norman DNA might well actually be from when the Jutes settled this area.
That's exciting. Thanks.
Rockefeller and rockchild peoples. Noah great great great great grandchildren. Japheth Russian Asians are related.
York and Jorvik is are just various Germanic adaptations of the Celtic toponym "Eborakon" ( Britonnic "Yew").
Using surnames to pinpoint ancestry is a bit problematic; surnames amongst the ordinary people of Britain didn't appear until the late medieval period. Trying to link a surname with "Anglo-Saxon" or "Norse" origin is therefore impossible since surnames weren't common until long after these periods of history.
The talk is from 2009 so the speaker discusses a fairly oldfashioned method of using Y-chromozones of living people to predict medieval migratrions. Nevertheles he has a nice discussion on how historians work with genetic results. He starts talking genetics at 23:20, and the two articles are introduced at 30:20.
yes this is outdated. More recent studies are much more instructive
I think in the North of England, Celtic survival was greater. There is a sheep counting system there that starts with "Yan, Tan, Tethra etc." which are Brittonic numbers. The Romano-British kingdoms like Rheged and Elmet survived into the 600s and 700s.
There are an equivalents in the south of England ...for example in the county of the Suthseaxe (South Saxons) it was One-erum, two-erum, cockerum, shu-erum, shitherum, shatherum, wine-berry, wagtail, tarrydiddle, den. It’s strange why a Celtic sheep, counting system took hold in England, but only a minuscule amount Celtic words were adopted into the English language.
@@osgar333 These terms may have come from Welsh shepherds who traversed the area. This was uncovered many years ago. Place name evidence is intersting. About 7 years ago it was realised that Leatherhead did not mean anything to do with leather but was probably derived from British for the "Grey Ford". Similarly Kent, an early site of Saxon immigration is still called Kent after the British word Cant.
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt I think you are right, though the Sussex counting system has elements of it that sound very English like wine berry and wagtail which I suppose could be Anglocised corruptions of the original words. A sort of Chinese whispers. Same thing happened with folk songs when a word was miss heard, producing lyric variations.
Just how much Roman DNA are you finding in these British groups? If a company can find Begali DNA from 61 generations ago from the late Roman period in my chromosomes, they surely can find Roman DNA from the same time in these British samples. My mother's maiden name was (dit) Barry from Baril, a Gallo-Roman word for barrier from France. Two companies say I have 14% or 17% Italian/Greek Autosomal DNA. Unfortunately there was little social pressure among Metis culture in Acadia to marry seamen from a particular background. If the British were as welcoming as some people believe, the DNA would show it. I'd like to see how the autosomal results from Brittany compares with Wales.
@@stephenelberfeld8175 Britain was always on the outskirts of the Roman Empire and was probably a bit too cold and soggy in the winter for the Romans so not many of them migrated to the British Isles. For the 400 or so years it was under Roman rule, they largely just crowned themselves the leaders of the Brittonic kingdoms and let the natives get on with their day as long as they adopted some features of Roman culture and stayed loyal to Rome. Modern British people who don't have an immediate Mediterranean ancestor are not closely related to modern Italians, the south French, the Spanish or the various ex-Roman peoples of the Balkans at all.
The entomology of the Cheshire placenames of Ince ,Tarvin and Hockenhullplatts is interesting and reflects the once wider extent of Cymru. The inscription on Eliseg’s Pillar near Llangollen in North East Wales is also a source of primary evidence of the hostile interaction between Saxon and British (Welsh) supremacy in these borderlands.
The placenames you listed are all clearly rooted in the Germanic (Old English) lexicon--not Welsh (Brythonic Gaelic), as you suggested. Aside from that, entomology is the scientific study of insects...👌🏻
Amusing to see such an ancient lecture by an historian in class of historians beginning to consider molecular biology. Age 67 now, I was molecular biologist who developed an interest in history so the second part of the video was second nature to me whereas it would have been new to the students. Gene sequencing has advanced out of all recognition from days of this talk
One thing I never hear brought up is the effect the Black Plague had on the genetic makeup of the island. Presumably there was a higher survivor rate in rural towns than the densely populated coastal cities. After the plague passed, it’s possible a lot of people migrated east from Wales, altering the geographic gene pool further. I assume you’d have to sample hundreds of bodies from the many plague pits dating to the 14th century to confirm.
Not only that, but it is inevitable that the various plagues and especially the Black Death, had differential effects on people depending on their genetics. The pre- and post-Black Death populations may have been substantially different. If you lose a third to a half of a population in one pandemic, it is a definite 'bottleneck'.
Welsh have been shown t have large amounts of anglo saxon dna also according to 2016 study.
The presentation is very easy and nice to listen to, but the maps are disappointing, as they can't be seen clearly on a TH-cam video screen. Perhaps the URL might prove to be a better source?
There aren't enough samples from the very rural Peak District. Maybe a later lecture deals with Danish Viking west-east insertion between Mercia and Northumbria along the Mersey Humber corridor. Nico (Mickle) Ditch skirting south of Manchester (Mamucium)
There was a study in 2012-2015 by Oxford looking at the genetics of the British population. They found that the English were more related to people in Southern Holland than they were to people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Their conclusion was that the Southeast English were overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon, while people in West and North England were more or less identical to people in Wales and West Country, and people in Central England were in the middle. There was a Channel 4 documentary called 'The Faces of Britain' that covered it.
However, they changed their minds later on after they tested Denmark, Prussia, Friesland and France. Most of the Anglo-Saxon signal in Southern Holland was coming from Belgium and Northern France, and they found that the Southeast English were more related to people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland than they were to people in Scandinavia, Prussia or Friesland. The conclusion was then that the English were a product of their environment, somewhere in between France, Ireland and the North Sea, similar to Southern Holland, with Anglo-Saxon ancestry being about 40%. I like this study because it deconstructs what people often assume about ancestry. There was always a connection between England and the Low Countries, plenty of trade, cultural exchange etc.
Be careful with all that rationality and logic, you won't find many other people using it in these comments
On the other hand archeological evidence along the german north sea shores points toward a discontinuity in settlements of Frisia and Anglia. If this indicates to a total mass migration towards the british Isle (roman authors describe a number of germanic mass migrations of complete tribes after all), then you could expect a complete relocation of local DNA lineages towards GB, while contemporary DNA in these areas is originating in neighboring saxon communities from the inland, withaybe little ancestral connections at all. The Saxons after all were not an ethnic group of shared ancestry, but a melting pot of different groups, connected by political and religious structures as well as by shared culture and language.
