Just because the the early 'Anglo-Saxon' in habitants of Britain did not identify themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon, does not invalidate the label 'Anglo-Saxon' given to them. The inhabitants of what is now termed 'Celtic' Britain and Europe did not identify themselves as 'Celtic' at the time. Neither did people in what we term 'Medieval' societies identify as Medieval. These terms are useful identifiers to label particular cultural, political, linguistic and social phenomena in order to give coherent historical timeline. The current attack on the term Anglo-Saxon has its origins in people who have a particular political axe to grind and an agenda to undermine identities they don't like.
I think it's made complicated by people who don't understand why academics are challenging these definitions. If we say everything that's within x area is Anglo-Saxon, because that's how it was taught we fail to see how things changed, developed and how much each region was so different and unique in this period. I think there's not a push to invalidate or have an agenda in the UK. The USA I'd agree a lot more with, but it's a small group of Academics not the whole bunch. Also I don't use Celtic as it's so wrong and tied up in nationalism way more than Anglo-Saxon is.
@@AlexIlesUK Whilst there may be a legitimate debate about the spread of (for want of a better phase) ‘Anglo-Saxonisation’ over the regions in England, this is no different to the Romanisation that progressed, over a period of time, that is encompassed in what is termed ‘Roman Britain’. A term that is not under the same threat. However, the current ‘Anglo-Saxon’ controversy is not driven primarily by legitimate academic debate, but by a small number of socio-political activists within academia who usually end up getting their way. A case in point is the subversion of the International Association of Anglo-Saxonists. A virulent campaign was launched against its name led by its 2nd Vice President Rambaran-Olm. Her main concern was a more inclusive future for Medieval studies and the dislike of the term Anglo-Saxon which she associated with white-supremacism. When she initially did not get her way, she resigned. Then several ‘academic’ activist groups weighed in (including Queerdievalists, The Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship and Medievalist of Colour) and her cause was also supported by the likes of Adam Miyashiro (whose article ‘Decolonising Anglo Saxon Studies’ betrays his particular motives). The IAAH did what all establishments do when faced with a cancel-culture backlash and a fear of being labelled ‘racist’ - they capitulated and changed their name.
This is very interesting, and I guess you could say that many people have an agenda. Some seem to want to look at the Anglo Saxon period as foundational and downplay the various peoples (apart from the Danes) who inhabited the land. Simply labeling these people as Celtic or even Briton may not be sufficient and may be hiding some interesting connections.
@@brachiator1 I guess you could say that the Anglo Saxon period is foundational in that it witnessed, in earliest times, Germanic tribal incursions that then led to the establishment of individual kingdoms which eventually coalesced into the single nation 'England' that exists today. There is, of course, a sizeable amount of pre-Anglo Saxon genes in the mix but all were subsumed into a common English speaking identity along with aspects of their original culture. The same can be said of the Scot's incursions from Ireland into Northern Britain which led to them eventually absorbing Pictish, Brythonic and former English Northumbrian areas (in the Lothian area) into a Scottish Kingdom.
Fascinating stuff as always and it's exciting to be alive during the unfolding of such an elusive aspect of British history. Nothing brings us closer to the past than trying to understand how the past saw itself in its present.
@@AlexIlesUK Please do. And whilst I'm here, I'd also like to invite you to the Jarrow Hall Museum & Anglo-Saxon farm. I'm a collections volunteer there, but I also get involved in experimental archaeology sector at the Museum. We recently received some funding and will be refurbishing a lot of the village. There are already plans to paint the thirlings in the main hall with authentic Saxon art. We're currently in the process of installing a beehive centre, with authentic Saxon 'skeps'.In the near future, the museum will also be setting up a wooden replica of the auditorium based on Ad Gefrin - the screens and all! We plan to test how well they worked, whether the screens indeed helped etc. All in all, some really exciting projects which could hopefully inspire some videos?
@stannypk5k9 have a chat with Alice, I'm involved with training your volunteers! I tried to do a bit of filming today at the Thrillings but it was too dark by 3pm! Would love to chat further as I'd really like to do more filming there and work with you all on further projects!
There is a lot of complexity contained within this period in history. A period that is only 'dark' due to by an unfortunate lack of written records. Maybe more will turn up at some point? Contained within the British people is the history of these islands. My ancestry, I am told via DNA and written records, is English (Anglo-Saxon), Irish and Scottish in almost equal measure, with a bit of Norse thrown in to complete the picture. This is pretty common in the modern UK, it is simply the percentages that vary. The 4th and 5th centuries AD were a time of mass movements of peoples within Europe, as the ailing Western Roman Empire folded-in upon itself. We are still missing huge chunks of the puzzle. The exciting 2020 discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa were quite an eye opener too, and proved that what we thought we knew about the time post 410 AD was wrong.
@@AlexIlesUK - It would be a good subject. A mosaic laid in the mid to late 5th century is a game changer. The heads of historians and archaeologists are still spinning.
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Oooh that's going to put the Cat amongst the pigeons. I almost want to put it as the pinned comment for the video just because of some of the comments and responses I've had to read over the months!! 🤣
To put it simply, we're mostly of Celtic origin but adopted English because the angles were the ruling class. This has happened often in history as we see in France and Spain with celts adopting a version of Latin of their overlords since it was financially advantageous.
Hello Alex, I loved this truly well researched, highly informative episode. What a great teacher you'd make. I hope this finds you and the family well and happy.
I'm from Scotland, Aberdeenshire. DNA said 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, mate of mine did a test, he was 92% Celtic, 8% Finnish, know another man from Barra, outer Hebrides, he was similar. We are too far away from the south east of Scotland to have any Anglo connections. I was surprised we have no viking connection though.
Thats really intresting - I did a video on Pictish aDNA too. The Scandinavians did not get everywhere in Scotland and there is a really intresting paper on Scotlands DNA with a sub part on Orkney's DNA - have a look here: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904761116
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for that, I've had a quick look, and will need to look at it really in depth to understand. My son is studying Genetics at Uni, he is very interested in in your channel. Although I am from the Angus Aberdeenshire boundary, nearly all my heritage is Highland, cleared from their lands in the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the abuses of the landlord system. I come from an area of Scotland not recognised for being part of the Ghaedhealtacht, but nearly every place name is from Gaelic, and some from the Cruitneach (Picts). One other point, but this is hearsay, Bho Gaidhealtach (Highland Cattle) are said to be connected to the Yak, that came with the Finns from east of the Volga, not sure if its correct, but there are no other cattle like them in Europe, tho todays version have been bred with other European cattle, their may be a strong connection with Aberdeen Angus / Galloway cattle? I once worked with a Shetlander who told me Shetlanders are Picts, but with the culture and sense of the Norwegians, which I think they are, very progressive people more so than most of Scotland.
The people of northwestern Europe have been mixing since the time of the ancient Egypt. Marrying , and taking slaves was common throughout our history...Isn't it easier to say that all of the people from that region are basically the same, with minor regional and tribal differences? Thanks for a great site and all of your insight.
Procopius, a Byzantine historian wrote in the mid 6th century, "Now in Britain there were three very numerous nations, each ruling over a portion of the island: the Angili, the Frisians, and after these the Britons." (Book VIII, Chapter 20).
You say that there was no concept of English identity until the time of Alfred the Great and that people would have identified themselves by their family, tribal group or kingdom. Yet 150 years before Alfred and 60 years before the very first Viking raids which supposedly created it, in the year 731, Bede wrote his *Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum* . Am I wrong to assume that Bede saw exactly that: a common culture shared by all the people south of the Forth and the Clyde who were not the successors of the Romano-British inhabitants? If so, why did he use the word "Anglorum"?
Hi Keith, Bede isn't creating an identity, such as a national identity,and many scholars believe he's referring quite specifically to Northumbria as a tribal affinity rather than anything else.
@@AlexIlesUK But iirc he mentions the Jutes settling in Kent, IoW & Hampshire, so I think it is fair to conclude that he was interested in the whole history of what we call the Anglo-Saxons, though not so much the British
From Jutland, Denmark and other than Scandinavian DNA my test showed markers from Scotland/Ireland and East Europe. I have no known realatives from either EE or Scotland/Ireland so it may reflect where a certain seafearing people went or maybe comes from later historical events, cause a lot of history has happend since the “Viking age” afterall.
The DNA from south East England that is from Iron Age France- maybe they were Roman Gauls who fled the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes to a place - Britain- safe from those attacks and where they could continue to live in a Roman style? I did hear there were refugees who fled to britain at that time
I think this is highly likely. There is already a link with the Atrebates in both Britain and Gaul and also the Belgae. And there is evidence of close trading and familial links between the Cantii and Gaul, which continued after Jutish settlement. It is possible that the DNA evidence is now supporting the historical and archaeological findings.
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
@@AlexIlesUK In my observation north-eastern Germans - never mind any other part of Germany - look very different to Scandinavians. Never bought the nordicist Anglo-Saxon trope for this reason alone.
Stricly speaking, nationality-based DNA mostly does not exist. For example, R1b DNA is R1b DNA, not something else. It is found all over Europe. What we have is correlations between similar and identical genes that may have mutated free of tribal ethnosis. There may be no single type of DNA that is found in Northmen that is not also found in Englishmen, etc.
Murray is a Scottish Gaelic Celtic name so how can you be Anglo-Saxon? English people are a mix that includes Celtic Britons, Danish Vikings, Normans, etc
@@realitywins9020 according to Ancestry DNA I am 12% Irish, 14% Scottish 3% Norwegian & 70% English. Ancestry claim (I take this with a considerable grains of salt) accurate to a 1000 years! From family history research, I have heritage in Leicestershire, Nottingham, Devon, Essex, one potential line in Yorkshire, Counties Cork and Kilkenny in Ireland. Cork being the origin of the family name, not my male line (illegitimate birth 1877). Where the Scottish comes from? Run away after the Boyne (1690?) or the Jacobite rebellion of 1745? Who knows! So I will go with my 70% and assume, until someone disproves it, that my English was in England 🏴 prior to 1066, therefore Anglo Saxon! Good enough case?
East Saxon Essex, in East Angl-ia, disappeared under the Danelaw, reappeared in Alfred's England, and has continued to be addressed as both Anglian and Saxon ever since. The Angle settlers of Brynach (Northumbria) initially preserved the name in translation (Beornicia: Land of the Bear), and they are also considered Saxon-ish (Sassenach) by their Northern neighbours. Memes transcend genes.
@@AlexIlesUK Bryn (like Bjorn, Beor, Bear, Brun, Brown) is a euphemism for the Unnameable beast (Arth/Arctos/Arthur...). The earliest record of an Arthur ("He was no Arthur" Y Gododdin) came from this land.
As far as I'm aware when I had my DNA test the conclusion was I am mostly/overwhelmingly Celtic, not surprising as I am Scottish and traced my ancestors many years ago and found my family originates from The Isle of Skye, on my mother's branch of the family, and the Blair Athol area of Scotland, the true centre of Scotland, for my father's. I found this interesting as I had no idea there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon DNA.
With all of these we are putting modern names onto ancient groups, but you can see groups of people moving at different times with this study and understand migrations, and groups in the past.
Quite true. For simplicity sake the term Anglo-Saxon is perhaps more of a modern application by historians to describe the Germanic peoples that began settling across the old Roman province of Britannia. Even though Alfred introduced the term his purpose was likely more about the continued unification of all the peoples under his watch. It's not reasonable to believe that the average person of those times would even use of the term Anglo-Saxon, let alone see themselves part of some larger nation state. People would more likely refer to themselves (in terms of self identity) as from whatever village or area they were born and raised in. Most people did not travel far from where they lived, except men that were needed in times of conflict. There were no professional soldiers, all were farmers, smithys etc. Identifying as from a particular village or region was the norm for centuries and likely all the way up to WWII. During the War of the Roses men identified as from the village they were born, then if they were Lancastrian or Yorkshireman, but rarely would suggest they were English, that probably only came into their vocabulary if fighting oversees. Identifying as part of a nation state, as in being English or British is something very much post modern, and that has likely come about through it being repeated continuously through all our school years. So in fact we are all programmed to identify as being English etc.
Where is Merseyside and Manchester on the Anglo Saxon scale? I'm an American with 40% percent British DNA, mostly in Merseyside, Manchester, Lancaster and some in West Yorkshire.
@@AlexIlesUK of course. If I'm remembering correctly, it was firstly the selection of Southern French IA populations to represent the hypothetical Frankish input, rather than the more Northern populations. Some of hose individuals are paractically British IA on a lot of PCAs. Secondly, with respect to moderns, and county level inputs, again if I'm remembering correctly, was the use of Irish as a blanket representative for IA equivalents. We know from the York paper, that the gradation from English-Welsh- Scottish then Irish is not insignificant! If possible the authors should have perhaps selected Welsh populations as bieng reflective of Enlish IA populations. Finally, although the recent British IA paper, did not show PCAs for them, I have seen private PCAs that indicate a lot more variability in the IA populations alongside the Viking and AS paper. The 'author' found that many imodern ndividuals (of course not the PoBI dataset) could be effectively modelled with qpAdm just bey British IA and AS inputs,, without the high order of magnitude of AS input, at least not to the same degree............so for me jury is still out
I would add the caveat., Iam probably remembering certai details of the AS paper incorrectly. It's been a while since I read it. Probably got the Irish blanket wrong,.......
I would say that the Leslie et al. paper was also highlighting the geographic effects of isolation and mixing between populations. The paper was essentially looking at small-scale genetic differences between populations. The major reason that the South and East, and indeed Midlands of England has a more homogenous population today than elsewhere, is that people in those areas were in lowlands of a very similar nature, with few natural barriers to movement. Unlike the more genetically diverse highland regions. Movement between highland regions is more difficult due to physical isolation and diverse local conditions. Movement from the lowlands to the highlands, and vice-versa, is made even more difficult by differences in agriculture. A farming community, family or individual peasant can move between areas of lowland - say Norfolk and Hampshire - quite easily, as both areas have almost identical reliance on mostly wheat-based cereal crop farming. Highland agriculture is very different, being mostly reliant on grazing cattle and sheep, and even the crops are different, oats and barley predominating. People moving between areas having very different agricultural conditions would be at a severe disadvantage, not knowing how to make the best use of the land. It is, therefore unsurprising that the lowlands would have a thoroughly mixed together, almost homogenous population and the highland regions have populations distinct from the lowlands and each other.
I've just googled "A DNA" - wikipedia states that it is one of three structural forms (A,B & Z) that DNA can take. It does not mean "ancient DNA". I suppose the term "A DNA" might have two meanings.
Try Ancient DNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20human%20aDNA,good%20conditions%20for%20DNA%20preservation. Best wishes
Wasn't Gilda's from arounds Strathclyde area when it was a Brythonic Kingdom? I know it's difficult to differentiate the Saxon root "wielisc", Welsh / Briton / Insular Celt / Roman Briton, but just calling him Welsh doesn't really do it justice, and maybe confuses modern geographic Wales / Welsh, for Medieval Welsh and what I think your talking about, but still love your videos.
People keep trying to guess where he's from and they throw the net as wide as Dumfries and Galloway right down to Devon and Cornwall, but he doesn't like the Welsh princes that's for certain!
Its a hard one for 'Welsh' because I need to keep it at a level where everyone can understand with little background and also short enough that people will watch so I know, I would love more nuance! Thank you that you like all the same!!
Im English American but my dna is majority native Briton dna it seems. To be fair my mothers family were mostly of lowland Scots ancestry though with most of those families being historically "Anglo-Norman" such as my mother's surname of Montgomery. I was expecting to find more Germanic dna considering my fathers ancestors overwhelmingly came from England with a small distant component of Scots, and Welsh.
Normans intermarried with natives as did the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanics, so your DNA shouldn't be that surprising. Robert the Bruce was a Norman, but his mother was a Gaelic speaking Scot
Thank you Alex. What is an Anglo Saxon? A dirty word for UK Post colonialism etc. I'm fascinated. We don't know how pre/post Roman people wldve described themselves. Iron age tribal groups fits the bill. I'm from Liverpool. River Mersey I believe means boundary river. Age 83
I'm reading Ivanhoe, written in 1819 and an eye opener to someone raised under Hollywood's false influence, and has led me to research what he got right, or not, about the social and cultural aspects of the time. And has brought me here.
