Anglo-Saxon migration

Also forgot to add that even Germanics weren't pure I1

[149] Weale, M.E et al. (2003) Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 7, pp. 1008–1021

>trying this hard

I was thinking the 10%Anglo-Saxon estimates were most on point, but damn that’s a lot of I1. However! Don’t forget that Scandinavians came later and I’m assuming these are modern samples. (Correct me if I’m wrong)

This is modern sample, however Scandinavian settlement took place mainly in the North whereas areas such as East Anglia which were centres of Anglo-Saxon migration are lilely to have high I1 as the britons were displaced westward. I'm inclined to believe Gildas and Bede when they stated the britons were driven out

Scandinavians did come in later on but definitely in far smaller numbers and would be concentrated in the north east

From your own study

>We accept that our data do not prove conclusively that an Anglo-Saxon mass migration event took place. If a background migration rate of 0.3% is allowed between Central England and Friesland, then the need for a mass migration event disappears. However, we note that this is an extremely high rate even by modern standards and would have to have been maintained continuously over thousands of years...

>It is also true that a mass migration event could have occurred outside the Anglo-Saxon migration period because the 95% confidence interval for a Central English-Frisian split extends as far back as 425 b.c. (if one allows a background migration rate of 0.1% and a generation time of 25 years). Archaeology and the testimony of Caesar combine to suggest an immigration of the Belgae, a Celtic tribe from northern Gaul, into central southern England (Hampshire and West Sussex) between 100 and 80 b.c. (Hawkes 1968 ; Cunliffe 1988 , pp. 147–149; Cunliffe 1991 , pp. 108–110). Furthermore, although Friesland lay outside the maximum extent of the Roman Empire, small numbers of Frisian mercenaries were recruited by the Romans and stationed as far north as Hadrian's Wall (Breeze and Dobson 1978 , pp. 139–140; Collingwood, Wright, and Tomlin 1995 , p. 501). However, most historians would see these movements, if they would acknowledge them at all, as preludes to post-Roman Anglo-Saxon migration, and it would be odd indeed to deny the latter while at the same time assigning an extremely large mass migration status to the former.

That lines up with a different paper I read about this, it's surprising how 'pure' Norfolk still is.

As stated in the OP, genetic study is a poor metric for determining the likelihood of population displacement especially compared to measurable cultural and linguistic impacts as well as contemporary sources

Pic. England is far more Celtic than Germanic.

If you don't trust genes you can go by appearance too, only a minority of Englishmen resemble the Danes or the northern Germans, most look either Celtic or straight up Iberian.

this is one seriously butthurt yankee

I thought they were Welsh or Irish and just hated Anglo-Saxons

What do you mean 'resemble the danes', they're very genetically similar and hard to tell apart. You seem to be under the impression that danes are pure I1

Think you've swallowed a few too many Veeky Forums memes there bud.

Assuming they displaced anyone they would have mostly been Romanized Britons and Romans themselves. The areas the Anglo-Saxons conquered were the richer and more Romamized areas of Britain, the places where Briton kingdoms remained weren't really worth conquering.

So if there was a large movement of people it would have been a Latin speaking one, in Gaul for example, when Roman cities became targets for invading armies the people there fled to the rural areas. The effect this had was the extinction of the use of continental Celtic in Gaul. So assuming the Romans had fled the Britons would have probably adopted Latin simply due to the massive influx of Latin speakers.

I think its more likely that after the break down of Roman society in Britain the majority starved in the cities fled to the country villas where many rural aristocrats were eventually usurped by their Anglo-Saxon household guard.

It is usually only the wealthier people that can flee, poor urban people just slowly starved to death.

Danes don't look like this, bud.

Right, user, your stereotype's more like this, isn't it?

Well i mean if your village is raided and burned you kind of have to flee. Also what I find curious is how genetically similar the Britons are to the Bretons and i considered that perhaps the britons fled to Brittany as a result of Anglo-Saxon invasions

Do Danes look like this?

Or perhaps this?

britain was still majority brythonic for over a hundred years during the saxon migrations

>cherrypicking

Danes are mainly blond unlike "English"(Britons)

Looks like a French mixed with an Armenoid

Or this?

I can cherry pick too :)

When did the Anglo-Saxons become the dominant ethnicity?

Do you think Danes to the man look like one uniform people or that there are no unattractive or dark-featured Danes? Because I rather doubt you're that stupid, and I think instead you're doing something very different.

Looks more Russian than Danish

This one actually does look Danish, and is in the minority I was talking about.

Turns out that these genetic studies are highly skewed by taking into account London which has a whopping population of 14 million which has a high percentage of minority groups

He's not just dark featured. His nose and mouth are pretty much Semitic looking.

probably the 700s

Wessex is best kingdom. Proud memeber of Wessex here

KYS
T. Essex master race

That's not a minority in many parts of England. There are people like that all over the place. Certainly it's less uniform than Scandinavia, but Scandinavia is immeasurably smaller than England. Countries comparable to England are more like France or Germany.
Perhaps he has a foreign ancestor, then? Who knows? There is almost every type of feature imaginable in the UK, it's a country of almost 70 million people.