Frankly, I'm beginning to think using modern DNA in this way may end up being more misleading rather than enlightening. There is just so many things about it that we could misinterpret, or just get plain wrong, because we aren't able to take all the ways people have moved about since then into account. It's like assuming that the AS went from X to Y 1500 years ago and nobody has moved about since. Yet we know there has been an awful lot of movement since. Both at X and Y. We can't even be sure we know exactly who the AS were; were they genetically one group or were they just a generalized label for a cultural identity for various peoples living in a region? Or how has things like the Plague, all the wars, various other waves of migration from Europe and Ireland in the Medieval and later, affected those statistics?
This is why I tend to like ancient DNA better. When you can compare and match two samples of a similar date, at least you are eliminating a host of unknown factors from the equation. The problem is of course small sample sizes, so it means we aren't able to make really generalized conclusions.
@@a.westenholz4032 I agree - but it's early days. Hopefully a combination of the two approaches will sort it out.
I have had my DNA tested and although I’m born and bred in Northeast England, as are my parents and grandparents, according to the DNA test I’m more Scottish, Northern Irish and Scandinavian. I do know that both my maternal and paternal great grandfathers were from Sweden and Norway.
When I first saw the circled cross I thought of a shield boss not Christianity. As for the Ogham, while it could represent an Irish kinship it might also represent a sign of respect from the indigenous people; that this was a benevelent conqueror and pretector. It may also repesesent a form of bribery as in 'We'll put our mark on your Romish stone and you can get off our backs for awhile'.
Ogham is pronounced oam. Super lecture. Thanks for uploading.
Barry Lyons
Ogham > oam
Erdoghan > Erdoan
Did bloody Celts study turkish languages ??? !!!!
From what I understand it can be pronounced both ways.
I speak Mid-Minch Scottish Gaelic a little, so take this with a pinch of salt. Conventionally, "-gh-" next to "broad vowels" (a/à, o/ò, u/ù) represents something like [ɣ] or a voiced velar fricative. Say "Aur *R* -evoir" with a decent French accent and you have an idea of this sound. However, "ogham" seems to be an exception with this gh dropped in spoken speech, our Gaelic likes to "flow" and I do find /o:am/ or /owam/ easier than /oɣam/ to say; albeit I could be guilty of anglicising my speech a lot. I'm not sure what Irish does for this word, but I would venture what's going on is the dropping of the [ɣ] from an Old Gaelic or Middle Gaelic original which had it as the aforementioned /oɣam/ pronunciation.
Town, dun
Singidunum (Beograd)
Camelodunum (Colchester)
Ven.. finn/ gwyn, (fair)
Breizh is paired with Gallo, a variety of French, in the Loire.
Not "pushed westward " but crossed the Channel.
I think sometimes people miss the obvious, most of the military forces posted in Britain from the 3rd century onwards were from the near continent especially the low countries such as the Batavians and Tungrians, hard to believe this didnt have a significant contribution to the DNA of England
@علي ياسر .So you say, being clearly an Arab
@علي ياسر There’s no need to get hysterical. If you’re not interested in history, anthropology, linguistics, or human migration, what exactly are you doing here?
@علي ياسر there are plenty of differences between Europeans, even more between different races - if there wasnt DNA studies would be worthless... humans are made from stardust, not clay - I am afraid your imaginary friend misled you :D
@علي ياسر Humans are all equal but we're still different. That's how these genetic studies are possible.
@@herewardthewake5433 The Normans civilized England. I stopped accepting the rose tinted revisionism of Anglo-Saxon fans after reading Marc Morris.
They ended slavery. Blood feuds stopped being the normal way of deciding succession arguments.
Watch and learn:
th-cam.com/video/PQ7upWC1_aI/w-d-xo.html
I've seen other lectures on youtube that suggest the DNA of the British Isles is overwhelmingly Celtic. Even in the most non-Celtic part of the British Isles 78% of the DNA is still Celtic. So, if the Anglo-Saxons thought so little of the native Brits that they created a system of apartheid, then why didn't the Anglo-Saxon men bring their women with them? Why would you impose apartheid on a people that you are willing to mate with?
Because women in early times were viewed as property/spoils of war??? Maybe?....also you don't bring women into war dummy
They would have to outnumber the Celts on the British Isles to maintain majority Anglo-Saxon DNA. I'm guessing they didn't and over the centuries an Anglo-Saxon would have married a Celtic woman, had a mixed child who married a Celt which continued until Celt DNA became dominant.
@@ScouserLegend Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on what DNA is being studied. Humans get mitochondrial DNA only from their mothers and males get Y-chromosome DNA only from their fathers. I've never seen a good explanation for how DNA studies in Britain have been done. If most Y-chromosome DNA in England is non-Celt, while most mtDNA is Celtic, then any new arrivals came without bringing many of their women while native Celt men were killed off or driven out so their Y-chromosomes went extinct in England.
And we also don't know how the Black Death altered England's DNA. How much of the 1/3 to 1/2 of the population was Celt and how much was non-Celt?
@@christianpatriot7439 Good post. All DNA studies are hampered by the fact that the VAST majority of everyone's ancestry is lost. Only the maternal and paternal haplotypes are preserved and they make up such a small percentage. Most DNA testing sites only go back about 8-10 generations. Beyond that all you have are the ancient single-line haplotypes coming down the purely male and female lines.
The English are more Germanic than Celtic in terms of their Y haplogroups.
4:43 - 5:19 No, it doesn’t suggest that. In the eastern US, Anglo-Americans completely displaced the Indigenous Americans, but the Anglos still used plenty of Indigenous words and place names.
Why is there a chapter in this lecture titled ‘Norwegians’ but I don’t hear anything about them at all?
So "Pen Dragon" meant the "Head dragon"
In the Lament for Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Last Prince of Wales, composed about 1284 by his court poet Gruffydd ab yr Ynad Coch (Griffith son of the Red Judge) we get these lines :
Bychan lles oedd im, am fy nhwyllaw,
Gadael pen arnaf heb ben arnaw.
Pen pan las, ni bu gas gymraw;
Pen pan las, oedd lesach peidiaw.
Pen milwr, pen moliant rhag llaw,
Pen dragon, pen draig oedd arnaw.
Pen Llywelyn deg, dygn o fraw - i'r byd
Bod pawl haearn trwyddaw.
Pen f'arglwydd, poen dygngwydd a'm daw,
Pen f'enaid heb fanag arnaw,
Pen a fu berchen ar barch naw - canwlad,
A naw canwledd iddaw.