I am so called “northern Germanic Tribes” in my DNA, with some Swedish and Irish/Scottish as well. My grandparents all came from the British Isles. I’m guessing the northern Germanic tribes would be Anglo Saxon.
Well I’m 83% Irish Scottish & Welsh . 11.4 % Greek & South Italian 5.6% Baltic . I’m from north Lanarkshire in Scotland & I knew my dad was Irish & my mum a Scot , the rest came as a surprise. No English DNA so I know at least there was no mixing with any southerners.
And if there had been would that have been a problem for you? Also if it's bunching Irish, Scottish and Welsh together it is likely is grouping the British isles DNA together so it's quite possible you have ancestry from the Southerners.
It is pleasing that the evidence largely did not support woke academias attempts to rewrite Anglo Saxon history, and in some cases write them from history completly. It should not be a revelation that the Anglo Saxons were not the only tribes to migrate/invade, or that peoples were already here. The Angles and Saxons became the dominate tribes over the centuries, much like France is named for the Franks or Belgium for the Belgae, both were still made up of many other tribes
Like all things there's exceptions to the rules and also nuance. I would really like more data from the North, but it may never happen due to the soils being more acidic.
Indeed. How about the migration of the Ingvaeon/Ingwine peoples as a more inclusive term for the early migrations? Ingwine may have been something they all indentified with at the time
Interesting material, most of which was already known to me but some not in the depth that you have shown. To me the whole thing seems an enormous melting pot, looking at earlier migration periods often a groep moves into an area and joins with a native population sometimes peacefully but often violently. The elites take over and the common people mix and become a hybrid of the two groups. Also, most people set family and their lord as the main priority and identification of their ethnic identity. This makes for blurred lines between ethnic groups, I feel something similar happened in the early middle age period.
Would there be an argument for referring to the Saxon settlers as Danish and not Germanic? Considering the larger land mass of Denmark during the medieval times compared to today, and the fact that Germany didn't technically exist until 1871. Although I am aware the Romans used the terms Germani and Germania as early as the fourth century B.C.
@@AlexIlesUK great because my english bit and some of my norwegian bits come from NW england and Isle of Man. I am mainly about 39% scandy, abit of german and a bit of fin as well. I have less english than my brother and sisters, and no irish or scots like they have.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 I have DNA results from all the main sites. They don't agree very well. And they change over time as their database increases and improves.
@@akaDorM yes I have Ancestry, 23&me, and heritage and they all say the same thing. I am 39% Swedish with a touch of Nowegian. My viking heritage is Baltic, but part of my scandyness comes from NW England. NW England, Isle of Man is where my mom's family comes from and Varmland Sweden is where 3 great grandparents and 1 grandparent came from with a touch of Finland and Germany. My great great grandfather was a German brew meister in Varmland Sweden who had 5 children to his upstairs maid and that is the branch i am from. My maiden surname is May which is old German and came from my great great grandfather. Now, my younger brother and sister are not quite 30% scandy with touch of German and finland (my dad's side) and the rest are NW England Ireland and Scotland.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 Remarkable that it's so consistent. Though if it's a deep ancestry in one place that's represented in all their databases that makes sense.
Hi Alex - I remember hearing (but I can't remember where) that the first time Anglo-Saxon was used was at a 6th century continental European meeting of bishops where it was to differentiate the British from the continental.....
@@AlexIlesUK What do you think to the book 'Age of Arthur' by Morris. I know it was panned by historians, but it made sense to me. a) AS invited in, rebelled b) The Britons halted the advance at Mons Badon. c) Plague devastates the Britons more than the AS d) AS take over unoccupied lands, inviting in more AS families Morris (from memory) thinks that unlike Gaul it was not a elite takeover, but families. Explaining the loss of the British language because the women talking to the children were AS. In France there was more intermarriage of warriors with local women. If 'Arthur' had lost at Mons Badon, it would have been warriors marrying locals.
I think it shows the academic work at the time, he researched and presented his argument based on what was known at the time and it's an enjoyable read but it is of its period.
@@jcoker423 Was there really a British language when the Roman Empire withdrew? Some will have spoken Latin. Most people would have stayed local. Even a thousand years later the dialects of distant districts were barely interpretable (if understandable at all). Judging by modern dialects, the move to English was primarily local, with English becoming the lingua franca of the ruling class who needed to converse over greater distances. Incoming germanic mercenaries or invaders didn't speak brythonic and British rulers who invited them would have had an incentive to communicate clearly with them. Irish/Scottish mothers don't seem to have stopped Icelanders szpeaking Icelandic.
I'm not an Anglo Saxon, for all I must be at least the 100th generation of my family. In the area of N/E England I'm from. We have lower than 3% Anglo Saxon DNA. In fact I'm pretty certain I've more Asian DNA in my genealogy than Anglo Saxon.
Can I ask where are you from? Which test did you do interesting with what you've said as the body of data is quite different in regards to the DNA of the region.
ALEX: PROPS! this video is top tier/first rate. As it went on i realized "this is very much like--is essentially--a conference presentation, and rates among the very best Ive attended across 40+ years". EXCEPT that i just watched it on my phone @ home, early on a Saturday morning: what a treat! "Full disclosure" Your topic falls in a field which Ive never studied formally nor worked in, altho it is adjacent to mine--or the next over...or perhaps in the next valley🤔--and so broadens my horizons. For which you are a fabulous guide. I know just enough about migrations of peoples and the New DNA-ology (if i can say that) to be able to follow YOUR extremely lucid presentation. I would tag this video a "review essay", meaning an overview/precis of what is known currently about a topic and the questions/directions for further research. Its true that I am unfamiliar with the researchers & studies that you cite, but your presentation bears the hallmarks of someone who has that literature at their fingertips and who is analyzing and synthesizing it with sound methods and without an agenda (other than love of their topic). And, i enjoyed your response to the internet orcs who attacked the comments section of one your previous videos😂
Thank you, Alex for this interesting presentation and for recommending the Gretzinger paper. I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail yet but the finding that you mentioned at the end of your presentation touched on something I already wanted to ask you about. I sometimes read that the Norman Invasion didn’t have much demographic impact because only the elite was changed and they represented only about 2% of the population. I don’t think this is true. The histories of England and France were intertwined for 300 years (to the end of the 100 years war). France had a much bigger population than England during this period and led England in the development of towns and trades. I think this would have led to a slow but ultimately significant migration of French and Flemish (also heavily populated and more urbanised) people migrating into England; mainly craftspeople moving into the growing towns. I think the Frenchified English language as we know it today was nurtured and developed in this environment. In Gretzinger’s paper, the addition of the French Iron Age ancestry is inferred by comparison with the contemporary British population. I would suggest the this is not the addition of a French Iron Age population but rather the addition of a French Medieval population. I understand that France is rather behind on using genetic studies to unravel its History but presumably this could be tested.
I think they clarified it by saying that the human remains analysed were all from the early medieval period (400-1066), so that they couldn't reflect later migrations. But it's a valid point, the Normans and later groups did settle Flemish populations in the British isles.
@gravegoods and identity - it seems to me that this question is treated differently when it comes to this period than when it comes to the start of the Roman period. I wonder why so much (more) stress is put on ethnic background and who they identitified with when it comes to the AS when compared to the Romans.
I think it's because so many nations see their 'foundation' in the post Roman period, so ethnicity becomes a aspect of this. A lot of it can be traced back to the 19th century!
Very few Romans from Italy settled in Britain. There was a wider mix from the rest of the Empire. And some will have left when the legions withdrew. So the bulk of British DNA is either Pre-Roman or Post-Roman, and the Roman bit is very mixed.
The Angelen lived in a very small region. It can't be a very large group to migrate. Saxons were a large group, actually living more to the easter part of germany The frisians lived along the west-and northcoast of the Netherland and the north- and northwestcoast of germany. They drowned in that region because of the rising sealevels and moved abroad. Frisians were known with Brittons by trade and working in the roman army. Old english and Old frisian are very very similar. So...
The Angles lived in a smaller area than the Saxons but that doesn’t mean they had less numbers to migrate. Many Saxons remained in Europe and as you will be aware there are still Saxons in Germany. The Angles all moved to Britain in their entirety or as a political entity and no noticeable numbers remained in Denmark/Northern Germany.
There is a viking account which states that as he sailed along the Western Baltic, that the islands on one side used to be occupied by the English. If true, this expands Angeln considerably, possibly into Finn Island. Add that Jutland was Western Germanic speaking before its later occupation by Danes, and the Angelcynn, if not the Anglish alone, dwelt in a large area. Then, we can understand how the Angles may have had enough manpower to fight Scots/Picts for the British, and still have enough men left over to expand within Britain. The idea that Anglen was just a small area seems to memetic, i.e. the notion is not contested at all, just copied from one source to the next.
Have a look at Tolkien's translation of the Battle of Maldon..the narrator stated that the 'English' fought with the fyrd..were they Angles possibly from Mercia or East Anglia? Also it is likely that many of the Anglo Saxons were Frisian. Some studies indicate that the Dutch and English have close DNA..
When I did my DNA most of it was Scot and Welch. Surprised that 30% was Scandinavian, but our English ancestors came from Norfolk Coast of Britain across from Denmark.
I love the male vs female Briton burial comparison in Gretzinger et al (Nature 2022). It corresponds well with the idea that the home (run by women) holds traditions much longer than society at large (run by men who often more incentivized to assimilate to gain status).
l just love this episode. l never knew that the english were so keen on the anglo/Saxon concept. l come from Sweden and we do call the period 793/1066 the Viking age but of course they didn't call themseves vikings. Why would it be so important to have your roots called Anglo/saxon?
Its a very good question but it really affects some people that they connect their identity back to it, without really understanding what they are saying.
Regarding the 'French' DNA found in southern England the Guardian's report on the Oxford University 10 year genetic study of Britain (completed 2014) makes the following comment: 'People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago'. So, not a migration at the time of the 'Anglo-Saxons' but thousands of years earlier - a quite different conclusion to the later study referenced in the video.
The French inclusion in both studies are not the same. The PoBI study has 2 separate populations included FRA14 and 17. The FRA14 is indicative of pre- AS arrival, whilst the FRA17 component arrived later. The authors argue for it being possibly representative of AS DNA, but Frankish would make more sense.......or perhaps even French during the Norman Invasion?
@@AlexIlesUK This from the University of Oxford 'People of the British Isles' : 'The most intriguing European contribution is that from Northern France, (EU17 red). This clearly post- dates the original settlers since it is entirely absent from the Welsh samples. It is, however, widespread elsewhere, even right through the north of England and Scotland to Orkney. It is also especially prevalent in Cornwall and Devon. These results suggest a previously not described substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little, if any, impact on Wales'.
Bede and Gildas we're talking about two different forms of Christianity. Gildas was early (Celtic) Christianity, Bede was Catholic christianity. At the time Bede was writing the majority were Catholic Christians and this benefits his church as gifts (money) were donated to his church. The pagans (read the rest of Christianity in Britain), didn't make absurd gifts which they saw as useless, either God would take you to heaven or he wouldn't, giving money to a large business was a waste of resources. That's why Beds castigated the 'pagans'. - just my take on this argument 🤔
People make far too much of a distinction between the Celtic and Roman church - when ultimately it boils down to a haircut and when Easter was. Bede would never have referred to other Christians as pagans as his whole aim is to ensure orthodoxy in the church. The 'Celtic' believers made just as many wealthy gifts - just look at Whithorn and other sites on the West of the British isles!
I've always found it interesting that Gildas never mentioned the Irish invaders. He must have been aware being originally based in Wales. Presumably didn't fit his argument since they were Christian at the time.
I’m from very near West Yorkshire. Over there there is a region called Elmet, lots of villages called “something in Elmet”, and apparently Elmet was a Celtic kingdom that survived while the Anglo saxons conquered all around them, and it held out against the Saxons. Maybe that is why they is a different marker in West Yorkshire?
My Y chromosome is Saxon according to a family dna test. However, 23 and me says my dna is most similar to people living in Northern France and the German border (Alsace). This jives with the video's conclusions.
Celtic/Anglo are todays millions of indigenous people of the British isles and we have the DNA to prove this. The finest scale genetic map of any country offers a detailed look at the history and ancestry of the people of the British Isles, Nature News reports. Scientists analyzed the DNA of thousands of living people in Britain for a study reported in this week's issue of Nature and found that many still live where their distant ancestors did, in regions defined by ancient tribal kingdoms. The study also found that today's Welsh have the most genes in common with the earliest inhabitants of the islands, who arrived about 10,000 years ago. Invaders such as the Vikings and the Romans left less of a genetic legacy than expected, although 25% of the genome of people in the far north Orkney Islands stems from the Vikings.
Which paper are you refering too? The 2016 one? Fine scale genetic map? It's a complex one and I've gone over it before. It uses modern DNA and works backwards so is skewed by migrations and mixing. I don't put too much weight behind that one.
@@AlexIlesUK Do you deny that Britain and Ireland's population has remained mainly unchanged for thousands of years, accept for a few invasions and the like from other similar Northern European populations mainly Gemanic and Scandanavian which are very similar to each other anyway? ok the Romans were Southern European in some cases and had a few Middle Eastern, North African and such in their armies but also a lot of Germanic but the Romans left very little genetic legacy behind in Britain as did the British in India, you keep mentioning migrations and mixing you seem obsessed with this, but you don't say that these migrations are all coming from the same places for thousands of years France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany all North western European migrations nothing like the migration we've had from the 1950s onwards to today which these islands have never experienced in their long history.
@alunevans380 the focus of your question seems to be on the modern migrations, which may be a personal frustration. The migrations may have came from the same geographic locations but there were migrations from the North and East that occured between the bronze age migrations in the the Bronze age until the migrations at the end of the Roman period. I cover those in my Anglo-Saxon DNA episode. Why would I be denying migrations? I'm not obsessed, I'm explaining the data. Could you be a bit clearer about why you want to compare the migrations after the 1950s and Historical migrations prior to that?
@@AlexIlesUK The migrations after the 1950s came mostly from Sub Saharan African people from the West Indies, people also from Pakistan (Muslim), India, Bangladesh (Muslim), also now the Middle East (Muslim), North Africa (Muslim), Albania (Muslim), Romania, people who had never lived in Britain before or if they did it was tiny, tiny amounts as the evidence shows. Britain remained homogenous for nearly a thousand years after the Norman conquest and even before that it was still only Celtic/Anglo Saxon really. Certain disengenuous people on the far left or other groups for whatever reason i don't understand will try to deny this and say that there's always been huge African, Asian, Middle Eastern etc communities in Britain, even going so far as to brainwash the younger generation with this now in historical dramas, childrens education books and the like, criticizing and falsifying the indigenous culture of Britain. this is all obviously false and can be proven very easily, Certain people desperately want the multiculturalism the British people have had foisted onto them over the last 70 years or so to work so badly, There's now a population of 4 million plus Muslims in Britain, in 1961 there where just 50,000 who ever thought this was a wise thing to allow? In my opinion these insane levels of mass immigration into Britain over the last 30 years especially have been very destructive and deliberate. i probably sound Islamophobic but i feel the same about other cultures and ethnicities that have arrived here now in their millions and not integrated, anyway we were never asked and if this makes me a racist for expressing my opinion then so be it, who knows where it will all end.
My brother just had his dna done. I can find only 1 ancestor in 200 years who was born outside Yorkshire or north east england. They were Irish. However his dna was 45% celt 30% English. 20% viking.
I'd say any Genetic test telling you that you are Viking is not to be trusted. There were populations of Native Britons who lived side by side with Anglo-Saxons and intermarried, as seen by the paper this is based on.
Commercial DNA tests are not very reliable. The most they can do is compare your DNA to the DNA of the testing company's other customers. My mother had her DNA tested a while back and it came back as 85% British Isles. But I know from documentary sources that her maternal ancestors were nearly all Rhenish/swiss/Prussian going back to around the year 1530.
