Anglo-Saxon race

What actually is the genetic makeup of the average Anglo-Saxon? Are they pure I1 haplogroup or do they have a large amount of R1b like the rest of europe? I've heard that genetically the English are 30-40% 'Anglo-Saxon' but when i look at Haplogroup maps, the I1 gene is 30% so does this not accurately represent the genetics of Anglo-Saxon?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._F._O'Rahilly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Etymology
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You should read a book called “blood of the isles” or some shit by mr. Oppenheimer. Essentially the base genetic stock of the British isles come from the basque are and is represented by R1b, varying from 98% in parts of Ireland and Wales, to ~60% in east Anglia. The remaining 2%-40% come from various migrations over the last 20,000 years

The eternal Anglo saxons actually left a relatively small genetic mark on the English, it was mostly a (((cultural))) and linguistic invasion

So we iz king arthur n shiet?

Also why are there such variations between sources? This map by ancestry DNA (some website) claims that Anglo-Saxons had a huge impact

Well, there’s a debate among geneticists about where this non R1b dna came from. Take a look at that picture for example, “Anglo Saxon” is not a genetic group, neither is Celtic, those are language and culture, it turns out that the Dna associated with the Germanics including Anglo saxons and Vikings is in fact much older than the arrival of these groups in England

I should specify, the presence of this “Germanic” associated dna in England is much older than the arrival of Anglo saxons or Vikings in the British isles, I believe it dates back to a time when the North Sea was still dry

...

I thought the Anglo-Saxon migrations were the first to bring the I1 haplogroup. Also the picture is unlikely to be purely linguistic or cultural as there is no trace of Brythonic or latin languages in English, but there is substantial French and Germanic.

Also regarding the initial question, what would be the genetic makeup of an Anglo-Saxon invader from the 5th century? 100% I1?

I mean that they are using the terms in entirely the wrong way. Genetics and language are usually correlated, but not necessarily, as you can wipe out a language within a generation while keeping the original population, that is what happened to the Brythonic languages of Britain after the Roman then Anglo Saxon invasion and subsequent cultural change, outside of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria of course. In the case of each one of these places the language remained, now isolated from the rest of newly germanicized England, while the genetic makeup barely changed on the island as a whole!

No, my guess is roughly the same as eastern England already was but with a much higher percentage of haplogroup I, similar to the current population of Denmark and the northern German coast

I'd expect places in the west and north of England to be more genetically similar to the Welsh, but surely places along the east coast like east Anglia must've atleast experienced wholesale displacement or massacre of the Britons

By the way 'British' apparently refers to Anglo-Saxon and 'Irish' refers to iron age Briton

Here is another Haplogroup map, but why are they so different? Also are Anglo-Saxons more genetically similar to modern Danes or modern east coast England?

That’s the question then isn’t it, east anglians have a massive percentage of dna that’s associated with the Germanic invaders of the dark ages, but is it really from them slaughtering coastal villagers and replacing them, or is the DNA much older? From the same migrations that settled the Anglo-Saxon homelands on the continent in the first place. When discussing ancient migrations and genes like that, always remember that this is what Europe looked like when it was settled

You don't need to read a Jew's book to use your common sense.

The Sardinians represent the pre-Indo European stock of Western Europe better than the Basques, while the Basques keep the old language. The Sardinian language was close to Basque before they learnt Latin, so this suggests the Basques got severely IEed by their Celtic neighbours. R1b should be looked at more as something spread by the IE language speakers, in line with R1a in Eastern Europe.

>mostly a (((cultural))) and linguistic invasion
Yes, a few hundred English Language teachers came over, did their thing, left the Britons with a few text books and audio cassettes and sailed home again... Are you fucking stupid? Languages don't spread without speakers.

>wholesale displacement or massacre of the Britons
You don't really need this. Invaders tend to like keeping serf populations for the dirty work too. All you need is a better rate of survival for English babies, and the genetics will spread accordingly, at the expense of the ground down drudges whose kids would be less likely to do well.

That sounds implausible, I1 is only a few thousand years old. I also believe studies on the most common I1 branches present on the British Isles indicate they arrived after the Roman times, but I'm not sure about this.