Pen tëyrn, hëyrn heaid o'i law,
Pen tëyrnwalch balch, bwlch edeifniaw,
Pen tëyrnaidd flaidd flaengar ganthaw:
Pen Tëyrnef Nef, Ei nawdd arnaw.
"It is little value (to me) .. to leave a head on me without a head on him ..." And the lines then describe the head of Llywelyn - including :
"Pen milwr ... / Pen dragon, pen draig oedd arnaw ..."
"A soldier's head ... / A dragon's head, a warrior's head was on him ..."
Then we get -
"Pen Llywelyn deg, dygn o fraw - i'r byd
Bod pawl haearn trwyddaw."
"The head of handsome Llywelyn - it horrifies the world
That an iron stake is through it."
@@gwedielwch Probably from the draco standard used in the late Roman army. A dragon would then mean a warrior who fought under the dragon. So you think Pendragon means warrior or rather hero instead of a military title?
These genetic studies would have had to be conducted in very rural areas of England, with no history of population movement, otherwise the background noise would have been too great . For example by 2000, one in four people living in England had at least one Irish Grand Parent, as the Irish are essentially a celtic norman norse cocktail, diluting the Anglo-Saxon component of the English population. Not forgetting population movements from Scotland, Wales, & Cornwall in to what was Anglo-Saxon territory
The Hebrews were the GERmans. "GER" means spear and the Hebrews fought with them (along with Bows and Arrows). Which are the German languages? English, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish: these are the Hebrew Israelite peoples. The people of Judah were sold to Greece (Joel 3.6) and became the Salvs (slaves) and the slavic orthodox.
That just about sums up my dna history over 2 thousand years on the island of Britain.
Is there anything to say whether many of the Bretons of Bretony were mostly refugees or descendants of British from what is now England and not from what is now Wales? Another question that might be asked is because Welsh DNA seems to be quite localized, how does that compare with Breton DNA or can localities be found at all which might reinforce the conclusion that the Bretons are descended from a more broadly British background.
I can't remember where I read it but supposedly yes, most of the people who fled to Armorica were from Dumnonia, which was basically Cornwall and what would later become Wessex.
Stones with Welsh inscriptions. St Malo was a Welsh monk. Cornish language is basically Welsh. Breton is spoken in Brittany in northwestern France. It shares with Welsh and Cornish an identical basic vocabulary and with all other Celtic languages the grammatical use of initial consonantic variation, which is used mainly to denote gender.
According to my genealogy I’m supposed to be related to leofric contemporary of king athelbald of Mercia 417 . Don’t know if them two are Anglo- Saxon or not
I remember at elementary school, seventy years ago, learning about thanes and serfs. (I thought this societal organization was very unfair.) It'd make sense if the thanes were invading Anglo-Saxons, and the serfs were defeated Britons, (or Welsh).
We British will never be serfs, thats something angles dreamed up
You are not British You are northumbrian. The Welsh are the British. And Anglo Saxon was the superior culture so it dominated South Scotland and what became England
Serfdom arrived with the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons had various grades of society, but at the bottom of the pile were the slaves, theowas. The laws of King Ine of Wessex speak of the theow, presumably an English slave and the theow-wealh, specifically a Welsh or British slave. So slaves could be of either nationality. Also in the laws are references to Welshmen who prosper and own considerable lands and the king's Welsh horsemen. All these 'Welsh' were not from what is now Wales, but were British - presumably demarcated by language - who were subjects of the king and living in his territory.
@@urseliusurgel4365 Yes, that makes sense. The word 'serf' is derived form Old French, via Latin 'servus', meaning slave.
@@urseliusurgel4365 Heddwch! View the faucets, and the plough. Romani invicta?
Excruciating silence from most students towards the end. Interesting lecture.
I quite like his delivery, But the place names are hard to see on the maps.
"combe" is also used in England to mean "valley", so Comberton could be the town in the valley
yep, I stopped watching when he conflated Combe with Cymru, ridiculous
I think this time it is most likely *Combrogi in this case. Like, 'cumber' in Cumberland is from *combrogi.
Combe is...also a Brittonic loanword lol
@@komnoms4359 Your face is a Brithonic loanword.
Hieronymus Jackson Brythonic is the term!
90% of the comments below totally ignore the data and just substitute their own pet theories or prejudices instead.
@Awoke Awoke Heddwch
Historically, warriors that took a new land would kill the men, marry widows, adopt their children, and make new children. I think that's likely what happened in Britannia. The equal sided cross means protector/helper and that text in the video even says protector in latin
genocide and infanticide was much more common because of language barriers .
There's theories Britain, and Ireland, were hit by meteorites in earlier centuries creating the Wastelands of Arthurian legend. Which the Jutes and Anglo-Saxons then moved into freely once they regrew a couple of centuries later.
There's also evidence of trade prior and continuing trade after.
@Betty It isn't kind to say someone or something is wrong and leave it hanging. I believe you should say what right is also. Please tell us, if you know.
This educator does a great class presentation
why are scottish, irish and scandinavian peoples included in the Anglo-saxon group?
Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Franks and all the other Germanic and Scandinavian peoples share a common origin. Genetically they are all very similar. Lowland Scotland was for centuries part of Northumbria/Bernicia and lowland Scottish DNA is essentially Anglo-Saxon. Not sure that the Irish have ever been included in this group. There was significant English and lowland Scottish (essentially English too, see above) migration to the Pale and to Ulster but that was centuries later.
Most people in the UK are over 50% Celtic still
@@jemmajames6719 Not the English.
@@UstashaMe84 Yes, they are, most English people still have more Celtic DNA than anything else.
@@jemmajames6719 So does spanish, frankish, germanic and scandinavian aswell, Celts and proto-german people are beaker bell culture and corded ware culture, they lived and and had similar but different way of life, the word for spanish peninsula is Iberia, Hibernia, Celtiberians and celtic graves have been dug up there, same with lowland germany, celts in Hollstatt. The Norse and Swedes where a bit more cutoff although Goths are from Sweden and Estonia and northern Poland. Danes were Jutes, Angles and Saxons, Suiones, Suebia, Suevians and probably Swedes or closely related to Swedes and Goths.
Old English is closely related to High German, Old Norse. Old English "Ic haebbe syx ond twentig feoh bütan min hüs" I have twentysix cattle/fee/sheep inside/outside my house. Swedish: "Jag har tjugosex får/fä/Kor utanför mitt hus"
We are all conntected and related. DNA shows it, R1A and R1B Y-dna are subclades of I1 and I2 Y-dna mainly found in Scandinavia, the reason I1-I2 are still dominant in Scandinavia and not r1a and r1b is because the people who stayed and not went on migration during migrationperiod or viking age kept their homogenetic group the same, while R1A is I1-I2 mixing with Brits, scots, welsh, irish, picts.
