English are not Britons

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

Any study about mtDNA in England? I bet AS took Briton brides.

There are some, here's one:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/23/1/152

[Hagogoth]

Interesting to know that most DNA of the English came from the
Anglo-Saxons. But even on the east coast of UK there are much more
dark haired en eyed people than in the Netherlands. They must be descendents of the Britons, because all the Anglo-Saxons had fair/red hair.
Who are the dark haired and dark eyed English?

Erik

[Menydh]

The research is for the Y-chromosome, that is the male line. Apparently it is a different story in the mtDNA (female line).

Which, if so, it would point out to mass rapes.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

They must be descendents of the Britons, because all the Anglo-Saxons had fair/red hair.
Who are the dark haired and dark eyed English?

First: not all saxons had fair/red hair; moreover there is historical proof that blonde hair was very common and that alot of saxons, angles and danes dyed their light brown hair to become blonde (blonde was part of their "ideal" image).

Secondly: dark haired and dark eyed english would mostly descend from celtic Britons (the original brythonic tribes which were of iberian origin), Normans (a large percentage of Normans had dark hair from frankish/breton source), Welsh (which incidentally could also be considered Brythonic) and other minor groups.

[Savage]

On Rollon

Originally Posted by Milesian

The Vikings held huge territories of England (The Danelaw) but their attempts to take England as a whole were defeated by the Saxon King Harold. Of course, he then had to march south immediately to fight off another invasion - this time against the Normans under William. This battle the Saxons lost at Hasting in 1066 AD. The irony being that the Normans themselves were simply Vikings who had settled in Northern France from territory ceded to them by the Frankish king Rollo.

So in a way, the Vikings did succeed in conquering Saxon England. They merely done it under the guise of Normans rather than Norsemen.

If you want true resistance, one must look to the Gaelic tribes........

Rollon, or Gange_Rolf, so he was called, Walking-Rolf, as he was too large for any horse to carry him. He fled from Møre after some local controverses.

He became grand-grandfather to Wilhelm the Conquerer.

The other pretendent, Harald Hardråde, that fell at Stamford Bridge, had a few months earlier inherited England after a deal with Knut the Mighty, that said if Knut died before Harald, then Harald should inherit England after him. The deal was keept, nominal, but impossible to manifest in practice, so Harold gave up that heritage to Knuts son. A few monts later he tried however to conqueer England on his own instead, but fell in the attempt, as we know.

Harald Hårdråde had undeniable Sami subinfluence from his grand-grandmother Snefrid, the Sami queen of Harald Hairfair, son of Sigurd Syr. It became this branch the upkeept the royal blood line.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Hagogoth

Interesting to know that most DNA of the English came from the
Anglo-Saxons. But even on the east coast of UK there are much more
dark haired en eyed people than in the Netherlands. They must be descendents of the Britons, because all the Anglo-Saxons had fair/red hair.

All of them? That would be pretty suprising to say the least.
From what I can tell, blondes were present in the British Isles long before the arrival of Germanic tribes (assuming the Brythons did not differ much from the Goidels) as such hair colouring is frequently commented on in the Irish sagas.
On the other hand, one of the names the Irish applied to the Danes was Dubh Gall (Dark Foreigners)

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The Vikings held huge territories of England (The Danelaw) but their attempts to take England as a whole were defeated by the Saxon King Harold. Of course, he then had to march south immediately to fight off another invasion - this time against the Normans under William. This battle the Saxons lost at Hasting in 1066 AD. The irony being that the Normans themselves were simply Vikings who had settled in Northern France from territory ceded to them by the Frankish king Rollo.

So in a way, the Vikings did succeed in conquering Saxon England. They merely done it under the guise of Normans rather than Norsemen.

If you want true resistance, one must look to the Gaelic tribes........

Rollo became a duke, not actually a king. The original mandate from the local king was to protect the coast
of Frankia from other vikings, also the river Seine from further viking attacs.

As we perhaps recall from history, Paris was surrounded for 11 months by a viking army of 80 000 men and a few thousand ships and boats.

However as I have read history, Rollo and his kinsmen became local powerful factors, so according to the French kings dependence on his protection of the coast and the most important river inlets, Rollo and his
heirs expanded their domain a little more than the the first french king originally had figured.

Nice theories. Better practice?

They also gave breed to those that later took England in posession.

These country boys became brilliant constuctors of states, perhaps accorcing to the inborn must to selfemployed independence?

Something natural to the northern Scandinavians, we are used to have plenty individual space, also common, and also the etched will of the lesser kings and chiefs of Norway, to highly unwillingly "submit" to any "central " king or power, Øvigheta.

The unruly wills of the Norwegian chiefs, jarls and kings signifies the points of every tacle of the crown, as used to in Norway, established as a circle of trapezoid balance between the kingdoms.

to be honest, some of you British people look like slavs :S It was said that celts came from
Modern Polen? And Slovakia?

So, I think that the pilegrims you threw out from Britain and to America were actually the Basque as their ancestors or are they Germanic?

[Menydh]

I can't make much sense from those words, if any.

[Lutiferre]

This is an old thread, but now that its taken up, I'll reply anyway.

Originally Posted by Gil

First: not all saxons had fair/red hair; moreover there is historical proof that blonde hair was very common and that alot of saxons, angles and danes dyed their light brown hair to become blonde (blonde was part of their "ideal" image).

Secondly: dark haired and dark eyed english would mostly descend from celtic Britons (the original brythonic tribes which were of iberian origin), Normans (a large percentage of Normans had dark hair from frankish/breton source), Welsh (which incidentally could also be considered Brythonic) and other minor groups.