Only East Anglia is singificantly Nordic/Danish, everywhere else it's a minority.

Are you the type of person who claims English aren't Anglo-Saxon, but whenever anyone brings up Normans you say "haha Normans ruled you filthy Anglos and never gave you their genes"

northumbria is clearly the worst

Northumbria is just Danish rapeland

There was little to no rape during Danelaw, it was effectively a form of racial apartheid.

Until Aethelr*d genocided them

Brittany was Latin'd by the French centuries later, if Latin speakinh people fled from south/south west Britain during the 4-5th centuries they would have likely been urban Latin speakers. Roman Britain had a population of 3.5 million people most of which lived in the cities if they went anywhere it is more likely they would outnumber the rural Romano-Britons. This would definitely have Latinized the region.

Famine is a more likely cause of the population decline imo. The Anglo-Saxons are famous for being rural shitters that avoided many Roman cities even after they had been emptied, this is how they avoided starving to death when the state collapsed. They avoided old Roman cities because they were full of ghosts, I'd say when they arrived the cities were going full Mad Max out of hunger and so this practical decision became a superstitious one.

>Brits look Iberian

¿Que?

Don't know what you're talking about mate, evidently

I don't know.
It's a hard contest between them and M*rcians

Does he look more Spanish or more Scandinavian?

you can see here there are 2 cornwalls, one of them in brittany, lots of Britons fled down there during the saxon era and there werestill multiple ethnic brythonic states. the two cornwalls were functionally pretty much the same country.

...

>implying they didn't have it coming

Likely didn't happen mate

In fact it would have been pretty difficulty to orchestrate in York. In all liklihood it was a "massacre" of Scandinavian mercenaries who tried to turn on their Anglo Employers and got BTFO

Wtf is up with those sea names

>one man
>60 million people

Ah yes, good point retard. This is just embarrassing, most Brits don't have black hair

You must be misunderstanding me. There were 3.5 million people living in Roman Britain. If they migrated anywhere most of them would have spoke Latin as most of the population was urban.

Cornwall, Wales and Brittany do not speak a Romance language. This means that they were somehow linguistically unaffected by a supposed massive migration of people.

Er...
I don't think anyone believes Latin was particularly widespread in Britain, do they?

>most of the population was urban
"No"

cantabrian sea is the only shitty one, all the rest make sense

>English aren't Anglo-Saxon,
Not him, but I doubt the English are 'majority Anglo-Saxon', whatever that mean in modern times, considering the centuries of migration to England from all over Western Europe.

There's some Brythonic sounding names in Anglo-Saxon genealogy such as Pybba, Penda, and Peada. Are they not Anglo-Saxon enough to be English?

Do you assume that Black or Asian origin people can't identify as English because they're not 'pure' enough, no matter how many generations their family members have been there?

The studies generally take people from rural areas who have all four grandparents born in Britain.

>Pybba, Penda, and Peada
All Mercian trash.

They assume like that because of modern liberal bias. They don't want to admit that history is brutal and want to protect their own worldview from the traumatic facts that unsettle them. They obsessively try to prove that any massacres were exaggerated as a consequence. It's the same with the expulsion of the Moors in Spain. Revisionists now want to paint it as exaggerated, that a lot still remained in hiding until it was over. The most disgusting notion is this kind fetishizing of 'secret moriscos villages' that might have survived the repressions and so on. It's 'we have Native American heritage and we should celebrate this in this town' tier kind of disgusting liberal ideology.

It's just the way it is right now. Even if it's true, a lot of of the DNA shows near complete patrilineal dominance of Angle-Saxons. It could only mean one thing during invasion and violence with that kind of evidence (guess what).

It was wide spread in the south-west part of Britain for certain, most of the towns and cities were also located in this area. The Romans were in Britain for 400 years, there were a lot of Roman colony towns in Britain relative to the size of the region and the upper class of the strongly Briton regions would have spoken Latin.

Yes sorry.
Most of the Latin population was urban*

What about Cerdic, Ceawlin, Cedda and Caedwalla?

>Cerdic
Now this is another level of disgusting Wewuzism. 'Experts' even speculated that he's a Roman governor that still had some continental connections at the time. What a sad state it is for current academy, when you want to revise some views just because it might hurt your feelings or attachment or something.

And what is the matrilineal evidence?

The patrilineal dominance doesn't mean rape you sperg. If they were pumping and dumping down across Britain there wouldn't be genetic evidence because a single mother and her rape baby in 5th century Britain would be fucked. Patrilineal dominance can be explained easily and it really isn't as large a factor as you believe.

>Wealth inequality, the Anglo-Saxons were at the top the the economic pyramid for hundreds of years, women marry up.
>Political alliance, locals marry their women to Anglo-Saxons for protection from other Anglo-Saxons or Irish/Welsh raiders.
>Male deaths outnumbering female deaths, this has been true for a long time and finding areas with perfect 50/50 distributions of young men and women is very difficult.

>Ceawlin
this is the origin of the name "Colin," no?

So who is WEWUZing then? The Wessex Saxons trying to claim legitimacy to the region by saying he was their first king or people today trying to say Wessex could have had Celtic origins?