Are you suggesting the Anglo-Saxons were an elite minority whose genes became dominant because they were more sought after?

There's a fuck ton of solid ICE missing off that map...

These are WASP larping as Basques. I've seen Basques IRL and they look like Spaniards.

Yet another map

>Caer Baddon
Have you heard of this place, my friend? This is the oldest (supposedly Celtic) name we have for the English city of Bath. Caer is usual and would have meant "fort" at the time. But "baddon" is interesting. Given that the place has always been known for its famous baths (note that all other names that Bath has ever been known by reference the baths), and just looking at the word really, it's hard to believe that "baddon" doesn't mean "baths". Big if true, since this would seem to indicate that Germanic-speaking people were established in Southern Britain before the Roman occupation.

Originally Briton was populated by Celts who were R1B, People in Ireland and Scotland and Wales remain mostly this race, The southern half
of Briton was first invaded by the Romans who may have had different genetics, but later the Anglo Saxons who were Germanic tribes of Anglo, Saxon and the Jutes who are I1 invaded, perhaps a small % of the English will have that DNA.

Look at how similar east coast Englanders are to the Danes, couldn’t tell you anything more precise than that about the Anglo saxons

I1 split up from I 3000-5000 years ago. The geography in that image is significantly older than that.

>because they were more sought after?
Think about what that means in reality. You're supposing some Welsh craftsman wanted a Germanic lady to have better looking kids with, and the lady's father and brothers ALLOWED this? It's not realistic, is it? Except with very high status Welsh nobles. I'm saying an elite group took over, brought in a few rank and file types to reinforce their position, resulting in uneven distributions of genetics that eventually settled down and merged into what we have today, while maintaining certain gradients. Not every region has the same demographic history.

Bath was called Aquae Sulis. Caerfaddon is a mediaeval archaism made up by Welshmen who didn't know the old name. One old survival of the old name is seen in the name of the Roman road - what's it called? Acker- something... Ackerman Gate? If you're from nearby you probably know it.

This map is VERY amateur and childish in many respects.

I've heard of the battle of Baddon where king Arthur supposedly single-handedly BTFOd 900 Anglo-Saxons

>Danes
People have got to stop looking to Denmark for comparisons. Our closest continental relatives are the stupidly overlooked FRISIANS.

>I've heard of the battle of Baddon
Badon Hill. Mons Badonicus.

Denmark is where the Angles and Jutes came from though. Surely they would be our closest continental counterpart

Stop fucking conflating haplo Y with race you silly kiwi.
And you can't understand shit if you stay in broad "R1b" terms. You have to learn and look for the specific R1b offshoots like U152, L21 and even further splits Inside them.
U106 for example is as Germanic as is I1
L21 is proto-celtic first wave (proto-gaels)
U152 is later La Tene Celts and Italics
etc etc

Central-Eastern England is indeed mostly Saxon-Dane

>Surely
Logic please!
They LEFT this place. Bede and Aelfraed even claim that it was left empty. The modern Danes are descended largely from those who moved INTO this vacuum, from the east. That's why their language is closer to Swedish than Norwegian. There were probably a few people left, but you need to think about population MOVEMENTS, not geography. Everything shifted westwards. The Jutes are even likely to have spent time in the Calais area prior to moving into Britain. The closest linguistic kin to the English of Britain in 500 AD are the Frisians. Later Viking stuff complicates it, though.

So do you think they forgot the old name?
>made up by Welshmen
Weird coincidence that they would choose a name that just so happens to closely match a word for the city's main feature in another language though, isn't it.

>implying that the British isles would have ever been relevant if the English didn't have strong Germanic genes

It's an English name with Welshy bits stuck on. Like the "Mancheinion" or whatever they made up for Manchester (Mamucium would have produced something more like *Mefygg if it had been left to its own devices). Perhaps also tied in with some loose theory the people concerned had about Arthur's famous battle. And the battle could have been on the other side of the island, for all we now know.

It's nothing to do with genetics. It's mostly environmental factors and luck. It's not like Anglo-Saxons are genetically more intelligent. I mean they were barbarians to the Romano-Britons

The English race has been the only on to bring the British isles into relevance. Genealogy is the only reason I can find for the Welsh, Irish and Scotland failure to thrive.