Angles and Saxons who already assimilated 400 years earlier and a touch of roman DNA. R1B is the spread of I1-I2 where Vikings went east into Russia, Eastern and southern Europe, Middle Eastern areas etc etc, intermingled with local Slavic, Urgalic and Ethnic groups on the east.
The I1 and I2 Y-dna on ancient DNA's can be traced back to 25-40 000 years and even some studies show they originated from Anatolia Central Asia and parts of the Levant/Samaria and also went back and Assimilated again in the Levant and Middle Eastern parts of the world way before the viking age probably as far back as Hellenistic times before roman empire.
You don't get 'one of your mother's X's'. The process of forming a gamete (sperm or egg) involves a Reduction Division to ensure that each gamete contains half the correct number of chromosomes for that species - in other words it is a half-cell, ready to fuse with another half-cell of the other type, thus restoring the correct number of chromosomes in the zygote which is then ready to develop into an embryo (via normal non-reduction cell division). During the reduction division to form an egg or sperm, paired (homologous) chromosomes within the cell align together and replicate, so there are four copies of each numbered chromosome lying together in the cell. The next stage is that these chromatids cross over each other, so that the genes of each chromosome are shuffled. The chromatids then pull apart to make four new chromosomes with a *new combination of genes* compared to, for example, the original X chromosomes. So, you don't know what you may have inherited in the recombinations of genes caused in the formation of eggs and sperm.
You're the one for me, Fati.
So where was this lecture given? It seems to be at an American university.
Turkey.
You can tell a teacher with a passion for his subject!!!
Good, but this is one that needs a visual component.
I love the olde school overhead slide projector!
I wish I could take this course, it is very interesting.
What does the purple patch mean along the Welsh border. Im from Shropshire so its interesting to me
Possibly Offa's Dyke built by Offa, King of Mercia 757. Later given to the Marcher (border) barons by Wm 1
@@irenejohnston6802 lomkkllk
lmk
lnkkm llllkkkklkkkkkkkkkkkkkkokkokmkmkm
Thank you for these excellent lectures.
Btw the student question re Arian cross, though it gives rise to an interesting discussion re types of cross and sect - maybe circle in cross equals Celtic Church? - is I think, the student seeing a coincidental resemblance of symbols and names between Arian and Aryan and the Celtic cross and a neo-Nazi symbol.
They are all the same symbol. Found on every piece of land, by every people & culture on the planet. Representing creation and return to Spirit. Represents north, south, east, west. Represents the sun, earth, fire, water. Represents Union and oath keeping.
Referred to as a Celtic cross in the Middle Ages to help ease Christianity into the culture. The fylfot or gammadion is the quintessential sun-wheel.
Also found all over the planet. Spinning clockwise represents prosperous life, daytime. Spinning counterclockwise represents night, death.
Don't understand why people keep using the phrase swastika. Known by many names that no one seems to know. Gives too much credit to Nazis...
@@elliot3197 Arianism did exist at the time, Arius lived around 300 AD, long before the first Angles and Saxons came to Britain (5th century). Nevertheless the shown ringed cross was a Celtic cross, probably without any reference to Arianism.
But how can you be so sure the Saxons didn't think they were a superior race or people (similar to the Nazis) when they treated the defeated Britons as slaves and established a sucessful apartheid system? (The term "Welsh" - referring to all Britons/Celts - was identical with "slave/serf" back then.) Obviously, there's quite clear evidence...
lol the professor low key grills his students
Long time ago - I used to have lots of carefully prepared ohp acetates for my class teaching and one-off talks. Took ages to make good ones with Letraset but worth it for the impact. PowerPoint was faster but led to lots of lazy slides by many tutors
The male child's birthright and lineage goes through his father with the Y-DNA.
The Germans would call all the messing around with the overheads death by foil. Foil is the German name for an overhead. LOL
They are called viewfoils, hence death by foil.
Don’t forget the Jutes.
Which DNA tests will show the best earliest ancestry?
Can any one tell about a chieftain in area around London named Goody not are spelled right but my grandmother name Goodison, I was told he was a chieftain around 300 to 400 before 1st king of England and before Roman's. Sorry I don't know how to explain my question better.
His common law wife was called Gumdrop and she went by the name of Goody-Gumdrop
Excellent lecturer.
While the DNA aspect is interesting, and might possibly help though it could also be misleading after all this time, there is one incontrovertible fact about Anglo-Saxon England that is inescapable; the fact that people ended up speaking English. Think about what that means. Compare it even to the Normans and the fact that while they were the French speaking ruling elite of a unified country for more than 200 years, the common people NEVER adopted French, but rather the opposite, the elite ended up adopting the language of the majority. And that is a clear cut case of conquest and domination.
The amount of people, cultural and linguistic dispersion it takes for a language to be generally adopted by everyone, is evidence of a rather large scale migration and probably over an extended period of time. I don't think it was an invasion in the literal sense, though there was likely conflict at times, just a general movement of peoples brought about by various factors in the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire. So as in Brittany, there probably was generalized areas of settlement by the different groups at first, but over time those distinctions would get blurred, and eventually disappear. One might also wonder if the reason why the SE corner of England had so few Celtic place names, might have more to do with its Roman past, and in being the earliest to be resettled by AS migration. I mean I would like to have seen a comparison to how many surviving place names there are of Roman origin in that area.
Almost. English is a hybrid language, with two words for practically everything. The monosyllabic spoken one is Germanic, the polysyllabic scholarly one is Latinate. The unforgettable example given to me in grad school is rather robust, but let's just say that the Latinate word is intercourse; you can probably figure out what the Germanic one is.
@@robblack5248 I think that is a somewhat oversimplified way of thinking about it. As, without too much of trouble, it isn't hard to think of a word or two of Germanic origin in English that is polysyllabic. Like window, husband, etc. Though I agree that there is a very rough general trend for the Germanic in English to be the shorter monosyllabic words, but it is only a very broad generalization, so not all that helpful in the long run IMO.
Further I'm not sure what this had to do with what I wrote, since the Latin comes from the Medieval use of scholarly Latin slowly infiltrating English through its academic and technical use, especially in the Renaissance.
@@a.westenholz4032 Old English and modern English are so significantly different in their pronunciation and vocabulary as to be mutually indistinguishable. Even someone speaking middle English likely wouldn't understand prenorman old English. For a language to change so much so fast really draws into question whether or not it can be called the same language. At the very least the French changed the English as much as vice versa.