Isn't this just a roundabout way of saying the same thing?

Both maybe.
I would of thought the first kings of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms would have been born on the continent

One implies working with the Romano-British on some level and the other implies mass rape and pillage. The Anglo-Saxons ruled over the Romano-British, you can't successfully rule over people that outnumber you 10:1 by raping their women and burning their homes down once a year. If they acted like this the larger population would be too hostile for the Anglo-Saxons to have a permanent presence.

>Steppe tribes did it tho

Horse nomads didn't live next door to the people who they pillaged, the Anglo-Saxons lived in Britain and were subject to the anger of the mob who could set your house on fire while you slept.

Anglo-Saxons came to Britain as mercenaries and pirates, the myths about Princes and Kings sailing to Britain and founding Kingdoms are the attempts to claim legitimacy. The first Anglo-Saxons Kings were probably leaders of disgruntled mercenaries who realized that killing the local aristocrat that hired him and claiming all his shit as yours was better than being a subordinate.

Yeah it can also mean slavery. Guess how and where American blacks got their white DNAs from?
>muh social ladder
Yeah, they were gradually replaced after massacred. Their women raped, divided among the victors then taken as sex slaves. Their children then would be worked as lower class serfs as they're second-class subjects.

Genes can't tell you possible scenarios like that, despite being very likely at that time. Tell me why historians now want to paint them as - just - peaceful migrants ('only some chimp-outs, but overall okay tee-hee, the lords also weren't that bad' and so on).

>Anglo-Saxons enslaved people en masse

Do you have any idea how stupid this is? Slavery and mistreatment of slaves is only possible long term when you outnumber the slaves, even then there can be revolts. Look at Haiti, that is what would have happened to the Anglo-Saxons if they were acting like you believe they did. Slavery in Germanic cultures is also completely different from slavery performed in the early modern period, slaves could buy their freedom and were often freed by their masters. Most house holds had 1-2 slaves and thus is was a personal relationship and not something like American slavery at all. The Doomsday book puts about 10% of the English population as slaves in 1086.

So this might sound dumb, but why did they do it?

Why did they decide to all migrate to Britain? Why not, anywhere else? Why not stay?

>germanic slavery ain't that bad, it's less cruel than other slavery!
See, this is what I've been talking about. This is just Japanese web novel tier kind of sugar-coating.

Many were invited as Foederati to fight Pict and Irish raiders, Romans at the time often paid Foederati in land and so it probably became popular for sons that didn't have inheritance to look forward to to migrate in the hope of making it big.

Because it wasn't as bad, slaves would often be freed and serve their former master as freedmen, their sons would serve their fathers former master as well and so on. This type of relationship was common because it gave influential households more power and influence. The population of your household correlates directly with your power, by freeing your slaves and allowing them to settle on your land and start families you now have more men to defend your land from others. This is how systems like the Fyrd come about a system of cooperation that extends for generations.

>you can't successfully rule over people that outnumber you 10:1 by raping their women and burning their homes down once a year.
Didn't Sparta do something similar?

I would say as a counterpoint that Sparta's system wasn't exactly smooth sailing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#Revolts

>All Anglo-Saxon samples are I1
thats not even close to being accurate, literally every single body of a Saxon and the Germanic iron age at large carries R1b-U106.
>mainly blonde
the majority of those kids will have brown hair by 15

Yeah, you as a slave had to watch your master impregnating your hot wife and your daughter in front of you, lol. Not as bad, as long as you live, right?

>Do you assume that Black or Asian origin people can't identify as English
yes

>Yeah, you as a slave had to watch your master impregnating your hot wife and your daughter in front of you, lol. Not as bad, as long as you live, right?
find me a single instance of this happening

>Didn't Sparta do something similar?
no.
Sparta had a large population of warriors and ex-warriors as well as a much greater population of "half-citizens", they weren't outnumbered 10:1.

>more Celtic
>the Celtic genes (Celitc haplomeme) peak at 35% along the borders of England
do you mind explaining how England can be 65% Germanic and still be Celtic?

And they were constantly facing problems because of it. Revolts were common and it got so bad that the Spartan army couldn't leave Sparta at times. As the Helot populations became larger they were given more liberties and freedoms to the point that the Spartans couldn't pull the same shit and Sparta power evaporated.

Your cuckhold fantasies are clouding your opinion user. While I'm sure slave girls got fucked and slaves got cucked long term they would be freed and be allowed to own a home and start a family.

Is this entire issue flooded with:

>I'm GERMANIC NOT CELTIC
English LARPers &
>IMMIGRANTS R EVIL
/pol/fags?

Sure it was really shitty for the Romano-British but murder, displacement and enslavement of millions of people?

Wouldn't the natives just resent and eventually revolt if they did something like that a lot? A lot of subjugated slaves rebelled over something less than that throughout history, IIRC.

What should they identify themselves then?

We know it can't be English. Probably Asian or African though, whatever their ethnic origin is.

If it were like that they would have been absorbed by the Britons instead, like the Germanic tribes in the mainland.

I like when they speak Old English on Vikings

You avin' a giggle?