Stupid picture. Shows more what was found just before and after the English came, i.e. a time of changing from one way of life to another. It's not the finished look of an early English town.

Besides, the Romans were barbarians to the Greeks, just as the Greeks once were to the Egyptians. This is meaningless. What is important is that the Engle were bearers of a strong IE patriarchal culture, which had been largely lost by Romans at that point.

(Celto-)Germanics are more disciplined than pure Celtics, especially Gaelics. Always have been, since these two close human families matured some millenias ago. There is a (neuro-)genetic factor too.

You're simply ignorant of the Irish and Welsh at their prime. Their literature is immense. They sent missionaries all through Europe.

>pure Celtics
Given that the Celts arose in the Danube valley and conquered all kinds of aboriginal populations before they reached the Atlantic shores of Ireland, it's fair to say that the French and English better represent the original stock today in genetic terms. The linquistic descendants are largely drawn from the assimiliated locals, of Vasconic or God knows what antecedents.

My ancestor :)

Being genius story-tellers does not determine one's state-building abilities. This is not about sheer superiority, but germanic human stock is better for strong nation-building. It's also better at being cucked muh diversity dystopias in the current era, for the exact same advantages/weaknesses.
Europeans are a family with different skills

>You should read a book called “blood of the isles” or some shit by mr. Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer is a meme and his stuff is long proven wrong.

Unless you're a filthy Frank

The Irish were kind of stuck in the Iron Age until the 1600s, yes. It's worth considering that the Greeks were very similar, but for their interactions with the civilisations of the Near East. But this is also a function of distance from the centre of the Oikumene. The Germanics had honed their political systems through experience gained the hard way, right up against Rome.

Sorry, when was their prime again?

Welsh longbowmen BTFOd France in the Hundred year's war. Also look at their work on things like the Mabinogion

"Celts" is a meme. There were a lot of waves, and proto-Gaels largely replaced the former populations in the isles. There is still that stain of darker hue you can spot in Britons that came from the Neolithic farmers and more represented in Welsh and Scots than in heavily germanic English.
The Tuatha Ne Danann talks about these ancient wogs (Fir Bolg)

The vasconic Briton thing is a meme, it's true in the sense that Basques are a remnant of pre-IE Europe as were the Fir Bolg, but it would be like finding "a Hungarian component" in the mostly somali future Swede of 2200 AD

>> 158523358
Germanic stock is terrible for nation building. They always do retarded shit like remove the Pope from religion leaving no religious or moral authorities behind or developing societies based on individualistic liberal ideologies resulting in cultural collapse. pic related

The age of men like Columba, Colman, Adomnan, into the times of Tighearnach, with some of it lingering down even to the times of Geoffrey Keating in the 17th century.

Before you make some stupid comment about this being so long ago, consider how the English themselves were so eclipsed for many centuries following 1066, thanks to a similar disaster as befell the Irish.

You tell me.

>ancient wogs (Fir Bolg)

The Belgae were a relatively late Continental component, only JUST prior to the Gaelic one. You should be talking about the various Aitheach Tuatha that the Bolgians submerged.

...

Just lol.

...

Eloquent.

Giving you civilisation was a mistake Eternal Anglo, this I agree
I appreciate having only to learn grammar since you took all our vocabulary though

Thx for the Oikumene thing, it makes a lot of sense.
Germanics had 2 advantages though : a constant struggle with the current superpower in central Europe (Celts, then Romans) in the South march (Northern Alp), AND a frosty safe haven to regenerate a hardy people spamming endless invasions (Scandinavia)

germany must give back the islands, rightful Frisian clay

>Giving you civilisation
When Charlemagne wanted some, he sent for Alcuin of York...

>2 advantages
Absolutely. The Celts themselves had "enjoyed" the same at an earlier period. Ultimately, all IE peoples were kind of raw talent, waiting to be shaped by interaction with the south. Remaining out off in the wilds let people get set in their ways. Worth pointing out that the Scandinavians had to rub up against the Carolingians before things really started happening there.

Hello Florence.