@@eimhinduffy5736 The problem with assessments like that is, from what I understand, that because in the period of OE and the development into ME has a scarcity of linguistic sources, we can't really know how it exactly it changed, except that it did. We know it changes during the Viking period, since the basic grammatical structure of English fundamentally shifts to something only otherwise found in Scandinavia. This gives modern day English grammatical similarities to the Scandinavian, but not found in other Germanic languages, i.e. nor in the OE AS heritage. So this is one very important step from OE into ME, but there are few if any sources to document this betwixt and between phase. Most would probably consider it early ME, but most of the sources we have for 800-1000 are in Latin not English.
Great lecture.
Thank you for uploading this.
Nice presentation, but he does not acknowledge the staying power of the native Britons. Most of them survived and were integrated into English society and cultures. Just look at how modern English does not have the suffixes that German does. That speaks volumes for the impact the native Britons had on the new land now called England. A word's meaning had more to do with its placement in a sentence, just as it did in the native Brythonic/Celtic tongue!
Also, the love of individual freedom and liberty is NOT a German attribute. It is a Celtic attribute. Just take a look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It reeks of Celtic/Brythonic virtue!! Just look at the Scottish lowlands that were populated with Anglo-Saxon freedom lovers that swore never to bend their necks in submission to the tyrannical Anglo-Norman crown after the Battle of Hastings in 1066AD! Many of their descendants eventually made it to America where they formed the backbone of the Appalachian pioneers!
The staying power of the Britons is usually sidelined in standard British history.
Certainly the Anglo-Saxon system of claiming/being given plots of land to farm and call their own was a more rigid system and may have had an element of feudalism even though it predated the widespread version the Normans applied to the Anglo-Saxon/Briton population.
English isn't German because of the danelaw. Essentially English is a Danish language with Anglo Saxon vocabulary. This very different from modern german. Google translate English into Swedish (East danish) it works, syntax and all. Now try English to German....You can't
Viking settlement and then the Norman conquest had the greatest impact on the original OE (Old English) spoken and written by the English population (whatever their genetics). Word endings were lost to facilitate mutual understanding between Viking settlers and natives, and then for some centuries after the Norman invasion, English ceased to be written as Norman French was the language of the ruling elite. When writing and use of English as the official language later resumed, it was radically changed, not only by the use of the large number of Norman French synonyms of OE words, but by the loss of the continuity with the earlier written language. ME (Middle English)) was the result.
@@frankklein4872 Danish is a derivative of the German. The Hebrew peoples - the people of Israel - were taken into captivity by "Assyria" which is probably STILL the Tribe of Dan. You must distinguish between the tribes. British - means "Birthright". You won't learn that in school.
Ireland was really advanced due to their interactions through shipping, particular families that migrated there, and established education in their pre-Patrick and post Patrick era.
There is History that is just ignored by Mainstream Academia and certain Countries, but it is real and valid, and will eventually be recognized as Authentic Academics continue to give value of data through a variety of Peer Reviewed or Qualifying works.
I'm sorry, but England was vastly superior to Ireland and Scotland /Wales. As the modern day English had the superior culture...
Appears that only one student worked on the genetics reading. The others maybe couldn't understand them and made no effort. Amusing to see them all dive down to write notes from that student's questions to lecturer and answers to the lecturer's questions!
Did he say white people do not come from Germany ?
Not from Germany , whatever . Damn sure not from Africa .
Depends what you mean by white... if you mean fair hair and fair eyes then no, they didn’t come from Germany - they came from the Russian steppes - I believe they were the first to domesticate horses and cows - they entered India and they came on towards Europe - that’s why Hitler was obsessed with ancient India! Europeans of the time were sort of white but they were originally from the near and Middle East wheat farmers/pastoralists etc so they didn’t speak an indo-European language, they didn’t have fair features etc so yeah, they’re not really white in the conventional sense - skin colour really isn’t the best indicator of anything much lol... we need to get over it!
Once upon a time north Africa was populated by white people. They built a sphinx and some pyramids
@@jermalnash4548 look at the earliest mummies and you will see Ptolemaic, or you could call them Greek.
@@redshift1223 The earliest mummies? Hardly Ptolemaic, eh? Do you know anything about this? Hardly, again. This will will situate your mind, hopefully: but it is a difficult question for the most fuckwitted - th-cam.com/video/1rcQO9oadp8/w-d-xo.html
@@jermalnash4548: applause... (sure one cannot blame the poor guy, he probably watched too many Hollywood films :))
Some more subtle way caused the spead of the Anglo-Saxon DNA, because the archaeology doesn't show really evidence of fighting, villages found from that period don't show burned Wood from the houses, there are not many violently died corpses, as fights would produce - like we find from the Viking age, and the War of the Roses time etc.
Well there is some argument about whether or not the archaeological record shows evidence of destruction (carbon layers) but proving how a building burnt down, whether by deliberate destruction or accident, is impossible. Mass slaughter would not necessarily be evident as unburied bones would not survive and burial pits are not common even for later wars eg the ECW. Gildas, Nennius, Bede and the A-S Chronicle all record a period of incessant warfare with the Welsh/Britons being relentlessly pushed back. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The DNA evidence is the most exciting development in archaeology for some time.
@@matthewhumphreys6100 I was citing the archaeologs from a document when they were on their site. They said that Est England specifically didn't have any layers of these burned doen structures from that time period, earlier and later periods did. And that was all along the sites they had studied in the east coast, and nowadays they can use the Computer images even to figure out the places of the anceint villages. Some they haven't even dug open, because they show clear signs of no destruction from the preiod. They might open them later.
Bede has been found to say politocally partial things, and after the time when some of the incidents took place: so partially it's heresay, and politically favouring some populations, which has always been common in writing history. Yet I'm not of course saying all he wrote is incorrect. But mere tongues without evidence… tricky.
And I know about the DNA findings: doesn't show much 'layers' left from the Anglo-Saxon era, maybe 5-10% depending the part of the country. But interestingly, neither has the Celtic era left more traces.
Most British and Irish Still have majority of their DNA from the old Western European stock, which make sthe Basques their closest blood reltives, and of course the French have that heritage too. But it's Pre-Celtic, older European ancestry.
So languages can change even quickly with just a small ruling class. If you want an office in the country, you better know the majority language. Welsh and Scottish still suffer from this, or Irish.
So now I see the situation like this: when the Romans left, that left a military vacuum: there was no Celtic army system: some had been accepted to the Roman armies, but not enough. And they left surprisingly little genetic marks - which could be told apart from the Normans. The Romans really left Britannia, the civil population with the legions. The officials didn't want to stay stamping their stamps once the muscle was gone.