To be honest, seen from outside, I dont believe "Celts"/Irish/Scots are darker than the AS, because they are Celtic. There are conflicting studies as to average hair color, but most suggest that the trend is pretty much identical in most parts of Britain, Celtic or not. But my best friend being half Irish, his father is blond and very light blue eyed (more than the average Dane and Jute, anyway), his mother dark brown haired, he is blond, and another old friend of mine also being half Irish (for some reason I know a lot of Irish) and half Danish is also blond, his father the same, and generally Irish people I see are very fair skinned and light haired and eyed, I dont believe that they are darker just because a few are, or because they are of "iberian" origin. Some Danes are relatively tan and dark haired too. For an example, my teacher would probably not be considered white, however, I've asked him, and he is completely sure (documented by family genealogist) that all of his ancestry is Jutish. Another example is my father, uncle and my brother, who are all tan and black haired. There are indeed examples out of the ordinary, but they dont change the general trend which is: Danes are mostly pretty fair, and your average Dane is brown haired. The exception to the rule prove nothing. I would say the same with the Irish and the Scottish. And I am talking out of both experience and to a degree some of the statistical studies, though I do not care much for them, seeing as they are just generalizing. You can draw an as good picture, if not better, by paying a visit to Dublin.

From my experience, the only people I find are plausibly darker in average, are the Welsh. From what I have seen, they are generally darker than both Irish and Scots and English.

Originally Posted by Milesian

All of them? That would be pretty suprising to say the least.
From what I can tell, blondes were present in the British Isles long before the arrival of Germanic tribes (assuming the Brythons did not differ much from the Goidels) as such hair colouring is frequently commented on in the Irish sagas.
On the other hand, one of the names the Irish applied to the Danes was Dubh Gall (Dark Foreigners)

While I dont know if its plausible to say that Danes are darker than Irish, I know that the Irish are very fair themselves, which would in any case explain this.

To original thread: I dont know about that "interpretation", but unless you are going to argue that Saxons are R1b, which is nonsense, then the English undoubtedly have a Celtic/Brythonic/native component, considering their R1b lineage. It could also be from the Jutes and Danes, considering that Jutland and Denmark has a relatively high R1b level, but I dont believe the extent of their migration (which, in the case of the Jutes, was the most insignificant of all Germanics, all though they were the only non-Vikings, i.e. actually invited) can account for this. They were even ethnically cleansed by the AS in some areas, and their legacy is very limited considering that what is left of them is written off as Anglo-Saxon and not Jutish, by the AS themselves (i.e. the AS Chronicles) and with this cultural intolerance of them, it is inconceivable that they could have a major genetic impact on the modern English. Therefore we must assume that it is Brythonic.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I dont know about that "interpretation", but unless you are going to argue that Saxons are R1b, which is nonsense, then the English undoubtedly have a Celtic/Brythonic/native component, considering their R1b lineage.

Expect the levels of R1b in England to decrease as you move eastwards, with the highest incidences of R1b (probably very high) in Cornwall, Devon and Cumbria. Likely Sommerset and Dorset too.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Expect the levels of R1b in England to decrease as you move eastwards, with the highest incidences of R1b (probably very high) in Cornwall, Devon and Cumbria. Likely Sommerset and Dorset too.

In the Y DNA haplogroup map I provided, it seems yes that the R1b level decreases as you move eastwards. However, the general R1b level in England is much higher than that of any Germanic country, the only exception being Denmark which similarly has a level of 50% or over in most studies.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

In the Y DNA haplogroup map I provided, it seems yes that the R1b level decreases as you move eastwards. However, the general R1b level in England is much higher than that of any Germanic country

Still it might point to a significative genetic regional division.

the only exception being Denmark which similarly has a level of 50% or over in most studies.

I've found Denmark's levels of R1b puzzling, since I first noticed them. What would you speculate as to its reasons? A sediment of the Cimbri and related peoples?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I've found Denmark's levels of R1b puzzling, since I first noticed them. What would you speculate as to its reasons? A sediment of the Cimbri and related peoples?

R1b is generally accepted to be correlated with indigenous peoples of Europe, i.e. paleo-Europeans. It is also generally accepted to be correlated with Celtic peoples. That would, of course, point to a connection in the case of Denmark, between the proto-Jutish peoples, i.e. the Cimbric tribes, the Cimbri, Ambrones, and so on, and this R1b occurence. That is the most likely explanation right off the bat. I have some genetic studies of Mid and North Jutes on my computer, which are the most direct descendants of the Cimbric tribes. Generally, it would be much easier to fully understand this question by separating the haplogroup distribution of the Danish Islands and Jutland. Another interesting fact is the high similarity between the haplogroup distribution of Denmark and of France, and in that regard, the relation between Jutish peoples, both continental and Atlantic, and the Frankish kingdom. Whether this has any connection is entirely speculative, but just an interesting fact.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

R1b is generally accepted to be correlated with indigenous peoples of Europe, i.e. paleo-Europeans.

That would be Occidental paleo-Europeans, not 'Europeans'.

It is also generally accepted to be correlated with Celtic peoples.

I assume that you mean the ancient Kelts here, not the modern Celtic-speaking populations.

I don't know if that is generally accepted, as you say. I've never heared of it. But certainly R1b incidence in Denmark and the ancient Celtic populations in Jutland, would give some support to that theory. Further to this, it would be interesting to find out how much of the R1b portion in Anatolia comes from the region of Galatia. Notice that it is higher than in much of Eastern Europe.