The Germanic age is ending, true. Every dominant people fall for his own strengthes becoming weaknesses due to concurrents adapting, and degeneracy. These things are slow though, and Europeans might become too few and stranded to maintain distinct ethnicities among themselves in a time not so distant.

Are you sure the Belgae are the Bolg ?
La Tene Belgae were the last Celtic wave from Northern Alp in my book, and Gaelic the first, there is a few hundred centuries between the 2.
Was Belgae a former ethnoname the La Tène took long after ?

Years have passed since I read the Tuatha. But I remember well these filthy wogs with their crafty sorcery, whatever their name is.

Yet another genetic map. We wuz Anglo-Saxons

>I mean they were barbarians to the Romano-Britons
that doesnt mean they aren't genetically intelligent. see flynn effect

A fair objection (that Builg might descend linguistically from a term preceding the Caesarian Belgae's movement to la Manche and beyond). It's too complicated to deal with from memory, though. In short, the later Gaelic elite confounded all previous layers of population, perhaps partly due to actual loss of memory and partly from derision for a defeated and enslaved enemy.

Saxons are some descendants of the northern tribes of Israel sent into exile in the late 8th century BC by Tiglath Pileser of Assyria. The excavation of Nineveh in the mid 19th century AD gave us records of the fall of the house of Israel (northern kingdom) and the removal of the majority of the people to the north of their empire. They referred to these people as the Khimbri, which is where the word Cimmerian come from.

The Persians referred to these people as the Seku (I think that’s the right spelling) which became Scythian later. The same people were most likely the founders of the Parthian empire as well.

Over time many of these people made their way west into Europe. Ancient Saxons claimed heritage through Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham back through Noah and finally to Adam.

Their name comes from “the sons of Isaac,” or “Sac’s Sons.”

Don't put everything on environment though. Genetics is sheer coincidence too. IE peoples may all be made of the roughly same ingredients in different proportions, they came through different specific bottlenecks were very few men fathered today's millions and some genes have been disproportionately successful. Including comportemental-related stuff.

All Germanics are Scandos and then became Celto- and Slavo-Scandos.
The Germanic homeland is Danemark, Vikings were just the youngest soft child following is older brothers' footsteps

>and Gaelic the first,
Oh God, I should have addressed this point first. I'm going off O'Rahilly's "Early Irish History and Mythology" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._F._O'Rahilly He interprets the material as showing that Q Celtic was a later imposition over a P Celtic Ireland.

>Israel
FUCK OFF, you stupid cunt.

My ancestor :)

Please gas yourself you fucking like worm.

>sheer coincidence
No such thing, mon ami!

I don´t know which rabbi told you that, but it is wrong.

Quote:
The Saxons may have derived their name from seax, a kind of knife for which they were known. The seax has a lasting symbolic impact in the English counties of Essex and Middlesex, both of which feature three seaxes in their ceremonial emblem. Their names, along with those of Sussex and Wessex, contain a remnant of the word "Saxon".

The Elizabethan era play Edmund Ironside suggests the Saxon name derives from the Latin saxa (stone):[4]

Their names discover what their natures are, More hard than stones, and yet not stones indeed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Etymology

No

And whole Nederland is rightful Austrian(German) clay, give it back maybe?

>perhaps and partly from derision for a defeated and enslaved enemy.
Haha you sir is a true anglo gentleman. Ancient myths are Sup Forums on steroids. They do talk of them as filthy subhumans.

Interesting, a bit strange in the global celtic linguistic dynamics though. A Q-Celtic refugium re-expanding from Isle of Man ?

I'm pretty sure the ginger gen came from Scandinavia...
With the Celts being the easyist to *rape* and pillage

Looking for Q Celtic speakers elsewhere, O'Rahilly actually ended up talking about a tribe from or near modern Switzerland. I didn't find it massively convincing, this part, though. I need to reread it all. I don't find Man a likely origin, but who knows?