I used to watch time team channel 4 and loved it but when they found an Anglo Saxon grave with goods they assumed it was Anglo Saxon but because someone is buried in England doesn't make them English I believed that the programme was wrong in identifying graves because someone has Anglo Saxon grave goods doesn't mean that they were Anglo Saxon and the Welsh were here 10 thousand years but more DNA research needs to be done there are lots of unanswered questions about this period of time my believe is that English people are 50 % Welsh and Anglo Saxon and other we maybe closer related than we think
The Anglo-Saxons were not Anglo-Saxons before they arrived in Britain. They were of diverse folk and tribal confederation origins. The ethnogenesis of the English people occurred in Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were not merely transplanted from the North Sea coastlands of continental Europe, they evolved in Britain, through interactions among themselves and with the native peoples of Britain.
@@AlexIlesUK Worth emphasising in a more concise fashion. Many people think that that the first North Sea coastal Germanic person to set foot in Britain immediately became an Anglo-Saxon. There was even a sound shift that affected 'Ingaevonic' speakers in Britain that did not occur on the continental 'homelands'.
This is pretty funny because 4 or 5 yrs. ago my sister had her DNA done it said 38% English and ya say 38% I didn't even know my Grandma had any English at all We were told she came from Ireland at 12 yrs old to USA Anglo-Saxon who knows with what my family has ✌️❤️
There are a fair few Anglo-Irish and also theres some good modern papers that show the Irish and English are genetically simialr in the modern age - likely due to migrations for work in the 18th - 20th centuries.
I remember when at university a post doc was very fervently arguing that ‘Celtic’ was not an accurate term to describe the early Britons, even though they spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, made Celtic artefacts and lived in Celtic model settlements. His argument was that these were mere waves of influence on the populace. I said then, and say now, if that is to be believed then there was no such thing as Romans or Anglo Saxons either.
I would argue the diffrence between the title 'Celtic' is diffrent than later Romans or Anglo-Saxons is because of how it is used. The Celts are first metioned by the Greeks in the 6th century BC, while the Romans subdivide them into Britons, Gauls, Iberians etc. They dont even call the people living in Northen Italy Celts but Gauls. So the term Celt was used in the 19th century to apply it to items, peoples and language, while we have Romans (a identity that could be gained, granted or adopted rather than biologically determined) and the Anglo-Saxons who developed in the 9th century as a identity in contrast to the Danes to create a political unit. We do not get Gildas refering to himself as a Celt or the welsh princes calling themselves Celtic, they are Britons and see themselves as being connected to the Roman world. Thats why I would disagree with that post doc.
@'Frankish dna' - I wonder if we should call it thus. The 'Franks' were originally from the NE Netherlands and/or from the Middle Rhine areas, and these people would be different from 'Iron Age France'. Now my questions would be this: do we know when this dna enters Britain? Because in my humble opinion (i'm NO dna expert!) we could also be looking at people who migrated to Britain during the (later?) Roman period, as Roman citizens.
Hi Robert, I should have clarified this more! So this aDNA is not present in Roman or Late Roman British aDNA samples, it comes in during the Migration period. I believe it's been referred to as Frankish due to the connection to items referred to as Frankish and the fact this aDNA has been found in the Rhineland. Hope that clarifies!
@@AlexIlesUK NE Gaul was Belgae? Didn't some cross into Kent before Caesar? I have a vague memory the Romans wrote the Belgae thought of themselves as Germans rather than Gauls. Thanks for mentioning the Britons were never considered Celtic by the Romans. Their Celts were in todays S Germany & Bohemia. The Gauls/Britons/Germans were just another, related, part of the Indo-European language group. I sound abit too certain in these paragraphs. I'm happy to be corrected.
I always take the historical sources with a pinch of salt but with the distances over the channel migrations would have occured more easily. From the paper this aDNA is definitely early medieval though which is interesting in itself. Don't need to apologise you've done your reading, which is great!
Another really helpful video, thank you so much for keeping them appearing. I've watched the Anglo-Saxon and Pict ones so far and can't wait for the others. For me, all the harsh comments on the 'Anglo-Saxons Didn't Exist' video represent an inability to get past modern national identities - whether 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Celtic' (both terms that I think muddy the waters even further) - to appreciate the greater fluidity of cultural, spiritual and social identities in this period. Personally, I think there is an argument for calling this the 'Early Medieval Migration Period' rather than the A-S Ages or, worst still, the 'Dark Ages' and applying this same descriptive to much of western Europe at the time. But again, the problem of modern national identities causes this to be a contentious term because of the perception of migration in that context. Finding out the fascinating truth about the past of the place you live in doesn't mean you can't be proud to live there, it just means that you can acknowledge cultural expression outside your own and celebrate that too.
I think you make a good point. However I think its that the English people are tired of being told by progressives that their national identity is problematic, does not matter and that they need to look beyond it as you put it. When the opposite is true
Thank you both @snufkinhollow318 and @danielryan570 - I do understand both positions and see why the Radicals on one side denying any identity in England is really frustrating. To give you a prospective from me, I was born in Scotland, but don't sound Scottish so because of that face hostility from a minority of Scots as I can't be a part of their national identity (but any American can as long as they buy a kilt and some shortbread on the way!) I think the important thing is to say that the first settlers were not Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon were not English, but these identities grew out of events and people who mixed and became the next thing. I see myself as British but this feels like a dying identity.
@@danielryan570 I don't think I singled out the English for criticism here, rather as you say 'the opposite is true'. My point was that modern national identities have a tendency to exclude any period involving migration from areas outside their national borders from history (or their origin mythology) because it is perceived as a threat to their 'purity'. Whereas, for me, it enhances the richness of their history and should be celebrated. If pointing that out makes me a 'progressive', then, yes, I will happily sit in the camp of progress. I am of Welsh ancestry, born in England and now live in Ireland, all countries that I love for their natural beauty, and I have travelled around the world too, sometimes to places where I felt completely at home within days of arriving. But do I feel like I 'belong' to any of the countries I have been to or they to me? No, I belong where my home is and where I feel safe and if there are national identities that come into conflict with that, I will criticse them, wherever they are.
@@AlexIlesUK I'm not sure that it is 'radical' to deny national identities (not just that of the English) when they are relatively modern creations that, in their turn, deny the richness of our history, but a do take the overall point you are making. Ireland where I live is also subject to the 'kilt and shortbread' phenomenon that you identify in the form of what some Irish people call 'plastic Paddies', incomers from the US who buy up what they believe to be their ancestral land in some rural area and then complain that they can't get all the services and consumer goods that they want. I had another curious experience of this the other day when I went into a shop I've been using for over a decade and the owner was giving a hate-fuelled speech about 'immigrants' to several other customers. So I place my goods on the counter and went to walk out. He called me back and when I said I found his speech against me offensive he said "But you're not like them, you're ...." and then tailed off when he realised that it was impossible to finish that sentence without either contradicting himself or sounding like an out-and-out racist. I find it almost impossible to believe that a country will one of largest global diasporas in modern history can be so hateful towards immigrants. I expect many people from outside Ireland have heard about the recent riots in Dublin, supposedly sparked by the stabbing of a woman and child by an immigrant. Not many news reports here in Ireland or overseas, however, have included the fact that it was a Brazilian immigrant who put his own life on the line to save the victims whilst many Irish people stood and did nothing. I'm so sorry to rant and ramble but I do feel very strongly that national identities are more a source of disharmony than of unity.
@@danielryan570this is why I will continue to just call myself what I was raised as and understand myself to be. English mixed with Scottish. Im not Anglo-Saxon the same way what we call AS prob didnt call themselves that. I dislike how people are now saying the term Anglo-Saxon is racist or that even being English and British is racist. So I dont want to develop some weird and fake "proud" identity crisis and suddenly start calling myself AS like how some black Americans turned Afrocentric and claim they were the first black ppl everywhere. I knew who I was before all this and never used the term Anglo before despite etymologically-speaking that is the origin of England (Angleland). Ppl can call me racist all they like. I didnt pick my genetics any more than they did.
it would be good to see what the ratio of Native British Y chomosome vrs Mainland Saxon, Anglo, Jutuish DNA. If the amount of native british Y Chromosomes are diminished vrs Saxon/Jutish/Anglo would indicate "replacement" or genocide. all other topics are irrelevant to the discussion.
Would it not be correct in saying we are an Germanic people. Also people forget about the yamnaya dna across Easter, and western Europe that connects us.
So that's a bit tricky because of mixing and changing cultures. Some people do some don't! Can't give you a straight answer but the people who do give you a straight answer have an agenda!
Gildas is 6th century. He lived while there was a worldwide catatrofy going on. The reason why people started looking for food. Many many died of to less food. 536 AD. So Gildas will have seen this.
My understanding is the 2022 study does not support the theory popular in recent times, of A-S migration as an influx of warrior elites grafting to a base Briton population over time. The suggestion is it was nearer to the other end of the spectrum - a significant genetic cascade which passed through the entire population in large areas of now England during this period(ie:tended to be replacement of genetic and cultural identity) - though western and northern areas, exhibited more genetically blended rather than replaced populations and cultural identity. An interesting question would be - the retreat of a dominant Roman presence was opportunity, but what factors fuelled this extended period of migration from now north-central Denmark,southern Sweden and lower Saxony
My question is did the Romans as we understand them actually leave? If you read the sources it suggests that they broke off from the main empire but did not 'leave' also Bede mentioned that Latin was one of the languages spoken during his time. What if that's not just church Latin but actually people talking lantin as their language? It's a fascinating period!
.....I'm just letting my imagination run free on this...I have no evidence of course....undoubtedly there would have been an ongoing roman "presence" including a persitent use of latin but I guess the character of this presence might consist in a scattered and much diminished elite and other ranks {possibly Germanic and other peoples in any case)...and possibly facing adaption as renewed waves of Anglo-Saxons began to arrive@@AlexIlesUK
That study draws very sweeping conclusions from a very limited sample. It makes unsupported assumptions about how the heterogeneity should be interpreted. It assumes that their cemeteries reflect the whole population. It assumes a cultural homogeneity where fewer grave goods indicate lower status.
@AlexIlesUK If that were the case then one would expect insular Latin to have left more traces in placenames for example. The Romans were keen on written / inscribed records and literature. There is practically none of this in post Roman occupation Britain. There is no evidence that Latin was widely spoken by the populace.
Im from a long line of Yorkshire people, east Yorkshire. My DNA is predominantly Anglo Saxon and Danish. A tiny amount of Belgian thrown in. It veriies a family legend of a Belgian bareback rider in a circus ancestry. Fascinating .
Crow Indian people called themselves Apsaalooke, but we called them "Crow". Now they call themselves Crow and Apsaalooke, the older term in their own language. They are both Crow and Apsaalooke. The Anglo-Saxons not calling themselves "Anglo-Saxons" in that historical time period, doesn't mean they weren't Anglo-Saxons, as that is the label we use for who they are. We can call them anything we want to designate them as a group or culture and long ago we settled on Anglo-Saxon. Why is it a problem now? Did the Denisovans call themselves "Denisovan"? Did the Neanderthals call themselves "Neanderthal"?? We call Germans "Germans", but they call themselves Deutsch. We call Germany, Germany, but they call it Deutschland. Can we not use the terms Germans or Germany any longer then? 🙄🙄This is all maddening and unnecessarily politically correct and nitpicking. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Using the term Anglo-Saxon wasn't broke.
Ignoring the modern politico/cultural idiocy, there are genuine questions about the previous assumptions (Anglo-Saxons were Germanic migrants who took power in England and brought the original language and a specific culture; and originally were invaders who killed the native British). Main opposing theory is culture change, but you have to start being very nuanced with your terms when you are talking about someone with British DNA who is buried according to Anglo-Saxon rites.
Your comparison with the Crow.using their English name the U.S. government assigned to them under colonization and forcing the tribe to speak English and punishing the if they refused is how they came to refer to themselves as CROW IN ENGLISH. That is the process called colonization. Something the British know a lot about because they invaded every country they could and looted as much as they could get their greedy hands on. LoL The Crow still speak their traditional language among themselves and refer to themselves by their traditional name IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. Their speaking English is for European-American settlers. Not because they have some ancient history from over a thousand years ago based on two Germanic groups that moved to a little island called Briton. They are a living people existing in the present, not some distant whisper of people who moved in, married into native tribes and then were overrun by Normans. Your comparison could not be more ignorant.
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Especially Iceland where West Irish sex slaves were most valued.. Green eyes/black hair... I had bad luck and ended up with an east irish ginger
The endurance of an icon of early english literarture(Beowulf) whose setting in the area of northern Europe which this study associates with the source of the anglo-saxon genetic "wave", would be unlikely if the dominant population & culture was latinised and briton - that would seem to imply extreme cultural subjugation by an elite over a period of centuries while this epic circulated & gained popularity - doesn't resonate for me.
Anglo Saxon is barely adequate to describe the Germanic influence on Britain. A vast amount of Germanic peoples were already in Britain, especially on the east coast, during the Roman occupation as they were employed as soldiers to the empire. They had many different tribal origins; Jutes, Frisians as well as Angles and Saxons. The term Anglo Saxon was not in use until theVictorian Royals Saxe-Coburg wanted to put more emphasis on Saxon for obvious political reasons. While it’s true there were Angles and Saxons in the English origin story, however the epithet Anglo Saxon would have meant nothing to pre Victorians in England, who identified solely as English.
I'd agree mostly up to the end, the question of how much the Roman soldiers affected the genetics is one for another day! it's Alfred who creates Englishmen. Even Bede is refering to his Northumbrian race prior to that, and that's a new identity fof many in the region.
@@AlexIlesUK the point I’m making is that your every day Englishman wouldn’t have much identified as Anglo Saxon before the Victorian period. They just identified as English. That’s what I read anyway.
@TreforTreforgan thanks for clarifying yes I get your point, before the 're-discovery' of Anglo-Saxons English would be the identity for the area of England, even today few would identify as Anglo-Saxon.
@ I understand that it’s an identifier that people have become quite romantic about. Probably even more so since the discoveries at Sutton Hoo. The name Anglo Saxon and the Sutton Hoo Helmet seem to be welded together in the imagination despite it only having been two or three generations since its discovery. I think the American WASPS have been the ones that have driven the negativity that there is around the term, as it’s undeniably linked to white supremacy. My only problem with it is I don’t feel it adequately describes the complexities of the migration period. In view of the findings of the Oxford Genome Project Germano-British has more historical pertinence surely.
Trust me. There's some who would; sadly I can't afford a soundproofed room! It's more likely to be an ambulance as I live on a road that connects areas of Newcastle!
my ancestry results on gedmatch is nearly identical to early midevil saxon results im like literally identical within 1-2% despite my family being in america for the past few hundred years
@@AlexIlesUK Saxons existed around 1500 years ago.. thats less than 100 generations ago and besides why should that matter? i am not my parents but my parents are still family heck pre indo european whg are still much more family than any immigrant would be. This whole “anglo saxon” thing is pointless when we are all so similar regardless because of our common ancestry from before the era
That's the point I often make that the choices we make today are more important than our generic makeup. No one should draw their value from their genetics over their character and actions.
Good overview of the DNA scholarship of this period - great refresher course for other more detailed podcasts to which I have listened. 'Climate change migrants' put me off a bit, although of course it is not impossible that climate - which has always been changing - could have been a factor for some migrations.
Hi Maniplefringe, sorry for the time it's taken me to respond! Aye it's one theory that their homelands were flooded and were not suitable, but Britannia offered better opportunity. I think it's a combination of factors. I don't see them as slavering barbarians desperate to wipe out the Britons !
@@AlexIlesUKThat’s what I thought when I listened to the discussion of climate change. A lot of the farmland in Jutland is sandy and not nearly as productive as that of lowland England. Why wouldn’t the Angle and Saxon farmers be interested in getting possession of this land when the historical situation allowed it (Romans abandoning their Villa landholdings and local peasantry pacified and unable to defend themselves).
@@AmandaSamuels It could also be that with changing dynamics the land wasn't being used rather than it being taken from the Romans it was just available. People have been looking for evidence of violence for nearly a hundred years but I wonder if we should consider a large economic contraction meaning that it just wasn't worthwhile to produce in some areas as you didn't have an area to sell to anymore! Gaul and the Rhineland were not 'buying' British grain anymore so the world shifted. Still working on my thoughts on that one!