So the people in those times were not more stupid than we: I think the anglo-Saxons had scouted this, they had been conducting business in Engladn, and other Germanic tribes in the Roman territory.
Especially those Germanic troops serving in the Roman military certainly involved those who passed their knowledge to their kinsmen in the East. The Anglo-Saxons, like the legendary Horst and Hengist, had noted the Roman legions leaving Britannia, they don't move without noticing. So they came over the sea before any time to form a functioning military was possible. Certainly there were Romano-Celtic warriors who could hold a sword - but they just didn't have the numbers.
So it was kind of coup. Once the Anglo-Saxons had established their foothold in the East Coast, they slowly moved westwards. Some recent findings in Eastern England not found in the West show the remnants of the houses from that period build in the continental Germanic style. And genetics show those effects, but not a wipe out of the previous inhabitants.
The newcomers mixed with the locals, with some of them at least. And most importantly: their langauge became the ruling one in the East. This is important, because then there is the difference in culture and mentality of the neighbouring nations, and easily wars ensue.
So the reports from the Western England are much more evident, and well documented. But that happened after the East Coast of the Anglo-Saxons had been born. That, the evidence hints, didn't happen with much violence.
When the Vikings (Danes) came to stay in North England, there was more killing, more ethnic cleansing. But once again: not a total annihilation. The peaceful coexistance started, mostly in the Northern England, the Danelaw area - why the Geordies likely have such a peculiar accent in the southerners ears (adding to that the mix of industrial boom). That is, before William the Conqueror brought the Norman element to the soup.
Hengest and Horsa were invited by the Welsh to slaughter the troublesome picts. Hired by Utha Pendragon and all
If my families last names are Pierce, Hawkins, Wiseman, Hungerford, is there a probability I am anglo -saxon derived?
Definitely
Fantastic lecture.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY -found that native Brit DNA in the UK is 70% whereas anglo-saxon is just a third - so that shows the natives never went away, but are the MAJORITY.
R1b are attractive people, generally. Especially the women.
The upcoming study from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History uses a greater sample of 80 Anglo-Saxon skeleton genome sequences, and have determined Anglo-Saxons replaced 80% of the DNA in Britain. The downplaying of Anglo-Saxon DNA in modern English people is outdated, sorry.
My H2 maternal haplogroup is 95% Irish, 3% Neanderthal, and 2% Sardinian.
@@VikingMuayThai on the 23 & me test, it also said i was in the top 95% Neanderthal around 3%.
@@blossomjoseph5541 I mean, this is just bollocks. The only way to tell a haplogroup is through genetic testing. There's no way of knowing whether someone is of a certain haplogroup just by looking at them.
Its likely that eastern Britain had had migration from the continent from time immemorial. Slow and low level but over time it would have made a significant DNA difference. They would have been assimilated culturally in that time and then came the Anglo Saxon tribes in greater numbers.
The Celtic R1b was found in 87% of pre muslim invasion British DNA. In varying amounts of coarse. The women are usually very attractive.
@Clint its all very interesting. It is hard to believe the neolithic farmers built Stonehenge 2500 BC, way before the Celtics.
@@blossomjoseph5541 the Muslims never got further than the approximate position of the modern day border between Spain and France, unless you are trying to make some modern political/religious point, hence there was no invasion.
From all the videos/lectures like this and documentaries I've watched and academic papers I've read, I'd certainly agree the Celtic signature never went away and could be dominant in certain regions of modern Britain/UK. But the documentary and research shown in a BBC series some years ago showed that of all the findings, they couldn't separate Danes and Jutes from Angles and Saxons so grouped that all as Anglo-Saxon. Celtic signatures were not strong or distinct anyway except Ireland, even in Dublin where Norwegian Vikings ruled for a while. Most surprising of all (and shocking to some Scots) was that they found no strong or dominant Celtic signature in Scotland. Scotland was almost all the same as England, i.e. Anglo-Saxon. Which just shows how much mixing there's been between Scotland and England for over 1500 years!
@@mikephillips8810 I take it you have never been to England, they are everywhere.
@@jedimonk5810 😀😀
remember going to cork and kerry,first thing that struck me was the people taliking like welsh folk, same sound,same when met dannish girl i knew was same sound as folk in orkney when went there .the amount of accents in uk is great for a small island
Did the Scotti chase the Picts south, resulting in the Picts fighting the Pritens, resulting in the latter writing for military help from the Angles?
England was an Anglo-Saxon creation . that is a fact . no doubt
I didn't realise this utube site is made by different contributors.
Sadly not all are as well researched as this guy obviously is.
You need to stop the American contingent talking nonsense about English history.
Their version of pre Norman English history is absolutely terrible.
Colleagues from several universities & museums inc MOL .
Are listing the worst offenders, misinformation.
Because youngsters are being told things by people who shouldn't be allowed to speak about things they don't understand.
Love this guy & this video. 👍👍👍
What?
I read the srticles from the EU population DNA studies done since 2005 that there has been NO DNA found that in living people that are represented of 'angles' or descendents from those germanic tribes called 'angles' of which was a small tribe in the first place, anyway. So either they didn't arrive or were all dealt with and became extint.
Good teacher!
14:11 "Pseudo Latin?". Don't be afraid of your ancestry.
One of my family names is Titta and there's a town called Titley in Herefordshire.
Church dates to around 600 so based on this lecture sounds about right👍
Think Titta was a "Westerna". Not sure if Saxon/Jute/or Angle.
P.s lots of Welsh names in Titley so there wasnt a huge massacre of people etc. In fact Titley has a Welsh saint.
I had a Welsh Grandmum also.
Saxon Coins didn't start being minted in Britain until around the
mid 7th century 650 ad onwards.
And I am sure the first phrase regarding that coin was....... ' may I borrow for a pint'
@@charlesbukowski9836 lol probably
Voot Culture G?
Prof. Thor nton might look up an image of Woden's Wheel and discover what it was used for? Helpful hint: The Cross was used for thousands of years before Christ for calculating angles in astronomy to determine date, time of the month and some folks were able to navigate using a cross, woden's wheel and an almanac. It was in fact a very Celtic thing! There is a rather HUGE assumption that the Sons of Saka were different from the Celts who were living on the Isles before the Yingly Saxons & Baalgis crossed the Channel. Brigga lived in Britain before Phrigga arrived!