Anglo-Jutes are I1 like all North Sea Germanics. Saxons are R1b-U106 along with the Dutch and every other West Germanic group.
That’s already been debunked by modern genetic science.
The idea that R1b is a basque haplotype is pure retardation.
We have found Paleo-Europeans (Proto-Nordics usually having I1) with R1b and R1b was also among Corded Ware P.I.E. Peoples. R1b is the indo-european type, before they mixed with Caucasians and Natufians.
The English are majority Anglo-Saxon.
That Western European is Anglo-Saxon as well.
The “Anglo-Saxon DNA” they call British, since it is the odd one out. What we call British DNA is the synthesis of Western European, Scandinavian, and Gaelic (Scot-Welsh-Irish). It’s essentially a genetic group that is Anglo-Saxon in origin but had “evolved” or at least genetically deviated in such a way that it clusters distinct from others. Think about how the Scandinavians reached a close genetic cluster despite being 30%WHG 30%NEF and 60% Indo-European.
Based doggerland

Anglo-Saxons would have probably contributed most of the R1b-S21(U106) in britain along with some i1 and i2 haplgroups.

Alglo-saxon race is Russian rapebabies trying hard to larp as romans.

I1 isn’t a genetic make up.
An Anglo-Saxon invader would have had the West Germanic R1b-U106.
I1 wasn’t even prevalent in Northern Europe at the time, most samples are I2. The Swedes (the ancient tribe) were all I1, they kicked out the I2 (Goths, Wuffings, Lombards, Vandals) and they migrated away, coincidentally the places these people migrated are the very places we see concentrations of I2 such as the Balkans and along the Eastern Adriatic.
I1 came down from northern Sweden and removed I2, entirely from Scandinavia, this occurred around the same time the Saxons were on the move.

BTW, 23nMe reckons I'm I-M223. Is that not enough to define the specific clades that say whether or not it came during the migrations? My paternal line goes back to the area around Berwick.

England isn’t an island though. If you look at studies which take rural English people they are entirely Saxon or Danish. The native Britons were replaced wholesale, the only studies which slew this are in cities where people mix.

>haplomemes
Dropped. Kys retard.

>An Anglo-Saxon invader would have had the West Germanic R1b-U106.
Because they were all produced in a lab. Are you honestly that stupid? As if any significant tribe would all have the same haplogroup! ffs...

Just like an Italian building gaudy overpriced structures made of stone. When there is plenty of forest to make much cheaper homes, the Anglos didn't care about the appearance of their city, they were more concerned with the effectiveness of their specialized work force. Which is why Italian government? Never last, particularly long. Whereas the Anglican culture has endured over a thousand years.

Anglo-Saxons are what the Danes and Dutch would look like if they mixed.
Saxons being literal Saxons from Saxony, Friesland (Frisian also moved to Britain and named a few towns after themselves), and Holland.
Anglo tribesmen being from Southern Denmark and Jutes being from Northern Denmark, the actual tribe of men who called themselves “Danes” were from the Kattegat and southern Sweden, they were moved when the Swedes went south and the Jutish warrior class all moved to England.

Well, don't take it as a scholar guess mate, was joking. Somehow pic related came through my mind and gave me giggles.

Good luck on your research

This corroborates previous DNA mapping that Anglo-Saxons are indeed the most dominant genetic group

60 % of English words are rooted in Latin.

The baltic group is retarded.

Nice trips. So I partially agree.
The Celtic will to conquer and advance coming together with the Germanic spirit of wandering creates a people destined for imperium.

Born on Man, then brought up in Manchester, spending adolescence in Australia. Can you get more manly? ;)

And 60% of most English don't know what 60% of those words even mean. Pîss off.

I think the ultimate redpill on this matter is realising that it's the mixed Germanic and Romano-British genes that produce the finest offspring as opposed to pure inbred celts or Anglos

When they hit the High Middle Ages in 500 B.C. While M*dshits and N*rdcucks still had their thumbs up their ass.
>wipe out Celtic culture
>”le celts were dumb barbarians crouching around fires”
>claim the G*rmanics (literal tribesmen crouching naked around a fire) were the epitome of sophistication and virtue
>claim Celtic achievements as your own
>use Celtic weapons and armor
>use Celtic battle tactics
>claim the celts fought naked and Zerg rushes everyone so no one suspects you stole anything from them
Rome... a city of bastards, shitposting bastards

I do not buy into this swarthy Briton meme.
The people of Bretagne are not dark, nor are the people of Wales, Ireland, or Scotland.
>inb4 someone posts that nigger Russel