I don't think they were 'slavering barbarians', but possibly had a different value system to Christians and would have seen acts of violence ce against 'foreigners' differently. Pre Christian Romans had similar views about non-Romans. What mattered was your own nation, 'class', or family. The idea that you should 'care' about the stranger is largely (though not exclusively) a Christian idea. Also Germanic religio-cultural moral codes may have given the Anglo-Saxons a very different view of the morality of violence and war. I'm not making a value judgement here - what we see as amoral might not always have seemed so to them. Therefore if the Anglo-Saxons were violent invaders in some cases - we shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging this, as if its morally embarassing, when they may have not seen it that way and had a very different moral worldview than us. For example the Azrecs sacrificed 1000s of people a day to make the sun come up - does that make them monsters? Or just people operating on a moral axis determined by very different religio-cultural operating system to us (even if a lot of people are no longer religious in the West, our moral codes are still essentially based on a Christian operating system).
I think there is too much heresy when it comes to UK history of early settlers. I suspect that Britton was primarily settled by Frisians. Ask yourself why the English language is so close to Frisians?
Modern day English speakers have to learn the Old English Language as a foreign language because the 2 forms of English are so different. Modern Frisian is believed to be the modern language that sounds the most like Old English. I took German Language classes for grades 8-12 and I can recognize some modern Dutch words as German words with a different spelling, but then some Dutch translations of German words sound like modern English translations for the same German word. The German word for house is Haus, and the Dutch word is Huis. The German word for leader is Fuehrer, but the Dutch translation sounds like Lighter, which is close to the English leader. I don't know how English, German and Danish relate to each other, but I think the Netherlands has at least as much do with English history as Denmark does.
If the Anglo-Saxons invaded, where are all the English people that look like Wim Hof or Geert Wilders? Why do English people just look like the Irish and Scottish? It doesn't add up.
How people look makes up a small part of genetics, but the Dutch are the closest relatives of the English. As for the Scottish and Irish populations - all peoples in the British isles have mixed since the industrial revolution due to new methods of travel and the need for jobs.
Go take a walk around Denmark, Jutland peninsula, even Copenhagen It’s peopled with folks who look like the English. They also have our sense of humour 🧐
@@AlexIlesUK I'm sorry if I'm being a nuisance, but have you ever seen Eurogenes? MyTrueAncestry places Southeast English people as being most closely related to the Welsh and Bretons, and not the Dutch. The same is true for Eurogenes K15 and K13. Only K36, which uses the most components, shows the Southeast English as being most closely related to Belgians. Something tells me that the Celts of Iron Age France and Britain were closely related somehow. There's an old blog of an East Anglian man called 'are the Southeast English actually Belgian?' He and his mother are 100% Southeast English in ancestry, but he clustered most closely to Belgians, Bretons and Irish, and not so much with the Dutch or Danes relatively speaking. This is why I'm a bit sceptical.
Can any DNA study of the British Isles be reliable considering the massive population loss that came with the Plague in the 14th century? With outward migration beginning in 1607 England's population did not return to pre-Plague levels until Victorian times. Also consider how chromosomes break apart and reform during meiosis. The breaks don't always happen in the same place generation after generation and the breaks are never in equal-sized amounts. Every individual gets 1/2 of his DNA from each parent, but nobody gets 1/4 of his DNA from each of his 4 grandparents. It's physically possible for any individual person to not be a genetic descendant of all of his ancestors. Consider Charles III: he is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, but he doesn't have William's Y chromosome (which didn't survive among William's grandchildren). Neither does Charles have the Y chromosome of Prince Albert, George III, James I or Henry VII.
Just a tad. But it's basically what Susan Oosthuizen was arguing and it was a book review. It's interesting to see how people have responded though and that's taught me a lot.
I had a problem with the Master's thesis of Nicolas Fossannen that can illustrate the problem more clearly: he had done an archaeological study of bones found in a pit in an Ozark cave. They had been boiled and the fat removed. I had that sitting on my stove as i read the thesis and compared what he found to the bones in my soup stock. They matched. Of course I was thrilled. But I commented that this pit, 11,000 years old, had fat, it had fire, it had water, and it had ash. I said "that's soap!" Mr. Fossannen had to say he never meant to imply that 11,000 ago Indians had soap. The problem was that I have tried (and failed) to bed an Ozark woman who doesn't believe in soap. In 1978. It's a common hillbilly belief. If Mr. Fossannen had given the idea that Paleo-Indians had soap available it would have insulted the modern Ozark people he is reliant on for approval and funding. They would have hurt him. Perhaps literally. They are prettty violent.
@@AlexIlesUK This was an attempt to illustrate the problems of dealing with present people who have their own ideas of the way things should be resisting evidence to the contrary. The words "English Identity" made me think of the Gilbert & Sullivan song from "The Pirates of Penance" "'e his a Hinglishman" which is rather nationalist. The song would have made no sense to an English community of Anglo-Saxon times because all around them that would be all their was. Coastal folks knew about the other side and even went there. They might have had a concept of "England" but I wouldn't bet money on them knowing their side was an island. They wouldn't have had an identity because all around them there had never been anything else. But I doubt there won't be a lot of resistance to the idea that Anglo-Saxons had no identity (and I bet the Norsemen changed that) I lived in Israel in the late 70's and knew some Southern English people. They were concerned about the influx of Levantines and Subcontinentals into England and how England was unable to stop the influx. They called Subcontinentals Pakis and "Roog Roydahs" for their habit of commuting to work on flying carpets. I think you might just have told them that English Identity has always included Levantines and others in its mix and I'm fairly sure they won't be happy to hear it. The mix they were concerned about seems from the outside to have been relatively smooth. You see, the English lifestyle seems to be stronger than any English race, and it's been going on for a very long time and people after people have moved into it, only to become Anglicized. Did they serve tea in Boxgrove? Maybe.
MAYBE not using click bait titles would get uou less comments and you'd really hate that, right? Anglo-Saxons wouldn't call themselves by that term. The Welsh wouldn't call themselves "Welsh"; Deer wiukdn't call themselves "deer". Therefore, there were no deer in the 4th Century. And YOU don't like the term Celtic"; How about "Pillock"? Or "Berk"? "Git"? Maybe you are one third each. Maybe not. Great visuals, though! I learned a lot staring at your walls.
your still trying to deny an anglo saxon heritage, they would have known their history what denotes the difference between cornwall, wales etc is the invasion of anglo saxons and their huge impact in there dna of england,
@@AlexIlesUK it wasnt just migration though , not so good at the time for the previous ethnicity, though it was the beginings of the english that some like to pretend doesnt exist, still its a step up from francis prior who reckons the britons just adopted anglo saxon culture (language ,religion,place names etc)without migration
I couldn't really understand what the problem was until at the end you said "English Identity." Living people have a sense of who they are and they are working backwards to prove the point they want to make. Someone in Rural England in 553 AD had likely never met or even heard of a person coming from farther than 15 miles away. But you pointed out that the Romano-British had JEWS. That would make someone with a concept of English Identity's head explode. There is a story I've heard, a Biblical one, that states that Joseph and Moses were Hyksos, and we got the dates wrong somehow. DNA of a Hyksos graveyard showed what had really happened. Joseph went down to Egypt alright. But he brought Jewish women who married into Egyptian wealth. After 200 years of steady female migration the yentas took over the government of the whole country, because after all, "they were the only ones who knew how to do it right." It took the Egyptian women another 200 years to drive the Jewish women out of Egypt. I laugh at this story told in the DNA because the kind of person who relishes an "English Identity" isn't going to be very friendly to data that demonstrates female domination.
@@AlexIlesUK Thanks for the reply. When I heard you say that Romano-Britain had Levantines buried there I wondered who they could be? Diaspora Jews seemed to be a guess. Egyptian grain merchants perhaps? Lebanese? I didn't think the Anatolian were a good guess. Armenians maybe? Diaspora Jews were the simplest explanation. The thing I'm pretty sure of about those Levantines is that they spoke Greek.
@@petehoover6616 I maybe Ancient Cypriots there was a woman buried during the second century AD in Yorkshire that come form Cyprus, would be part of Levantine area lot of Greek, Cretans, Phoenician and Jewish settle there. The Greeks set up colonizes in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan after Alexander the Greek conquer this regions, most Greek carried J2-M172 48% of Greek DNA, Cypriot 13%, Italian 9-36%,Lebanese 30%, Syrian 14%, Ashkenazi 30%, Sephardic 14%, Palestine 29%, Maltese 21% and Armenian 24%
@@bjornsmith9431 I have a recessive genetic weakness, a type of deafness. Ludwig van Beethoven had it and my best friend also has it. I had figured that we all shared a common ancestor on both sides of our family and my ancestors are Native American, English, and Bavarian. My friend's ancestors are Polish Ashkenazim. Beethoven is Bavarian. (If he's dead, isn't he still Bavarian? idk). I had guessed that that common ancestor had lived around the year 1000 CE and I guessed in Spain. I found out yesterday that the Jews of Germany went through a genetic bottleneck in 800 CE, when the population dropped to 300 individuals. That would be the source of an inherited recessive trait shared between myself, my friend, and Ludwig van. Ludwig van gave us an idea of what our prognosis is to be and it isn't good. But I was in Nebraska when I was diagnosed, and when I pointed out to the Nebraska Germans that I shared Jewish ancestry with Ludwig van they were racially offended and rejected me pretty forcefully. I would anticipate the same response from people who use the phrase "English Identity." It would seem that the idea that people who use the phrase "English Identity" would also reject quite forcefully and fancifully any suggestions that the English Identity includes Jews. The Cypriot connection doesn't help the case because before the bottleneck the Ashkenazim had interbred with local South Italian population. Magna Grecia. It's a replay of what I found in Nebraska: insult, offense and fear to suggest that there were Jews in England and Germany, and they had children. The mental gymnastics people go through to keep from admitting that pretty obvious fact resemble panic. The panic, like the identity, is an attempt to take a world we have now and try to square it with an imagined past that doesn't include "our present enemies," (whoever those may be) I am often disappointed in reading what archaeologists write because so often I find them to be racists. I figured out some years ago this is because Archaeology professors are racists and they only advance students who are also racists and I don't know how to get the infection out of the field of archaeology since racists won't give a doctorate to someone who isn't racist. The English ones don't want to remember that King John expelled all Jews from England so any English person who has a cookie bite hearing loss is not really English.
@@petehoover6616 Thank you for the information on Ludwig Van Beethoven, he was a musical genius who taught himself to used vibration to read and write notes to his piano during is lost of hearing, he never gave up his dream, has for Jewish ancestry the Jewish religion during second temple period in the Mediterranean was converting people at that time they said 1 in 10 people in the Roman empire belong to the Jewish faith and also Armenian kingdom convert to Judaism before the Romans adopted Christianity so the pure Hebrew bloodline was already deluted with non Jewish by the 3 AD century. One thing in common with these mixed people is there faith and strict married custom, Cousins marriages and Avuncular marriages (Uncle and Niece) which run the risk genetic variation and sometime problems, I sadden by your treatment you was given by your pairs the world is strange. I remember the Austrian Painter parents was Uncle and Niece, had Jewish ancestry this marriage was not his source for his madness no it was hate and blaming others, a lot of people born from Avuncular marriages and Cousins marriages lived health productive lives, it they way there mines turned to evil.
Just because the the early 'Anglo-Saxon' in habitants of Britain did not identify themselves as 'Anglo-Saxon, does not invalidate the label 'Anglo-Saxon' given to them. The inhabitants of what is now termed 'Celtic' Britain and Europe did not identify themselves as 'Celtic' at the time. Neither did people in what we term 'Medieval' societies identify as Medieval. These terms are useful identifiers to label particular cultural, political, linguistic and social phenomena in order to give coherent historical timeline. The current attack on the term Anglo-Saxon has its origins in people who have a particular political axe to grind and an agenda to undermine identities they don't like.
I think it's made complicated by people who don't understand why academics are challenging these definitions. If we say everything that's within x area is Anglo-Saxon, because that's how it was taught we fail to see how things changed, developed and how much each region was so different and unique in this period. I think there's not a push to invalidate or have an agenda in the UK. The USA I'd agree a lot more with, but it's a small group of Academics not the whole bunch. Also I don't use Celtic as it's so wrong and tied up in nationalism way more than Anglo-Saxon is.
@@AlexIlesUK Whilst there may be a legitimate debate about the spread of (for want of a better phase) ‘Anglo-Saxonisation’ over the regions in England, this is no different to the Romanisation that progressed, over a period of time, that is encompassed in what is termed ‘Roman Britain’. A term that is not under the same threat.
However, the current ‘Anglo-Saxon’ controversy is not driven primarily by legitimate academic debate, but by a small number of socio-political activists within academia who usually end up getting their way. A case in point is the subversion of the International Association of Anglo-Saxonists. A virulent campaign was launched against its name led by its 2nd Vice President Rambaran-Olm. Her main concern was a more inclusive future for Medieval studies and the dislike of the term Anglo-Saxon which she associated with white-supremacism. When she initially did not get her way, she resigned. Then several ‘academic’ activist groups weighed in (including Queerdievalists, The Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship and Medievalist of Colour) and her cause was also supported by the likes of Adam Miyashiro (whose article ‘Decolonising Anglo Saxon Studies’ betrays his particular motives). The IAAH did what all establishments do when faced with a cancel-culture backlash and a fear of being labelled ‘racist’ - they capitulated and changed their name.
This is very interesting, and I guess you could say that many people have an agenda. Some seem to want to look at the Anglo Saxon period as foundational and downplay the various peoples (apart from the Danes) who inhabited the land. Simply labeling these people as Celtic or even Briton may not be sufficient and may be hiding some interesting connections.
@@brachiator1 I guess you could say that the Anglo Saxon period is foundational in that it witnessed, in earliest times, Germanic tribal incursions that then led to the establishment of individual kingdoms which eventually coalesced into the single nation 'England' that exists today. There is, of course, a sizeable amount of pre-Anglo Saxon genes in the mix but all were subsumed into a common English speaking identity along with aspects of their original culture. The same can be said of the Scot's incursions from Ireland into Northern Britain which led to them eventually absorbing Pictish, Brythonic and former English Northumbrian areas (in the Lothian area) into a Scottish Kingdom.
Well said @prydwen3
Welcome back. You have raised a lot questions and I’m glad you have. Nothing is carved in stone yet!
Thank you
Fascinating stuff as always and it's exciting to be alive during the unfolding of such an elusive aspect of British history. Nothing brings us closer to the past than trying to understand how the past saw itself in its present.
Really glad you're enjoying the episode!
Good to see you’re back! I watched over your old videos recently as I genuinely missed your Saxon-focused content.
I'll try to keep it up
@@AlexIlesUK Please do. And whilst I'm here, I'd also like to invite you to the Jarrow Hall Museum & Anglo-Saxon farm. I'm a collections volunteer there, but I also get involved in experimental archaeology sector at the Museum. We recently received some funding and will be refurbishing a lot of the village. There are already plans to paint the thirlings in the main hall with authentic Saxon art. We're currently in the process of installing a beehive centre, with authentic Saxon 'skeps'.In the near future, the museum will also be setting up a wooden replica of the auditorium based on Ad Gefrin - the screens and all! We plan to test how well they worked, whether the screens indeed helped etc. All in all, some really exciting projects which could hopefully inspire some videos?
@stannypk5k9 have a chat with Alice, I'm involved with training your volunteers! I tried to do a bit of filming today at the Thrillings but it was too dark by 3pm! Would love to chat further as I'd really like to do more filming there and work with you all on further projects!
There is a lot of complexity contained within this period in history. A period that is only 'dark' due to by an unfortunate lack of written records. Maybe more will turn up at some point? Contained within the British people is the history of these islands. My ancestry, I am told via DNA and written records, is English (Anglo-Saxon), Irish and Scottish in almost equal measure, with a bit of Norse thrown in to complete the picture. This is pretty common in the modern UK, it is simply the percentages that vary. The 4th and 5th centuries AD were a time of mass movements of peoples within Europe, as the ailing Western Roman Empire folded-in upon itself. We are still missing huge chunks of the puzzle. The exciting 2020 discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa were quite an eye opener too, and proved that what we thought we knew about the time post 410 AD was wrong.
I'm hoping to do something on Chedsworth but I'll always be late to the party!!