It's a solarcross and is a pagan symbol especially celtic germanic origin. Christians had the fish as a symbol. The cross god adopted by converted Normans, Crusaders from former pagan lands thats why the templars use a suncross and not a crucifix. The Suncross is a symbol for fertility the sun and each four seasons of the year.
@@godsaveme A temple was a place for measuring time & a cross was a maji instrument If you have two sticks, a piece of string & some Knowledge then you have a calendar, clock & GPS & you can make maps. twitter.com/GordBolton/status/1009580420818759685?s=20
@@godsaveme Be careful about the fish, which can also depict Dagon, the Philistine "god".
No Frisians?
There was less of them than the Jutes and there were much less Jutes than the Angles and Saxons
@@ASP1NALL Which is strange considering the geographical advantage they had compared to the Jutes & Angles.
Frisians=Jutes....
@@Arthagnou no
Thank you for this. our view of the Anglo Saxon migration owes a great deal to the story of Vortigern's Tower which I tell on my TH-cam channel)
When the Romans arrived in Britain they said that most people in what we call English now, were tall with blue eyes and fair hair and were extracted from the Gaul from what is northern France/Holland now but the Welsh had brown eyes and brown hair with olive skin and were extracted from the Spanish. So surely mass migration from the northwest of Europe had been going on prior to the Roman invasion of Britain hence accounting for the massive genetic footprint of the peoples of that region in Britain today.
Documented accounts of people in NW Europe (Gauls, Germans, Celts, Caledonians) from the Greeks and Romans were described them as large limbed, often redheads (probably only notable since red hair was uncommon in Mediterranean areas) with blue eyes; a famous example being Boudicca. Red heads were hated by the Romans for whatever reason - there are recorded accounts of massacres of redheads in Roman occupied Britain. The areas of Britain outside of the South East of England have been found to contain surprisingly large amounts of genetic variation. As popularly described (by English historians of a certain age), the inhabitants of Britain were not all 'short and dark' when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Neither were the Anglo-Saxons all tall blondes. 2000 years ago many different tribes occupied the lands of Britain. Today almost all North-Western Europeans are a mix of early European hunter-gatherers, middle-eastern farmers, more Easterners who arrived in the bronze age and the Yamnayan from the eastern Caucasus who brought Indo-European languages and lactose tolerance to Europe.
@@Irene-im8xiHi I have reason to believe that Boudicca had yellow hair definitely not red. I except all that about eastern farmers and Yamnayans. My point is that mass immigration from northwest Europe where the Anglo-Saxons come from would have been going on for thousands of years prior to the Roman invasion which could account for the massive genetic footprint they've left in what is now England. this seems to tally with Tacitus's writings that the people of southeast England were fair-haired and blue-eyed.
Did they? I have never heard of that distinction in history before. Be great if you could share that source.
Seems doubtful as Wales as an entity didn't exist before or during Roman occupation. It was a series of independent kingdoms hundreds of years after the Romans left.
The term 'welsh' also meant something completely different.
@@andreashessler838 Yes of course Wales didn't exist then I meant that region we call Wales today anyway I have the source of the information. I read it in Stephen Oppenheimer's book The Origins of the British page 69, where Tacitus talks of the dark complexions of the Silures.
@@scantii2117 Which only refers to the people of south east Wales, the rest of the people of what is now Wales such as the Demetae and Ordovices presumably looked like regular Britons.
There is nothing “controversial” about DNA genetics and migration. Absurd description.
What a difference a decade makes...so much more information available on this topic now that millions of people have taken DNA tests.
Where they Africans?
@@kilgoretrout6136 no
@@kilgoretrout6136 Maybe it's seen as controversial in the academic sense. IE, there are several ongoing debates when it comes to reconstructing languages and beliefs due to knowledge gaps.
DNA tests are virtually useless, do not waste your coin
DNA is only controversial because it goes against the WOKE philosophy of all people are the same?? When it is proven scientific fact that contradicts the WOKE the proven facts are cancelled by the WOKE.
Well some are "linear" to Neanderthals...
or rather some of us are somewhat directly descended from neanderthals, but the bulk of our dna is not
~NOT!
The Neandertal DNA in some modern humans is genetic baggage. It was picked up from lines of direct descent that subsequently died out: like from a father that had daughters but no sons, so his line died out. There are neither Neandertal mtDNA, nor Neandertal Y-chromosomes extant in living humans, so there are no maternal or paternal Neandertal bloodlines (lines of descent) left in modern humans. That is what "linear" descent means.
@@Tipi_Dan "neanderthal" is mythical - "humans" are primates.
@@Tipi_Dan
I apologize, it was my dry humor. 😉
I was hoping to find out who killed all the "English Males", including male children.
The current are largely Germanics (1 century Romans, Vikings, Anglos, Saxons, Yutes, Normans: all Germanics)
I find it odd that 98% of the original English male DNA disappeared. (No one addresses the obvious, there was mass Ethnic Cleansing and it took place after the Romans) they wouldn't kill what they could enslave.
I'm just saying ...
I know the early English were very much Basque like the Welsh and Irish, and this (Irish) is a subject I have researched deeply through History, Genetics, and DNA Mapping. I feel quite blessed as the Irish go, my lineage is Counties Kerry and Cork, and the 2 counties are the most prevalent in retaining the Original base Basque DNA. We have the higher % Basque DNA and Rh(-) blood type.
I'm 3rd generation Irish American. (My great grandparents had a habit of needing to eat.)
I just know there a chunk of History that has been, "misplaced" ... I'm guessing Queen Vicki might be a good candidate.
I don't think anyone before her would have lost sleep over the subject. (Or it could be when the Name change to Windsor was made.)
Beth
aka Mary Beth (Sociologist, Journalist, Historian)
@@bethbartlett5692 Do you mean the Brythonic peoples when you say "the Early English"? If so, then yes you have some of a point. Bearing in mind that "Englishness" itself is founded upon real or imagined descent from Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Still, there are still plenty of people around who can trace their lines of descent to Brythonic roots. The once common supposition that the Anglo-Saxons conducted genocide is superseded. Yet the principle holds if we go back considerably further in time to the Late Neolithic. Genetic evidence appears to reveal there was a mass die-off and mass replacement of bloodlines in Britain (and the western fringe of Europe) then. I'm not sure of the exact timeframe but it began at the beginning of the second millennium BCE and was over before that millennium played out (correct me if I'm wrong). This occurred when the first ("Anatolian") agriculturalists in Britain who built the megaliths were replaced by the "Bell Beaker People", a first wave of incoming cattle herders from the east. The actual causes of the die off are unknown. Conflict may have been involved, but more likely is the newcomers brought in zoonotic diseases, such as cow pox, which the Neolithic Farmers had no resistance to.