@@AlexIlesUK - It would be a good subject. A mosaic laid in the mid to late 5th century is a game changer. The heads of historians and archaeologists are still spinning.
English is Bell Beaker DNA. English doesn't mean Anglo Saxon DNA.
@@ajrwilde14What on Earth are you talking about?
Only if you mean it's the foundation of western European DNA, but that's incredibly loosy goosey.
If the term 'Anglo-Saxon' was good enough for Alfred, it's good enough for me. 👍
Sing as Alfred really created the term and propagated it, then that's exactly correct !
And me!
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Let's just call the Anglo saxons, German boat people
Oooh that's going to put the Cat amongst the pigeons. I almost want to put it as the pinned comment for the video just because of some of the comments and responses I've had to read over the months!! 🤣
Great to see you alive and well. Now I get to sit back and enjoy as always
Thank you! Hope all is well over the sea!
To put it simply, we're mostly of Celtic origin but adopted English because the angles were the ruling class. This has happened often in history as we see in France and Spain with celts adopting a version of Latin of their overlords since it was financially advantageous.
Not nesseserally, that was the previous theory, Now it does look like theres more mixing and there was a substancial population who migrated in.
Hello Alex, I loved this truly well researched, highly informative episode. What a great teacher you'd make.
I hope this finds you and the family well and happy.
I said to my wife yesterday that I would like to have teaching as some part of my future, but I know it wont be in a school! Thank you!
I'm from Scotland, Aberdeenshire. DNA said 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, mate of mine did a test, he was 92% Celtic, 8% Finnish, know another man from Barra, outer Hebrides, he was similar.
We are too far away from the south east of Scotland to have any Anglo connections. I was surprised we have no viking connection though.
Thats really intresting - I did a video on Pictish aDNA too. The Scandinavians did not get everywhere in Scotland and there is a really intresting paper on Scotlands DNA with a sub part on Orkney's DNA - have a look here: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904761116
@@AlexIlesUK Thank you for that, I've had a quick look, and will need to look at it really in depth to understand. My son is studying Genetics at Uni, he is very interested in in your channel. Although I am from the Angus Aberdeenshire boundary, nearly all my heritage is Highland, cleared from their lands in the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the abuses of the landlord system. I come from an area of Scotland not recognised for being part of the Ghaedhealtacht, but nearly every place name is from Gaelic, and some from the Cruitneach (Picts). One other point, but this is hearsay, Bho Gaidhealtach (Highland Cattle) are said to be connected to the Yak, that came with the Finns from east of the Volga, not sure if its correct, but there are no other cattle like them in Europe, tho todays version have been bred with other European cattle, their may be a strong connection with Aberdeen Angus / Galloway cattle? I once worked with a Shetlander who told me Shetlanders are Picts, but with the culture and sense of the Norwegians, which I think they are, very progressive people more so than most of Scotland.
Nice and informative video... Thanks...
You're welcome!
3rd Generation British (Saxon) German American. Subscribed!
Loved the Saxon Chronicle Series!
How do you know your British side is Saxon? I’m currently looking for the dna tests that show this
Thanks for subscribing!
My British side did some background research. My last name is of Saxon origin.
@@FrederickDunkley-vs8ut In what is now England last names came into use for the mass of the people in post Norman times.
@@seanbouk
Indeed, is not possible.😊
The people of northwestern Europe have been mixing since the time of the ancient Egypt. Marrying , and taking slaves was common throughout our history...Isn't it easier to say that all of the people from that region are basically the same, with minor regional and tribal differences? Thanks for a great site and all of your insight.
Thank you.
Excellent video. Thank you!
You are welcome!
Procopius, a Byzantine historian wrote in the mid 6th century, "Now in Britain there were three very numerous nations, each ruling over a portion of the island: the Angili, the Frisians, and after these the Britons." (Book VIII, Chapter 20).
Thank you
@@AlexIlesUKyou : Chatbot or real person reacting?
I'm a real person. Something I'm just short of time to write long replies
You say that there was no concept of English identity until the time of Alfred the Great and that people would have identified themselves by their family, tribal group or kingdom.
Yet 150 years before Alfred and 60 years before the very first Viking raids which supposedly created it, in the year 731, Bede wrote his *Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum* . Am I wrong to assume that Bede saw exactly that: a common culture shared by all the people south of the Forth and the Clyde who were not the successors of the Romano-British inhabitants? If so, why did he use the word "Anglorum"?
Hi Keith,
Bede isn't creating an identity, such as a national identity,and many scholars believe he's referring quite specifically to Northumbria as a tribal affinity rather than anything else.
@@AlexIlesUK But iirc he mentions the Jutes settling in Kent, IoW & Hampshire, so I think it is fair to conclude that he was interested in the whole history of what we call the Anglo-Saxons, though not so much the British
@@AlexIlesUK what difference does that make they are still the people that made the english
@2frogland over time, the culture became English.
@@AlexIlesUK thats the point , the difference between the english and the rest was the "anglo saxons"
Eh, if we’re talking about genetics, it’s worth remembering that samples from Anglo-Saxon and Dane graves have yielded indistinguishable results
That's flagged up in the paper but they use samples from before the Viking age and after the Roman period.
I would think so, where the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from are very close to Denmark and even part of it.
From Jutland, Denmark and other than Scandinavian DNA my test showed markers from Scotland/Ireland and East Europe. I have no known realatives from either EE or Scotland/Ireland so it may reflect where a certain seafearing people went or maybe comes from later historical events, cause a lot of history has happend since the “Viking age” afterall.
I'm going to do an episode on Scandinavian aDNA and you'll hopefully be pleasantly surprised!
The DNA from south East England that is from Iron Age France- maybe they were Roman Gauls who fled the Visigoths and other Germanic tribes to a place - Britain- safe from those attacks and where they could continue to live in a Roman style? I did hear there were refugees who fled to britain at that time
It's really interesting as it shows two way migration across the English channel and North Sea.
I think this is highly likely. There is already a link with the Atrebates in both Britain and Gaul and also the Belgae. And there is evidence of close trading and familial links between the Cantii and Gaul, which continued after Jutish settlement. It is possible that the DNA evidence is now supporting the historical and archaeological findings.
Did the Anglo-Saxons Exist? is wessex not west sax and essix east sax... and was it not inhabited by a few jutes angles and saxons a couple of friesians
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand
Wondering if geneticists would have issues distinguishing Anglo-Saxon DNA from Danish or other Norse cultures? Are they not very closely related?
A later paper about Scandinavian aDNA touches on this but it is possible.
@@AlexIlesUK In my observation north-eastern Germans - never mind any other part of Germany - look very different to Scandinavians. Never bought the nordicist Anglo-Saxon trope for this reason alone.
@Northsideman1 please read the paper and also one of the issues with that is your comparing people from 1600 years ago with today.
Stricly speaking, nationality-based DNA mostly does not exist. For example, R1b DNA is R1b DNA, not something else. It is found all over Europe. What we have is correlations between similar and identical genes that may have mutated free of tribal ethnosis. There may be no single type of DNA that is found in Northmen that is not also found in Englishmen, etc.
I am Anglo Saxon and will remain so!
Do you mean your English, because I don't think you grew up within the geographic area of England and in culture and mindset of 5th - 11th century.
Murray is a Scottish Gaelic Celtic name so how can you be Anglo-Saxon? English people are a mix that includes Celtic Britons, Danish Vikings, Normans, etc
@@realitywins9020 according to Ancestry DNA I am 12% Irish, 14% Scottish 3% Norwegian & 70% English. Ancestry claim (I take this with a considerable grains of salt) accurate to a 1000 years!
From family history research, I have heritage in Leicestershire, Nottingham, Devon, Essex, one potential line in Yorkshire, Counties Cork and Kilkenny in Ireland. Cork being the origin of the family name, not my male line (illegitimate birth 1877). Where the Scottish comes from? Run away after the Boyne (1690?) or the Jacobite rebellion of 1745? Who knows!
So I will go with my 70% and assume, until someone disproves it, that my English was in England 🏴 prior to 1066, therefore Anglo Saxon!
Good enough case?
@johnmurray8428 entirely possible, but I think you've missed the point of the episode.
@@AlexIlesUK probably!
East Saxon Essex, in East Angl-ia, disappeared under the Danelaw, reappeared in Alfred's England, and has continued to be addressed as both Anglian and Saxon ever since. The Angle settlers of Brynach (Northumbria) initially preserved the name in translation (Beornicia: Land of the Bear), and they are also considered Saxon-ish (Sassenach) by their Northern neighbours. Memes transcend genes.
Brynach actually translates as the land of the mountain passes.
@@AlexIlesUK Bryn (like Bjorn, Beor, Bear, Brun, Brown) is a euphemism for the Unnameable beast (Arth/Arctos/Arthur...). The earliest record of an Arthur ("He was no Arthur" Y Gododdin) came from this land.
Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (1953:701-705)
@@AlexIlesUK As in Bernicia & Deira ?
Yes.
As far as I'm aware when I had my DNA test the conclusion was I am mostly/overwhelmingly Celtic, not surprising as I am Scottish and traced my ancestors many years ago and found my family originates from The Isle of Skye, on my mother's branch of the family, and the Blair Athol area of Scotland, the true centre of Scotland, for my father's. I found this interesting as I had no idea there was such a thing as Anglo-Saxon DNA.
With all of these we are putting modern names onto ancient groups, but you can see groups of people moving at different times with this study and understand migrations, and groups in the past.
Is Isle of Skye DNA purely "Celtic"? I thought there was a substantial % of Scandinavian (Norse) + Gael + original British.
Quite true. For simplicity sake the term Anglo-Saxon is perhaps more of a modern application by historians to describe the Germanic peoples that began settling across the old Roman province of Britannia. Even though Alfred introduced the term his purpose was likely more about the continued unification of all the peoples under his watch. It's not reasonable to believe that the average person of those times would even use of the term Anglo-Saxon, let alone see themselves part of some larger nation state. People would more likely refer to themselves (in terms of self identity) as from whatever village or area they were born and raised in. Most people did not travel far from where they lived, except men that were needed in times of conflict. There were no professional soldiers, all were farmers, smithys etc. Identifying as from a particular village or region was the norm for centuries and likely all the way up to WWII. During the War of the Roses men identified as from the village they were born, then if they were Lancastrian or Yorkshireman, but rarely would suggest they were English, that probably only came into their vocabulary if fighting oversees. Identifying as part of a nation state, as in being English or British is something very much post modern, and that has likely come about through it being repeated continuously through all our school years. So in fact we are all programmed to identify as being English etc.
Where is Merseyside and Manchester on the Anglo Saxon scale? I'm an American with 40% percent British DNA, mostly in Merseyside, Manchester, Lancaster and some in West Yorkshire.
Less Anglo-saxon, more native but the issue is it can change a lot depending on who your ancestors were and who they paired with.
@@AlexIlesUK thank you!
Thanks Alex. Well presented and considered.......though still not fully convinced by the modelling done in the most recent AS DNA paper....
Can I ask why?
@@AlexIlesUK of course. If I'm remembering correctly, it was firstly the selection of Southern French IA populations to represent the hypothetical Frankish input, rather than the more Northern populations. Some of hose individuals are paractically British IA on a lot of PCAs. Secondly, with respect to moderns, and county level inputs, again if I'm remembering correctly, was the use of Irish as a blanket representative for IA equivalents. We know from the York paper, that the gradation from English-Welsh- Scottish then Irish is not insignificant! If possible the authors should have perhaps selected Welsh populations as bieng reflective of Enlish IA populations. Finally, although the recent British IA paper, did not show PCAs for them, I have seen private PCAs that indicate a lot more variability in the IA populations alongside the Viking and AS paper. The 'author' found that many imodern ndividuals (of course not the PoBI dataset) could be effectively modelled with qpAdm just bey British IA and AS inputs,, without the high order of magnitude of AS input, at least not to the same degree............so for me jury is still out
I would add the caveat., Iam probably remembering certai details of the AS paper incorrectly. It's been a while since I read it. Probably got the Irish blanket wrong,.......
did romano britan exsist? because most of the troops were not roman and they were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the britons
It's a book review watch the Anglo-Saxon DNA episode for more info
I would say that the Leslie et al. paper was also highlighting the geographic effects of isolation and mixing between populations. The paper was essentially looking at small-scale genetic differences between populations. The major reason that the South and East, and indeed Midlands of England has a more homogenous population today than elsewhere, is that people in those areas were in lowlands of a very similar nature, with few natural barriers to movement. Unlike the more genetically diverse highland regions. Movement between highland regions is more difficult due to physical isolation and diverse local conditions. Movement from the lowlands to the highlands, and vice-versa, is made even more difficult by differences in agriculture. A farming community, family or individual peasant can move between areas of lowland - say Norfolk and Hampshire - quite easily, as both areas have almost identical reliance on mostly wheat-based cereal crop farming. Highland agriculture is very different, being mostly reliant on grazing cattle and sheep, and even the crops are different, oats and barley predominating. People moving between areas having very different agricultural conditions would be at a severe disadvantage, not knowing how to make the best use of the land. It is, therefore unsurprising that the lowlands would have a thoroughly mixed together, almost homogenous population and the highland regions have populations distinct from the lowlands and each other.
That's one possible reason - a nice hypothetical. I like it
I've just googled "A DNA" - wikipedia states that it is one of three structural forms (A,B & Z) that DNA can take. It does not mean "ancient DNA".
I suppose the term "A DNA" might have two meanings.
Try Ancient DNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20human%20aDNA,good%20conditions%20for%20DNA%20preservation.
Best wishes
@@AlexIlesUK OK, I see that "aDNA" and "A DNA" are different! Rather confusing nomenclature!
Wasn't Gilda's from arounds Strathclyde area when it was a Brythonic Kingdom? I know it's difficult to differentiate the Saxon root "wielisc", Welsh / Briton / Insular Celt / Roman Briton, but just calling him Welsh doesn't really do it justice, and maybe confuses modern geographic Wales / Welsh, for Medieval Welsh and what I think your talking about, but still love your videos.
People keep trying to guess where he's from and they throw the net as wide as Dumfries and Galloway right down to Devon and Cornwall, but he doesn't like the Welsh princes that's for certain!
Its a hard one for 'Welsh' because I need to keep it at a level where everyone can understand with little background and also short enough that people will watch so I know, I would love more nuance! Thank you that you like all the same!!
@@AlexIlesUK yes and have subscribed 👍
Big Weather Change around the 6th Century AD that would be caused by an enormous Volcanic Event in either the Americas or SE Asia.
Entirely possible
Im English American but my dna is majority native Briton dna it seems. To be fair my mothers family were mostly of lowland Scots ancestry though with most of those families being historically "Anglo-Norman" such as my mother's surname of Montgomery. I was expecting to find more Germanic dna considering my fathers ancestors overwhelmingly came from England with a small distant component of Scots, and Welsh.
Very interesting!
Normans intermarried with natives as did the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanics, so your DNA shouldn't be that surprising. Robert the Bruce was a Norman, but his mother was a Gaelic speaking Scot
Thank you Alex. What is an Anglo Saxon? A dirty word for UK Post colonialism etc. I'm fascinated. We don't know how pre/post Roman people wldve described themselves. Iron age tribal groups fits the bill. I'm from Liverpool. River Mersey I believe means boundary river. Age 83
I think I understand, while I've made points about the use of Anglo-Saxon I'm not against it. I need to look up the meaning of Mersry
I'm reading Ivanhoe, written in 1819 and an eye opener to someone raised under Hollywood's false influence, and has led me to research what he got right, or not, about the social and cultural aspects of the time. And has brought me here.
Well I'm really glad you've come here and I hope you are enjoying it!
I am so called “northern Germanic Tribes” in my DNA, with some Swedish and Irish/Scottish as well. My grandparents all came from the British Isles. I’m guessing the northern Germanic tribes would be Anglo Saxon.
Well I’m 83% Irish Scottish & Welsh .
11.4 % Greek & South Italian
5.6% Baltic .
I’m from north Lanarkshire in Scotland & I knew my dad was Irish & my mum a Scot , the rest came as a surprise. No English DNA so I know at least there was no mixing with any southerners.
And if there had been would that have been a problem for you? Also if it's bunching Irish, Scottish and Welsh together it is likely is grouping the British isles DNA together so it's quite possible you have ancestry from the Southerners.
I'm from Aberdeenshire, 88% Celtic, 12% Finnish, that Baltic you have may be Finnish also!?
It is pleasing that the evidence largely did not support woke academias attempts to rewrite Anglo Saxon history, and in some cases write them from history completly.
It should not be a revelation that the Anglo Saxons were not the only tribes to migrate/invade, or that peoples were already here. The Angles and Saxons became the dominate tribes over the centuries, much like France is named for the Franks or Belgium for the Belgae, both were still made up of many other tribes
Like all things there's exceptions to the rules and also nuance. I would really like more data from the North, but it may never happen due to the soils being more acidic.
Indeed. How about the migration of the Ingvaeon/Ingwine peoples as a more inclusive term for the early migrations? Ingwine may have been something they all indentified with at the time
Interesting material, most of which was already known to me but some not in the depth that you have shown. To me the whole thing seems an enormous melting pot, looking at earlier migration periods often a groep moves into an area and joins with a native population sometimes peacefully but often violently. The elites take over and the common people mix and become a hybrid of the two groups. Also, most people set family and their lord as the main priority and identification of their ethnic identity. This makes for blurred lines between ethnic groups, I feel something similar happened in the early middle age period.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Would there be an argument for referring to the Saxon settlers as Danish and not Germanic? Considering the larger land mass of Denmark during the medieval times compared to today, and the fact that Germany didn't technically exist until 1871.
Although I am aware the Romans used the terms Germani and Germania as early as the fourth century B.C.
So it refers to the cultural group of Germanic peoples. Denmark doesn't exist until later.
Can we skip the preamble?
I'm sorry you're the only person who has asked for that, it's important to set the scene and explain the data.
Do you have any videos on NW england and isle of man where my english ancestors and mother's family comes from.
It's on the list because I have had a few requests. It takes a while for me to plan them but stick around and I'll do some research
@@AlexIlesUK great because my english bit and some of my norwegian bits come from NW england and Isle of Man. I am mainly about 39% scandy, abit of german and a bit of fin as well. I have less english than my brother and sisters, and no irish or scots like they have.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 I have DNA results from all the main sites. They don't agree very well. And they change over time as their database increases and improves.
@@akaDorM yes I have Ancestry, 23&me, and heritage and they all say the same thing. I am 39% Swedish with a touch of Nowegian. My viking heritage is Baltic, but part of my scandyness comes from NW England. NW England, Isle of Man is where my mom's family comes from and Varmland Sweden is where 3 great grandparents and 1 grandparent came from with a touch of Finland and Germany. My great great grandfather was a German brew meister in Varmland Sweden who had 5 children to his upstairs maid and that is the branch i am from. My maiden surname is May which is old German and came from my great great grandfather. Now, my younger brother and sister are not quite 30% scandy with touch of German and finland (my dad's side) and the rest are NW England Ireland and Scotland.
@@joannmay-anthony1076 Remarkable that it's so consistent. Though if it's a deep ancestry in one place that's represented in all their databases that makes sense.
Hi Alex - I remember hearing (but I can't remember where) that the first time Anglo-Saxon was used was at a 6th century continental European meeting of bishops where it was to differentiate the British from the continental.....
Could it be Procopius describing the inhabitants of Britannia as Britons, Angles and Frisians?
@@AlexIlesUK What do you think to the book 'Age of Arthur' by Morris. I know it was panned by historians, but it made sense to me.
a) AS invited in, rebelled
b) The Britons halted the advance at Mons Badon.
c) Plague devastates the Britons more than the AS
d) AS take over unoccupied lands, inviting in more AS families
Morris (from memory) thinks that unlike Gaul it was not a elite takeover, but families. Explaining the loss of the British language because the women talking to the children were AS. In France there was more intermarriage of warriors with local women. If 'Arthur' had lost at Mons Badon, it would have been warriors marrying locals.
@@AlexIlesUK Oh my name & DNA says British not AS. So no dog in the fight.
I think it shows the academic work at the time, he researched and presented his argument based on what was known at the time and it's an enjoyable read but it is of its period.
@@jcoker423 Was there really a British language when the Roman Empire withdrew? Some will have spoken Latin. Most people would have stayed local. Even a thousand years later the dialects of distant districts were barely interpretable (if understandable at all). Judging by modern dialects, the move to English was primarily local, with English becoming the lingua franca of the ruling class who needed to converse over greater distances. Incoming germanic mercenaries or invaders didn't speak brythonic and British rulers who invited them would have had an incentive to communicate clearly with them.
Irish/Scottish mothers don't seem to have stopped Icelanders szpeaking Icelandic.
I'm not an Anglo Saxon, for all I must be at least the 100th generation of my family. In the area of N/E England I'm from. We have lower than 3% Anglo Saxon DNA. In fact I'm pretty certain I've more Asian DNA in my genealogy than Anglo Saxon.
Can I ask where are you from? Which test did you do interesting with what you've said as the body of data is quite different in regards to the DNA of the region.
Well, since I'm Dutch.
What do you think.
Cousin... Is that you? ;)
ALEX: PROPS! this video is top tier/first rate. As it went on i realized "this is very much like--is essentially--a conference presentation, and rates among the very best Ive attended across 40+ years". EXCEPT that i just watched it on my phone @ home, early on a Saturday morning: what a treat!
"Full disclosure" Your topic falls in a field which Ive never studied formally nor worked in, altho it is adjacent to mine--or the next over...or perhaps in the next valley🤔--and so broadens my horizons.
For which you are a fabulous guide. I know just enough about migrations of peoples and the New DNA-ology (if i can say that) to be able to follow YOUR extremely lucid presentation.
I would tag this video a "review essay", meaning an overview/precis of what is known currently about a topic and the questions/directions for further research.
Its true that I am unfamiliar with the researchers & studies that you cite, but your presentation bears the hallmarks of someone who has that literature at their fingertips and who is analyzing and synthesizing it with sound methods and without an agenda (other than love of their topic).
And, i enjoyed your response to the internet orcs who attacked the comments section of one your previous videos😂
Thank you I really appreciate it! I'm enjoying filming again and hope to share more with everyone shortly!!
Thank you, Alex for this interesting presentation and for recommending the Gretzinger paper.
I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail yet but the finding that you mentioned at the end of your presentation touched on something I already wanted to ask you about. I sometimes read that the Norman Invasion didn’t have much demographic impact because only the elite was changed and they represented only about 2% of the population. I don’t think this is true. The histories of England and France were intertwined for 300 years (to the end of the 100 years war). France had a much bigger population than England during this period and led England in the development of towns and trades. I think this would have led to a slow but ultimately significant migration of French and Flemish (also heavily populated and more urbanised) people migrating into England; mainly craftspeople moving into the growing towns. I think the Frenchified English language as we know it today was nurtured and developed in this environment.
In Gretzinger’s paper, the addition of the French Iron Age ancestry is inferred by comparison with the contemporary British population. I would suggest the this is not the addition of a French Iron Age population but rather the addition of a French Medieval population. I understand that France is rather behind on using genetic studies to unravel its History but presumably this could be tested.
I think they clarified it by saying that the human remains analysed were all from the early medieval period (400-1066), so that they couldn't reflect later migrations. But it's a valid point, the Normans and later groups did settle Flemish populations in the British isles.
@gravegoods and identity - it seems to me that this question is treated differently when it comes to this period than when it comes to the start of the Roman period. I wonder why so much (more) stress is put on ethnic background and who they identitified with when it comes to the AS when compared to the Romans.
I think it's because so many nations see their 'foundation' in the post Roman period, so ethnicity becomes a aspect of this. A lot of it can be traced back to the 19th century!
Very few Romans from Italy settled in Britain. There was a wider mix from the rest of the Empire. And some will have left when the legions withdrew. So the bulk of British DNA is either Pre-Roman or Post-Roman, and the Roman bit is very mixed.
The Angelen lived in a very small region.
It can't be a very large group to migrate.
Saxons were a large group, actually living more to the easter part of germany
The frisians lived along the west-and northcoast of the Netherland and the north- and northwestcoast of germany.
They drowned in that region because of the rising sealevels and moved abroad.
Frisians were known with Brittons by trade and working in the roman army.
Old english and Old frisian are very very similar.
So...
It's interesting as the Anglian's cover more of the geography of the British isles, it'll be one for future research for certain!
The Angles lived in a smaller area than the Saxons but that doesn’t mean they had less numbers to migrate. Many Saxons remained in Europe and as you will be aware there are still Saxons in Germany. The Angles all moved to Britain in their entirety or as a political entity and no noticeable numbers remained in Denmark/Northern Germany.
There is a viking account which states that as he sailed along the Western Baltic, that the islands on one side used to be occupied by the English. If true, this expands Angeln considerably, possibly into Finn Island. Add that Jutland was Western Germanic speaking before its later occupation by Danes, and the Angelcynn, if not the Anglish alone, dwelt in a large area. Then, we can understand how the Angles may have had enough manpower to fight Scots/Picts for the British, and still have enough men left over to expand within Britain. The idea that Anglen was just a small area seems to memetic, i.e. the notion is not contested at all, just copied from one source to the next.
That's an interesting one to read more into!
Have a look at Tolkien's translation of the Battle of Maldon..the narrator stated that the 'English' fought with the fyrd..were they Angles possibly from Mercia or East Anglia? Also it is likely that many of the Anglo Saxons were Frisian. Some studies indicate that the Dutch and English have close DNA..
Yes, the Dutch and English are very closely related.
Anglo Saxon or German Small Boat People
When I did my DNA most of it was Scot and Welch. Surprised that 30% was Scandinavian, but our English ancestors came from Norfolk Coast of Britain across from Denmark.
It's really interesting to see the North sea connections
Very well done!
Thank you!
I love the male vs female Briton burial comparison in Gretzinger et al (Nature 2022). It corresponds well with the idea that the home (run by women) holds traditions much longer than society at large (run by men who often more incentivized to assimilate to gain status).
It is interesting!
A good analogy.
l just love this episode. l never knew that the english were so keen on the anglo/Saxon concept. l come from Sweden and we do call the period 793/1066 the Viking age but of course they didn't call themseves vikings. Why would it be so important to have your roots called Anglo/saxon?
Its a very good question but it really affects some people that they connect their identity back to it, without really understanding what they are saying.
Regarding the 'French' DNA found in southern England the Guardian's report on the Oxford University 10 year genetic study of Britain (completed 2014) makes the following comment:
'People living in southern and central England today typically share about 40% of their DNA with the French, 11% with the Danes and 9% with the Belgians, the study of more than 2,000 people found. The French contribution was not linked to the Norman invasion of 1066, however, but a previously unknown wave of migration to Britain some time after then end of the last Ice Age nearly 10,000 years ago'.
So, not a migration at the time of the 'Anglo-Saxons' but thousands of years earlier - a quite different conclusion to the later study referenced in the video.
The French inclusion in both studies are not the same. The PoBI study has 2 separate populations included FRA14 and 17. The FRA14 is indicative of pre- AS arrival, whilst the FRA17 component arrived later. The authors argue for it being possibly representative of AS DNA, but Frankish would make more sense.......or perhaps even French during the Norman Invasion?
The paper clarified this, the Iron Age French aDNA is not found in previous populations. It's really interesting.
@@AlexIlesUK
This from the University of Oxford 'People of the British Isles' :
'The most intriguing European contribution is that from Northern France, (EU17 red). This clearly post- dates the original settlers since it is entirely absent from the Welsh samples. It is, however, widespread elsewhere, even right through the north of England and Scotland to Orkney. It is also especially prevalent in Cornwall and Devon. These results suggest a previously not described substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little, if any, impact on Wales'.
key word "share" why would we have 40% french dna?
@@NordiCrusader7
See my second post above for the answer.
Z209 haplogroup was likely progenitor of many peoples: Picts, Salian Franks, Gauls, and Anglo-Saxon
I would need to look more into that.
Bede and Gildas we're talking about two different forms of Christianity. Gildas was early (Celtic) Christianity, Bede was Catholic christianity. At the time Bede was writing the majority were Catholic Christians and this benefits his church as gifts (money) were donated to his church. The pagans (read the rest of Christianity in Britain), didn't make absurd gifts which they saw as useless, either God would take you to heaven or he wouldn't, giving money to a large business was a waste of resources. That's why Beds castigated the 'pagans'. - just my take on this argument 🤔
People make far too much of a distinction between the Celtic and Roman church - when ultimately it boils down to a haircut and when Easter was. Bede would never have referred to other Christians as pagans as his whole aim is to ensure orthodoxy in the church. The 'Celtic' believers made just as many wealthy gifts - just look at Whithorn and other sites on the West of the British isles!
I've always found it interesting that Gildas never mentioned the Irish invaders. He must have been aware being originally based in Wales. Presumably didn't fit his argument since they were Christian at the time.
What about basque adn in Britain .
I've not come across that in my reading.
I’m from very near West Yorkshire. Over there there is a region called Elmet, lots of villages called “something in Elmet”, and apparently Elmet was a Celtic kingdom that survived while the Anglo saxons conquered all around them, and it held out against the Saxons. Maybe that is why they is a different marker in West Yorkshire?
Elmet was brought into Northumbria in the early 7th century but yes that is likely.
@@AlexIlesUK I think politically it was brought into it but it remained ethnically an enclave for some time after, under Anglo Saxon rule
@krisinsaigon do you have sources for that? The reading I have done is very sparse on information for Elmet
My Y chromosome is Saxon according to a family dna test. However, 23 and me says my dna is most similar to people living in Northern France and the German border (Alsace). This jives with the video's conclusions.
Good to see that's the case!
Celtic/Anglo are todays millions of indigenous people of the British isles and we have the DNA to prove this.
The finest scale genetic map of any country offers a detailed look at the history and ancestry of the people of the British Isles, Nature News reports. Scientists analyzed the DNA of thousands of living people in Britain for a study reported in this week's issue of Nature and found that many still live where their distant ancestors did, in regions defined by ancient tribal kingdoms. The study also found that today's Welsh have the most genes in common with the earliest inhabitants of the islands, who arrived about 10,000 years ago. Invaders such as the Vikings and the Romans left less of a genetic legacy than expected, although 25% of the genome of people in the far north Orkney Islands stems from the Vikings.
Which paper are you refering too? The 2016 one? Fine scale genetic map? It's a complex one and I've gone over it before. It uses modern DNA and works backwards so is skewed by migrations and mixing. I don't put too much weight behind that one.
@@AlexIlesUK Do you deny that Britain and Ireland's population has remained mainly unchanged for thousands of years, accept for a few invasions and the like from other similar Northern European populations mainly Gemanic and Scandanavian which are very similar to each other anyway? ok the Romans were Southern European in some cases and had a few Middle Eastern, North African and such in their armies but also a lot of Germanic but the Romans left very little genetic legacy behind in Britain as did the British in India, you keep mentioning migrations and mixing you seem obsessed with this, but you don't say that these migrations are all coming from the same places for thousands of years France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany all North western European migrations nothing like the migration we've had from the 1950s onwards to today which these islands have never experienced in their long history.
@alunevans380 the focus of your question seems to be on the modern migrations, which may be a personal frustration.
The migrations may have came from the same geographic locations but there were migrations from the North and East that occured between the bronze age migrations in the the Bronze age until the migrations at the end of the Roman period. I cover those in my Anglo-Saxon DNA episode.
Why would I be denying migrations? I'm not obsessed, I'm explaining the data. Could you be a bit clearer about why you want to compare the migrations after the 1950s and Historical migrations prior to that?
@@AlexIlesUK The migrations after the 1950s came mostly from Sub Saharan African people from the West Indies, people also from Pakistan (Muslim), India, Bangladesh (Muslim), also now the Middle East (Muslim), North Africa (Muslim), Albania (Muslim), Romania,
people who had never lived in Britain before or if they did it was tiny, tiny amounts as the evidence shows.
Britain remained homogenous for nearly a thousand years after the Norman conquest and even before that it was still only Celtic/Anglo Saxon really.