Loving this, but damn I wish either the overheads, or the camera was in focus 😅
Duh. Took a long time before the cross was noticed. What does that say about the audience? They miss the obvious?
What I think is that at the end of the Roman period, most British men were not trained in fighting from an early age because the Romans had a professional army with professional soldiers. Fighting simply wasn't part of British culture at the time. The Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, were trained to fight from an early age. They were a warrior culture. So when the Roman legions left the Britons were sitting ducks when the Anglo-Saxons came over. The Anglo-Saxons came over and enslaved the Britons. Only the Britons in the West learned how to fight.
The Britons in the west had still been fighting the Romans - the Welsh hung on in North Wales and Anglesey, Hadrians wall is quite far south of the Scottish border and Antonines wall was a last attempt to cut off the Scots/Early Viking peoples- in fact the Roman army were busy up north fighting the Welsh when Boudicca and the Icini ravaged the south coast and Roman capital of Colchester - she certainly knew how to fight! One also must remember that many of the Germanic tribes were already here as mercenaries - with their paymasters gone they simply decided to stay and fill the power vacuum - they then invited the rest of their buddies over etc etc... there is truth in what you say - most Britons had become subdued or ‘civilised’ but many could still put up a decent fight! The power vacuum was also cultural vacuum etc etc...
Everyone was a slave, and had been a slave for hundreds of years in Eastern -Middle England, before the Romans pulled out. The Anglo-Saxon invasion was right on the heels of the Romans pulling out. The Romans that pulled out didn't make it as far as the Pyrenees before they were annihilated by other Germanic tribes. There was little Anglo-Saxon movement into Wales and Cornwall because the population was armed and not slaves of the Romans; they fought back. The Ogham stones demarcated the territory of the Scoti from the north of Ireland. The Scoti, (Scots) controlled the Irish Sea and traded as far east as Rome in the Med. They had 600 large ships when Rome left. Brittany was invaded and settled by the Scots as the Romans retreated. Brittany then lasted as an independent entity for hundreds of years, keeping the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks at bay.
@@raymondmartin8002 I think "everyone was a slave" is overstating the situation, but I agree that the Britons in South-East England were domesticated and lost the ability and will to fight, unlike those in the North and West.
raymond martin yes, I’d agree absolutely! I think the Ogham stones are much, much older though, no? The Scotti (just the Latin name for the Gaels) only became known as Scots after they successfully invaded Scotland, pushing the Picts into the extreme north east of Britain... the Gaels themselves were not the authors of Ogham... they were Celts from the continent - the Goidelic languages are more closely related to the continental Celtic languages than either are to the Brythonic languages... and Breton travelled from Britain to France not the other way around! The Welsh are the true indigenous - everyone else is pretending lol (edit - I’m English with no welsh ancestry - just so you know lol)
@@Alex_Plante, actually, in the countryside everyone pretty much was a slave in Roman territories, and the Urban population that wasn't slaves certainly weren't trained warriors, by and large. Rome as a civilization was entirely based on slavery, so without the Roman Army, the Anglo-Saxon-Jute mercenaries who'd served the Romans and been given land after their service were perfectly placed to replace the Romans as landlords, with a little help from their European kin, and the slaves became "peasants" and "serfs." That structure, later called Medieval, didn't really change until the Black Death: an agricultural worker's life in England (at least the Roman parts) was little different in 300 AD than it was in 1200 AD, in terms of rights and freedoms.
That's not a christian cross - it's a pagan sun-cross en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_cross
yes thank you, so clearly not a "t" cross
All British people are most closely related to other Brits than to anyone outside of Britain. So English are closer to Scots than to Dutch for instance. Those of eastern /south eastern English ancestry are likely to have more Germanic admixture than their more western and northern counterparts. This reflects where the Germanic tribes had the most impact culturally as well as genetically . There seems to have been a certain amount of replacement of local population in some eastern areas but it didn't last in a genetic sense because 1) eventually mixing occurred , and 2) Modern Brits are still very similar to Roman Britons and Iron Age Britons , partly because the Germanic tribes weren't that different from them genetically in the first place.
Yes the people of Britain have more Celtic DNA than Anglo Saxon
Seems like the professor is the only English speaker there which is also interesting.
Proud of my Anglo-Saxon ancestors
You have every right to be. Those were some sturdy and hardcore chaps.
In six century vulcan in indonesia erupted and couse 5-7 years no summer on north hemisfere. Crops are failed. Hunger in entire europe. Than plague from Egypt. Between 30-50% population on mediteran died. And Britain was part of roman world. Lots of pottery from east mediteran datet in 5-6 century is find in England wich suggest strong trade. So plague is definitely come in Britain and killed probably have of population. Entire europe is on move. Crops failed everywhere. Slavs move sauth on balkan were local population is devastated becouse of wars and plague. Germans move into northern Italy(longobards) ,France and Britain. Becouse isolation Germans and Slavs are probably less hurt by plague. So when anglosaxons come into Britain in mass ,country is probably more or less empty. Interesting , in that time British also migrated sauth. Bretania in France. Everybody goin in warmer eria. Theory wich explain everything. But this professor doesn't mentioned anything obout. Britannia is part of Europe with or without brexit. Just watch bigger picture
Tartaria was the empire kings queens chieftains broke up the empire a world event which starved and genocided half the world hybrazil sank to the bottom of the Irish sea and Celtic closer islands.from Gaul France the de dannen.danue Irish survivors of hybrazil stayed and moved from Ireland with the phinisions aswell to build the Americas to help with the Roman Greco buildings in the past as Well
The sea peoples
I have heard this theory before, and it may be an interesting one to explore
Yes, climate decline in the mid 6th C, due to several possible causes (volcanic, meteor etc), probably led to migration south to Brittany and northern Spain, to avoid starvation.
Germans and slavs. Interesting, because the German Hebrews are Israel and the Slavs are of Judah.
Kind of a drag that the students cannot be heard and it screws up that part of the video.
I used to have a teacher who would breifly repeat the question they were asked for exactly that reason before answering for was actually super helpful when someone was across the room, I wish more teachers did the same thing. It takes 2 seconds but vastly increases learning in a lecture like this
So the circle around the crucifix is purely structural and nothing to do with the zodiac symbolism?
The circle is a halo and represents divinity. The halo in ancient times could be represented as a circle or as rays, both representing the sun. The halo in ray form was used as a crown and is where the classic zigzag crown comes from, it's also why the Statue of Liberty has a crown of spikes - it's actually a halo. The halo surrounding the cross is an obvious association.