Certain disengenuous people on the far left or other groups for whatever reason i don't understand will try to deny this and say that there's always been huge African, Asian, Middle Eastern etc communities in Britain, even going so far as to brainwash the younger generation with this now in historical dramas, childrens education books and the like, criticizing and falsifying the indigenous culture of Britain.
this is all obviously false and can be proven very easily,
Certain people desperately want the multiculturalism the British people have had foisted onto them over the last 70 years or so to work so badly,
There's now a population of 4 million plus Muslims in Britain, in 1961 there where just 50,000 who ever thought this was a wise thing to allow? In my opinion these insane levels of mass immigration into Britain over the last 30 years especially have been very destructive and deliberate.
i probably sound Islamophobic but i feel the same about other cultures and ethnicities that have arrived here now in their millions and not integrated, anyway we were never asked and if this makes me a racist for expressing my opinion then so be it, who knows where it will all end.
@alunevans380 while it will have me being accused of all sorts of things, I don't discuss modern politics on this channel.
My brother just had his dna done. I can find only 1 ancestor in 200 years who was born outside Yorkshire or north east england. They were Irish. However his dna was 45% celt 30% English. 20% viking.
I'd say any Genetic test telling you that you are Viking is not to be trusted. There were populations of Native Britons who lived side by side with Anglo-Saxons and intermarried, as seen by the paper this is based on.
Commercial DNA tests are not very reliable. The most they can do is compare your DNA to the DNA of the testing company's other customers. My mother had her DNA tested a while back and it came back as 85% British Isles. But I know from documentary sources that her maternal ancestors were nearly all Rhenish/swiss/Prussian going back to around the year 1530.
I used to watch time team channel 4 and loved it but when they found an Anglo Saxon grave with goods they assumed it was Anglo Saxon but because someone is buried in England doesn't make them English I believed that the programme was wrong in identifying graves because someone has Anglo Saxon grave goods doesn't mean that they were Anglo Saxon and the Welsh were here 10 thousand years but more DNA research needs to be done there are lots of unanswered questions about this period of time my believe is that English people are 50 % Welsh and Anglo Saxon and other we maybe closer related than we think
I'm sure the British and native British population were far more integrated with the incoming Anglo-Saxons than we realised before.
The Anglo-Saxons were not Anglo-Saxons before they arrived in Britain. They were of diverse folk and tribal confederation origins. The ethnogenesis of the English people occurred in Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were not merely transplanted from the North Sea coastlands of continental Europe, they evolved in Britain, through interactions among themselves and with the native peoples of Britain.
I think I said this in the episode?
@@AlexIlesUK Worth emphasising in a more concise fashion. Many people think that that the first North Sea coastal Germanic person to set foot in Britain immediately became an Anglo-Saxon. There was even a sound shift that affected 'Ingaevonic' speakers in Britain that did not occur on the continental 'homelands'.
Ok... Are you asking me to make shorts?
@@AlexIlesUK No, nothing I am saying is directly aimed at your podcasts. I'm just airing ideas, in response.
@urseliusurgel4365 thanks for clarifying! I wasn't sure if you wanted me to be more succinct in my presentations
This is pretty funny because 4 or 5 yrs. ago my sister had her DNA done it said 38% English and ya say 38% I didn't even know my Grandma had any English at all We were told she came from Ireland at 12 yrs old to USA Anglo-Saxon who knows with what my family has ✌️❤️
There are a fair few Anglo-Irish and also theres some good modern papers that show the Irish and English are genetically simialr in the modern age - likely due to migrations for work in the 18th - 20th centuries.
@AlexIlesUK Thank ya for the information
I remember when at university a post doc was very fervently arguing that ‘Celtic’ was not an accurate term to describe the early Britons, even though they spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, made Celtic artefacts and lived in Celtic model settlements. His argument was that these were mere waves of influence on the populace.
I said then, and say now, if that is to be believed then there was no such thing as Romans or Anglo Saxons either.
Are you an academic?
@@AlexIlesUK No. I did a degree but didn’t proceed further than BA.
I would argue the diffrence between the title 'Celtic' is diffrent than later Romans or Anglo-Saxons is because of how it is used. The Celts are first metioned by the Greeks in the 6th century BC, while the Romans subdivide them into Britons, Gauls, Iberians etc. They dont even call the people living in Northen Italy Celts but Gauls. So the term Celt was used in the 19th century to apply it to items, peoples and language, while we have Romans (a identity that could be gained, granted or adopted rather than biologically determined) and the Anglo-Saxons who developed in the 9th century as a identity in contrast to the Danes to create a political unit. We do not get Gildas refering to himself as a Celt or the welsh princes calling themselves Celtic, they are Britons and see themselves as being connected to the Roman world. Thats why I would disagree with that post doc.
@'Frankish dna' - I wonder if we should call it thus. The 'Franks' were originally from the NE Netherlands and/or from the Middle Rhine areas, and these people would be different from 'Iron Age France'. Now my questions would be this: do we know when this dna enters Britain? Because in my humble opinion (i'm NO dna expert!) we could also be looking at people who migrated to Britain during the (later?) Roman period, as Roman citizens.
Hi Robert, I should have clarified this more! So this aDNA is not present in Roman or Late Roman British aDNA samples, it comes in during the Migration period. I believe it's been referred to as Frankish due to the connection to items referred to as Frankish and the fact this aDNA has been found in the Rhineland. Hope that clarifies!
@@AlexIlesUK NE Gaul was Belgae? Didn't some cross into Kent before Caesar? I have a vague memory the Romans wrote the Belgae thought of themselves as Germans rather than Gauls.
Thanks for mentioning the Britons were never considered Celtic by the Romans. Their Celts were in todays S Germany & Bohemia. The Gauls/Britons/Germans were just another, related, part of the Indo-European language group.
I sound abit too certain in these paragraphs. I'm happy to be corrected.
I always take the historical sources with a pinch of salt but with the distances over the channel migrations would have occured more easily. From the paper this aDNA is definitely early medieval though which is interesting in itself. Don't need to apologise you've done your reading, which is great!
Another really helpful video, thank you so much for keeping them appearing. I've watched the Anglo-Saxon and Pict ones so far and can't wait for the others.
For me, all the harsh comments on the 'Anglo-Saxons Didn't Exist' video represent an inability to get past modern national identities - whether 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Celtic' (both terms that I think muddy the waters even further) - to appreciate the greater fluidity of cultural, spiritual and social identities in this period. Personally, I think there is an argument for calling this the 'Early Medieval Migration Period' rather than the A-S Ages or, worst still, the 'Dark Ages' and applying this same descriptive to much of western Europe at the time. But again, the problem of modern national identities causes this to be a contentious term because of the perception of migration in that context. Finding out the fascinating truth about the past of the place you live in doesn't mean you can't be proud to live there, it just means that you can acknowledge cultural expression outside your own and celebrate that too.
I think you make a good point. However I think its that the English people are tired of being told by progressives that their national identity is problematic, does not matter and that they need to look beyond it as you put it. When the opposite is true
Thank you both @snufkinhollow318 and @danielryan570 - I do understand both positions and see why the Radicals on one side denying any identity in England is really frustrating. To give you a prospective from me, I was born in Scotland, but don't sound Scottish so because of that face hostility from a minority of Scots as I can't be a part of their national identity (but any American can as long as they buy a kilt and some shortbread on the way!) I think the important thing is to say that the first settlers were not Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon were not English, but these identities grew out of events and people who mixed and became the next thing. I see myself as British but this feels like a dying identity.
@@danielryan570 I don't think I singled out the English for criticism here, rather as you say 'the opposite is true'. My point was that modern national identities have a tendency to exclude any period involving migration from areas outside their national borders from history (or their origin mythology) because it is perceived as a threat to their 'purity'. Whereas, for me, it enhances the richness of their history and should be celebrated. If pointing that out makes me a 'progressive', then, yes, I will happily sit in the camp of progress. I am of Welsh ancestry, born in England and now live in Ireland, all countries that I love for their natural beauty, and I have travelled around the world too, sometimes to places where I felt completely at home within days of arriving. But do I feel like I 'belong' to any of the countries I have been to or they to me? No, I belong where my home is and where I feel safe and if there are national identities that come into conflict with that, I will criticse them, wherever they are.
@@AlexIlesUK I'm not sure that it is 'radical' to deny national identities (not just that of the English) when they are relatively modern creations that, in their turn, deny the richness of our history, but a do take the overall point you are making. Ireland where I live is also subject to the 'kilt and shortbread' phenomenon that you identify in the form of what some Irish people call 'plastic Paddies', incomers from the US who buy up what they believe to be their ancestral land in some rural area and then complain that they can't get all the services and consumer goods that they want.
I had another curious experience of this the other day when I went into a shop I've been using for over a decade and the owner was giving a hate-fuelled speech about 'immigrants' to several other customers. So I place my goods on the counter and went to walk out. He called me back and when I said I found his speech against me offensive he said "But you're not like them, you're ...." and then tailed off when he realised that it was impossible to finish that sentence without either contradicting himself or sounding like an out-and-out racist. I find it almost impossible to believe that a country will one of largest global diasporas in modern history can be so hateful towards immigrants. I expect many people from outside Ireland have heard about the recent riots in Dublin, supposedly sparked by the stabbing of a woman and child by an immigrant. Not many news reports here in Ireland or overseas, however, have included the fact that it was a Brazilian immigrant who put his own life on the line to save the victims whilst many Irish people stood and did nothing.
I'm so sorry to rant and ramble but I do feel very strongly that national identities are more a source of disharmony than of unity.
@@danielryan570this is why I will continue to just call myself what I was raised as and understand myself to be. English mixed with Scottish. Im not Anglo-Saxon the same way what we call AS prob didnt call themselves that.
I dislike how people are now saying the term Anglo-Saxon is racist or that even being English and British is racist. So I dont want to develop some weird and fake "proud" identity crisis and suddenly start calling myself AS like how some black Americans turned Afrocentric and claim they were the first black ppl everywhere. I knew who I was before all this and never used the term Anglo before despite etymologically-speaking that is the origin of England (Angleland). Ppl can call me racist all they like. I didnt pick my genetics any more than they did.
Interesting talk I've had my ancestral dna done and its 56% Anglo saxon 27% welsh 10% nordic and 7% greek .
Glad you enjoyed it
Weren't aliens involved somehow? ;)
Nah m8, that's the history channel.
it would be good to see what the ratio of Native British Y chomosome vrs Mainland Saxon, Anglo, Jutuish DNA. If the amount of native british Y Chromosomes are diminished vrs Saxon/Jutish/Anglo would indicate "replacement" or genocide. all other topics are irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe it's covered in the paper, I put a link in the description and it's in the final pages.
Would it not be correct in saying we are an Germanic people. Also people forget about the yamnaya dna across Easter, and western Europe that connects us.
So that's a bit tricky because of mixing and changing cultures. Some people do some don't! Can't give you a straight answer but the people who do give you a straight answer have an agenda!
Gildas is 6th century.
He lived while there was a worldwide catatrofy going on.
The reason why people started looking for food. Many many died of to less food. 536 AD.
So Gildas will have seen this.
Thank you for your insight.
My understanding is the 2022 study does not support the theory popular in recent times, of A-S migration as an influx of warrior elites grafting to a base Briton population over time. The suggestion is it was nearer to the other end of the spectrum - a significant genetic cascade which passed through the entire population in large areas of now England during this period(ie:tended to be replacement of genetic and cultural identity) - though western and northern areas, exhibited more genetically blended rather than replaced populations and cultural identity.
An interesting question would be - the retreat of a dominant Roman presence was opportunity, but what factors fuelled this extended period of migration from now north-central Denmark,southern Sweden and lower Saxony
My question is did the Romans as we understand them actually leave? If you read the sources it suggests that they broke off from the main empire but did not 'leave' also Bede mentioned that Latin was one of the languages spoken during his time. What if that's not just church Latin but actually people talking lantin as their language? It's a fascinating period!
.....I'm just letting my imagination run free on this...I have no evidence of course....undoubtedly there would have been an ongoing roman "presence" including a persitent use of latin but I guess the character of this presence might consist in a scattered and much diminished elite and other ranks {possibly Germanic and other peoples in any case)...and possibly facing adaption as renewed waves of Anglo-Saxons began to arrive@@AlexIlesUK
That study draws very sweeping conclusions from a very limited sample. It makes unsupported assumptions about how the heterogeneity should be interpreted. It assumes that their cemeteries reflect the whole population. It assumes a cultural homogeneity where fewer grave goods indicate lower status.
@AlexIlesUK
If that were the case then one would expect insular Latin to have left more traces in placenames for example. The Romans were keen on written / inscribed records and literature. There is practically none of this in post Roman occupation Britain. There is no evidence that Latin was widely spoken by the populace.
People say my family is Anglo-Saxon but yet my dna ties me more to the Danes
I think the episode explains why that may be.
👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Nice and informative video... Thanks...
You are welcome! Best wishes!
Im from a long line of Yorkshire people, east Yorkshire. My DNA is predominantly Anglo Saxon and Danish. A tiny amount of Belgian thrown in. It veriies a family legend of a Belgian bareback rider in a circus ancestry. Fascinating .
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good stuff. Makes you think.
Thank you!
Crow Indian people called themselves Apsaalooke, but we called them "Crow". Now they call themselves Crow and Apsaalooke, the older term in their own language. They are both Crow and Apsaalooke. The Anglo-Saxons not calling themselves "Anglo-Saxons" in that historical time period, doesn't mean they weren't Anglo-Saxons, as that is the label we use for who they are. We can call them anything we want to designate them as a group or culture and long ago we settled on Anglo-Saxon. Why is it a problem now? Did the Denisovans call themselves "Denisovan"? Did the Neanderthals call themselves "Neanderthal"?? We call Germans "Germans", but they call themselves Deutsch. We call Germany, Germany, but they call it Deutschland. Can we not use the terms Germans or Germany any longer then? 🙄🙄This is all maddening and unnecessarily politically correct and nitpicking. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Using the term Anglo-Saxon wasn't broke.
Thanks for your regional information that's really interesting. I expect because it helps with nuance.
@@AlexIlesUK You're welcome. Thanks for your videos, very informative.
Ignoring the modern politico/cultural idiocy, there are genuine questions about the previous assumptions (Anglo-Saxons were Germanic migrants who took power in England and brought the original language and a specific culture; and originally were invaders who killed the native British). Main opposing theory is culture change, but you have to start being very nuanced with your terms when you are talking about someone with British DNA who is buried according to Anglo-Saxon rites.
Your comparison with the Crow.using their English name the U.S. government assigned to them under colonization and forcing the tribe to speak English and punishing the if they refused is how they came to refer to themselves as CROW IN ENGLISH. That is the process called colonization. Something the British know a lot about because they invaded every country they could and looted as much as they could get their greedy hands on. LoL The Crow still speak their traditional language among themselves and refer to themselves by their traditional name IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. Their speaking English is for European-American settlers. Not because they have some ancient history from over a thousand years ago based on two Germanic groups that moved to a little island called Briton. They are a living people existing in the present, not some distant whisper of people who moved in, married into native tribes and then were overrun by Normans. Your comparison could not be more ignorant.
Could you do some Irish DNA mate which is more my lot
They'll need to publish a paper! I'll see what I can find.
Cheers mate. The world is awash in Irish DNA@@AlexIlesUK
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Especially Iceland where West Irish sex slaves were most valued.. Green eyes/black hair... I had bad luck and ended up with an east irish ginger
I `ve ended up with too many hair/eye colours mate@@SunofYork
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf Well at least they have hair, so it could be worse....
The endurance of an icon of early english literarture(Beowulf) whose setting in the area of northern Europe which this study associates with the source of the anglo-saxon genetic "wave", would be unlikely if the dominant population & culture was latinised and briton - that would seem to imply extreme cultural subjugation by an elite over a period of centuries while this epic circulated & gained popularity - doesn't resonate for me.
I did a update video on Anglo-Saxon DNA, you can find it on the channel.
Anglo-Saxons created England. English people are Anglo-Saxon-Celtic
Have a watch of some of my episodes on the Anglo-Saxons. It may help you.
@@AlexIlesUK I know my fathers ancestry and heritage.
Arguably the clear distinction between England and Scotland was created by the Norman kings of England and Scotland.
Sorry thought it said Anglo Saxon DAY... hahaha I wish!
Sorry to disappoint
Anglo Saxon is barely adequate to describe the Germanic influence on Britain. A vast amount of Germanic peoples were already in Britain, especially on the east coast, during the Roman occupation as they were employed as soldiers to the empire. They had many different tribal origins; Jutes, Frisians as well as Angles and Saxons. The term Anglo Saxon was not in use until theVictorian Royals Saxe-Coburg wanted to put more emphasis on Saxon for obvious political reasons. While it’s true there were Angles and Saxons in the English origin story, however the epithet Anglo Saxon would have meant nothing to pre Victorians in England, who identified solely as English.
I'd agree mostly up to the end, the question of how much the Roman soldiers affected the genetics is one for another day! it's Alfred who creates Englishmen. Even Bede is refering to his Northumbrian race prior to that, and that's a new identity fof many in the region.
@@AlexIlesUK the point I’m making is that your every day Englishman wouldn’t have much identified as Anglo Saxon before the Victorian period. They just identified as English. That’s what I read anyway.
@TreforTreforgan thanks for clarifying yes I get your point, before the 're-discovery' of Anglo-Saxons English would be the identity for the area of England, even today few would identify as Anglo-Saxon.
@ I understand that it’s an identifier that people have become quite romantic about. Probably even more so since the discoveries at Sutton Hoo. The name Anglo Saxon and the Sutton Hoo Helmet seem to be welded together in the imagination despite it only having been two or three generations since its discovery. I think the American WASPS have been the ones that have driven the negativity that there is around the term, as it’s undeniably linked to white supremacy. My only problem with it is I don’t feel it adequately describes the complexities of the migration period. In view of the findings of the Oxford Genome Project Germano-British has more historical pertinence surely.
Nice video
Thank you
At 15.00 it's clear that your theories about mixing British with Anglo-Saxons that the police is sent to arrest you! 🤣
Trust me. There's some who would; sadly I can't afford a soundproofed room! It's more likely to be an ambulance as I live on a road that connects areas of Newcastle!
See in the east a silvery glow, out yonder waits the Saxon for We chant a soldiers song
Cool beans
my ancestry results on gedmatch is nearly identical to early midevil saxon results im like literally identical within 1-2% despite my family being in america for the past few hundred years
It depends on which company you are using but as I understand it no one can be identical to previous populations due to mutations that occur.
@@AlexIlesUK Saxons existed around 1500 years ago.. thats less than 100 generations ago and besides why should that matter? i am not my parents but my parents are still family heck pre indo european whg are still much more family than any immigrant would be. This whole “anglo saxon” thing is pointless when we are all so similar regardless because of our common ancestry from before the era
If you dont even know what gedmatch is or g25 you cant really speak much about ancestry
It's a company that does genetic testing...
That's the point I often make that the choices we make today are more important than our generic makeup. No one should draw their value from their genetics over their character and actions.
Good overview of the DNA scholarship of this period - great refresher course for other more detailed podcasts to which I have listened. 'Climate change migrants' put me off a bit, although of course it is not impossible that climate - which has always been changing - could have been a factor for some migrations.
Hi Maniplefringe, sorry for the time it's taken me to respond! Aye it's one theory that their homelands were flooded and were not suitable, but Britannia offered better opportunity. I think it's a combination of factors. I don't see them as slavering barbarians desperate to wipe out the Britons !
@@AlexIlesUKThat’s what I thought when I listened to the discussion of climate change. A lot of the farmland in Jutland is sandy and not nearly as productive as that of lowland England. Why wouldn’t the Angle and Saxon farmers be interested in getting possession of this land when the historical situation allowed it (Romans abandoning their Villa landholdings and local peasantry pacified and unable to defend themselves).
@@AmandaSamuels It could also be that with changing dynamics the land wasn't being used rather than it being taken from the Romans it was just available. People have been looking for evidence of violence for nearly a hundred years but I wonder if we should consider a large economic contraction meaning that it just wasn't worthwhile to produce in some areas as you didn't have an area to sell to anymore! Gaul and the Rhineland were not 'buying' British grain anymore so the world shifted. Still working on my thoughts on that one!
I don't think they were 'slavering barbarians', but possibly had a different value system to Christians and would have seen acts of violence ce against 'foreigners' differently. Pre Christian Romans had similar views about non-Romans. What mattered was your own nation, 'class', or family. The idea that you should 'care' about the stranger is largely (though not exclusively) a Christian idea. Also Germanic religio-cultural moral codes may have given the Anglo-Saxons a very different view of the morality of violence and war. I'm not making a value judgement here - what we see as amoral might not always have seemed so to them. Therefore if the Anglo-Saxons were violent invaders in some cases - we shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging this, as if its morally embarassing, when they may have not seen it that way and had a very different moral worldview than us. For example the Azrecs sacrificed 1000s of people a day to make the sun come up - does that make them monsters? Or just people operating on a moral axis determined by very different religio-cultural operating system to us (even if a lot of people are no longer religious in the West, our moral codes are still essentially based on a Christian operating system).
I think there is too much heresy when it comes to UK history of early settlers. I suspect that Britton was primarily settled by Frisians. Ask yourself why the English language is so close to Frisians?
I think the argument is that both frisia and the early kingdoms were settled at the same time by the same people.
Modern day English speakers have to learn the Old English Language as a foreign language because the 2 forms of English are so different. Modern Frisian is believed to be the modern language that sounds the most like Old English. I took German Language classes for grades 8-12 and I can recognize some modern Dutch words as German words with a different spelling, but then some Dutch translations of German words sound like modern English translations for the same German word. The German word for house is Haus, and the Dutch word is Huis. The German word for leader is Fuehrer, but the Dutch translation sounds like Lighter, which is close to the English leader.
I don't know how English, German and Danish relate to each other, but I think the Netherlands has at least as much do with English history as Denmark does.
I mean I’m in east England and my dna is 15% Denmark/Sweden
I've made the point before, but do you know when that DNA was added to the UK population?
@@AlexIlesUK unfortunately not precisely when. Though I would interested to know.
If the Anglo-Saxons invaded, where are all the English people that look like Wim Hof or Geert Wilders? Why do English people just look like the Irish and Scottish? It doesn't add up.
How people look makes up a small part of genetics, but the Dutch are the closest relatives of the English. As for the Scottish and Irish populations - all peoples in the British isles have mixed since the industrial revolution due to new methods of travel and the need for jobs.
Also food, exercise and lifestyle have a huge impact on how people look.
Go take a walk around Denmark, Jutland peninsula, even Copenhagen It’s peopled with folks who look like the English. They also have our sense of humour 🧐
Aye I did my Erasmus in Copenhagen. I did think the Danes were a tad short, but lovely people
@@AlexIlesUK I'm sorry if I'm being a nuisance, but have you ever seen Eurogenes? MyTrueAncestry places Southeast English people as being most closely related to the Welsh and Bretons, and not the Dutch. The same is true for Eurogenes K15 and K13. Only K36, which uses the most components, shows the Southeast English as being most closely related to Belgians. Something tells me that the Celts of Iron Age France and Britain were closely related somehow. There's an old blog of an East Anglian man called 'are the Southeast English actually Belgian?' He and his mother are 100% Southeast English in ancestry, but he clustered most closely to Belgians, Bretons and Irish, and not so much with the Dutch or Danes relatively speaking. This is why I'm a bit sceptical.
Can any DNA study of the British Isles be reliable considering the massive population loss that came with the Plague in the 14th century? With outward migration beginning in 1607 England's population did not return to pre-Plague levels until Victorian times.
Also consider how chromosomes break apart and reform during meiosis. The breaks don't always happen in the same place generation after generation and the breaks are never in equal-sized amounts. Every individual gets 1/2 of his DNA from each parent, but nobody gets 1/4 of his DNA from each of his 4 grandparents. It's physically possible for any individual person to not be a genetic descendant of all of his ancestors. Consider Charles III: he is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, but he doesn't have William's Y chromosome (which didn't survive among William's grandchildren). Neither does Charles have the Y chromosome of Prince Albert, George III, James I or Henry VII.
They only used human remains from the period they are studying.
You knew that title (Did AS exist?) was clickbaity. :D
Just a tad. But it's basically what Susan Oosthuizen was arguing and it was a book review. It's interesting to see how people have responded though and that's taught me a lot.
@@AlexIlesUK About how crazy, people are? :D And I don't just mean the wokie cokies (who are totally mad).
Have you had your own DNA done?
I had a problem with the Master's thesis of Nicolas Fossannen that can illustrate the problem more clearly: he had done an archaeological study of bones found in a pit in an Ozark cave. They had been boiled and the fat removed. I had that sitting on my stove as i read the thesis and compared what he found to the bones in my soup stock. They matched. Of course I was thrilled. But I commented that this pit, 11,000 years old, had fat, it had fire, it had water, and it had ash. I said "that's soap!"
Mr. Fossannen had to say he never meant to imply that 11,000 ago Indians had soap. The problem was that I have tried (and failed) to bed an Ozark woman who doesn't believe in soap. In 1978. It's a common hillbilly belief. If Mr. Fossannen had given the idea that Paleo-Indians had soap available it would have insulted the modern Ozark people he is reliant on for approval and funding. They would have hurt him. Perhaps literally. They are prettty violent.
I'm not sure I follow.
@@AlexIlesUK This was an attempt to illustrate the problems of dealing with present people who have their own ideas of the way things should be resisting evidence to the contrary. The words "English Identity" made me think of the Gilbert & Sullivan song from "The Pirates of Penance" "'e his a Hinglishman" which is rather nationalist. The song would have made no sense to an English community of Anglo-Saxon times because all around them that would be all their was. Coastal folks knew about the other side and even went there. They might have had a concept of "England" but I wouldn't bet money on them knowing their side was an island.
They wouldn't have had an identity because all around them there had never been anything else.
But I doubt there won't be a lot of resistance to the idea that Anglo-Saxons had no identity (and I bet the Norsemen changed that)
I lived in Israel in the late 70's and knew some Southern English people. They were concerned about the influx of Levantines and Subcontinentals into England and how England was unable to stop the influx. They called Subcontinentals Pakis and "Roog Roydahs" for their habit of commuting to work on flying carpets.
I think you might just have told them that English Identity has always included Levantines and others in its mix and I'm fairly sure they won't be happy to hear it.
The mix they were concerned about seems from the outside to have been relatively smooth. You see, the English lifestyle seems to be stronger than any English race, and it's been going on for a very long time and people after people have moved into it, only to become Anglicized. Did they serve tea in Boxgrove? Maybe.
I totally agree with Prydwen!
Have you looked at my reply as well?
MAYBE not using click bait titles would get uou less comments and you'd really hate that, right? Anglo-Saxons wouldn't call themselves by that term. The Welsh wouldn't call themselves "Welsh"; Deer wiukdn't call themselves "deer". Therefore, there were no deer in the 4th Century. And YOU don't like the term Celtic"; How about "Pillock"? Or "Berk"? "Git"? Maybe you are one third each. Maybe not. Great visuals, though! I learned a lot staring at your walls.
You've made me laugh, best comment I've come across on this episode, well done!
your still trying to deny an anglo saxon heritage, they would have known their history what denotes the difference between cornwall, wales etc is the invasion of anglo saxons and their huge impact in there dna of england,
I'm not denying anything. I recognise the migration happened that's why I did a episode on it.
@@AlexIlesUK it wasnt just migration though , not so good at the time for the previous ethnicity, though it was the beginings of the english that some like to pretend doesnt exist, still its a step up from francis prior who reckons the britons just adopted anglo saxon culture (language ,religion,place names etc)without migration
I never said that in the episode.
I just go from the time of Alfred so no sweat.
You miss out on some of the best bits
I couldn't really understand what the problem was until at the end you said "English Identity." Living people have a sense of who they are and they are working backwards to prove the point they want to make. Someone in Rural England in 553 AD had likely never met or even heard of a person coming from farther than 15 miles away. But you pointed out that the Romano-British had JEWS. That would make someone with a concept of English Identity's head explode.
There is a story I've heard, a Biblical one, that states that Joseph and Moses were Hyksos, and we got the dates wrong somehow. DNA of a Hyksos graveyard showed what had really happened. Joseph went down to Egypt alright. But he brought Jewish women who married into Egyptian wealth. After 200 years of steady female migration the yentas took over the government of the whole country, because after all, "they were the only ones who knew how to do it right." It took the Egyptian women another 200 years to drive the Jewish women out of Egypt.
I laugh at this story told in the DNA because the kind of person who relishes an "English Identity" isn't going to be very friendly to data that demonstrates female domination.
I don't think I mentioned Jews in this video. Not sure where you got that from
@@AlexIlesUK Thanks for the reply. When I heard you say that Romano-Britain had Levantines buried there I wondered who they could be? Diaspora Jews seemed to be a guess. Egyptian grain merchants perhaps? Lebanese? I didn't think the Anatolian were a good guess. Armenians maybe? Diaspora Jews were the simplest explanation.
The thing I'm pretty sure of about those Levantines is that they spoke Greek.
@@petehoover6616 I maybe Ancient Cypriots there was a woman buried during the second century AD in Yorkshire that come form Cyprus, would be part of Levantine area lot of Greek, Cretans, Phoenician and Jewish settle there. The Greeks set up colonizes in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan after Alexander the Greek conquer this regions, most Greek carried J2-M172 48% of Greek DNA, Cypriot 13%, Italian 9-36%,Lebanese 30%, Syrian 14%, Ashkenazi 30%, Sephardic 14%, Palestine 29%, Maltese 21% and Armenian 24%
@@bjornsmith9431 I have a recessive genetic weakness, a type of deafness. Ludwig van Beethoven had it and my best friend also has it. I had figured that we all shared a common ancestor on both sides of our family and my ancestors are Native American, English, and Bavarian. My friend's ancestors are Polish Ashkenazim. Beethoven is Bavarian. (If he's dead, isn't he still Bavarian? idk). I had guessed that that common ancestor had lived around the year 1000 CE and I guessed in Spain. I found out yesterday that the Jews of Germany went through a genetic bottleneck in 800 CE, when the population dropped to 300 individuals. That would be the source of an inherited recessive trait shared between myself, my friend, and Ludwig van. Ludwig van gave us an idea of what our prognosis is to be and it isn't good. But I was in Nebraska when I was diagnosed, and when I pointed out to the Nebraska Germans that I shared Jewish ancestry with Ludwig van they were racially offended and rejected me pretty forcefully. I would anticipate the same response from people who use the phrase "English Identity." It would seem that the idea that people who use the phrase "English Identity" would also reject quite forcefully and fancifully any suggestions that the English Identity includes Jews. The Cypriot connection doesn't help the case because before the bottleneck the Ashkenazim had interbred with local South Italian population. Magna Grecia. It's a replay of what I found in Nebraska: insult, offense and fear to suggest that there were Jews in England and Germany, and they had children. The mental gymnastics people go through to keep from admitting that pretty obvious fact resemble panic. The panic, like the identity, is an attempt to take a world we have now and try to square it with an imagined past that doesn't include "our present enemies," (whoever those may be)
I am often disappointed in reading what archaeologists write because so often I find them to be racists. I figured out some years ago this is because Archaeology professors are racists and they only advance students who are also racists and I don't know how to get the infection out of the field of archaeology since racists won't give a doctorate to someone who isn't racist.
The English ones don't want to remember that King John expelled all Jews from England so any English person who has a cookie bite hearing loss is not really English.
@@petehoover6616 Thank you for the information on Ludwig Van Beethoven, he was a musical genius who taught himself to used vibration to read and write notes to his piano during is lost of hearing, he never gave up his dream, has for Jewish ancestry the Jewish religion during second temple period in the Mediterranean was converting people at that time they said 1 in 10 people in the Roman empire belong to the Jewish faith and also Armenian kingdom convert to Judaism before the Romans adopted Christianity so the pure Hebrew bloodline was already deluted with non Jewish by the 3 AD century. One thing in common with these mixed people is there faith and strict married custom, Cousins marriages and Avuncular marriages (Uncle and Niece) which run the risk genetic variation and sometime problems, I sadden by your treatment you was given by your pairs the world is strange. I remember the Austrian Painter parents was Uncle and Niece, had Jewish ancestry this marriage was not his source for his madness no it was hate and blaming others, a lot of people born from Avuncular marriages and Cousins marriages lived health productive lives, it they way there mines turned to evil.