You can only truly be English genetically if your YDNA is Anglo-Saxon

[Norb]

You can only truly be English genetically if your YDNA is of collective Anglo-Saxon origin (Angles, Saxons and Jutes). Is this a fair statement?

[Ayetooey]

I mean Y dna doesn't say much about someones autosomal picture. Someone could be 100% English but have a celtic branch of R1B, where as I'm sure there's plenty of African Americans with Anglo Saxon Y dna's through slavery.

[Norb]

I mean Y dna doesn't say much about someones autosomal picture. Someone could be 100% English but have a celtic branch of R1B, where as I'm sure there's plenty of African Americans with Anglo Saxon Y dna's through slavery.

but technically those African Americans cannot be Anglo-Saxon even though they have YDNA (I know this contradicts what I said). There was no English before Anglo-Saxons arrived

[Borealis]

So no women can be English then

[Norb]

So no women can be English then

the mtDNA for most male invaders was H1, basically any YDNA that is not from Anglo-Saxons is not truly English, how can someone with a Roman YDNA lineage be called English?

[J. Ketch]

Haplotardism at its worst.

[Peterski]

I mean Y dna doesn't say much about someones autosomal picture.

In terms of autosomal DNA, Anglo-Saxons are extinct.

There is nobody alive today who is 100% Anglo-Saxon autosomally.

I doubt if there are many people who are over 50%, even.

[oszkar07]

You can only truly be English genetically if your YDNA is of collective Anglo-Saxon origin (Angles, Saxons and Jutes). Is this a fair statement?

No,
At least not imo , as I think a person can be autosomaly English, actually autosomal DNA is more relevant imo.

[Imperator Biff]

Interesting how Scandinavian like Anglo Saxon admixture peaks in eastern English from Kent/East Anglia yet these regions are the most ‘southern’ shifted in all of Britain?
Thoughts?

[nittionia]

No

[J. Ketch]

Interesting how Scandinavian like Anglo Saxon admixture peaks in eastern English from Kent/East Anglia yet these regions are the most ‘southern’ shifted in all of Britain?
Thoughts?
My thoughts:

1. I don't know that SE England/East Anglia are the most 'southern' shifted regions in Britain, I think that is Cornwall/Devon and maybe South Wales
2. The Anglo-Saxon in SE England is offset by higher non-Germanic continental input than other regions, which geographically and historically makes sense
3. The Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon like admixture is roughly the same for most of England, bar the fringes that are much more Insular Celtic

[Imperator Biff]

My thoughts:

1. I don't know that SE England/East Anglia are the most 'southern' shifted regions in Britain, I think that is Cornwall/Devon and maybe South Wales
2. The Anglo-Saxon in SE England is offset by higher non-Germanic continental input than other regions, which geographically and historically makes sense
3. The Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon like admixture is roughly the same for most of England, bar the fringes that are much more Insular Celtic
According to David Reich there was a larger admixture event during the Iron Age in SE England than the later AS one from a more EEF rich population, probably Hallstatt celts from Gaul?

[J. Ketch]

According to David Reich there was a larger admixture event during the Iron Age in SE England than the later AS one from a more EEF rich population, probably Hallstatt celts from Gaul?
That makes sense to me and I've said as much for a while (though IDK if it was larger than the AS 'event', there was also waves of Celtic invasions), that there was a large Gallic like admixture in SE England; it would logically have had the most Continental Celtic input of anywhere in the British Isles. The extra EEF found there would have been added to by later continental influences like Romans, Normans and economic migrants of the last Millennium.

[J. Ketch]

That makes sense to me and I've said as much for a while (though IDK if it was larger than the AS 'event', there was also waves of Celtic invasions), that there was a large Gallic like admixture in SE England; it would logically have had the most Continental Celtic input of anywhere in the British Isles. The extra EEF found there would have been added to by later continental influences like Romans, Normans and economic migrants of the last Millennium.
There may have been 3 major Celtic waves into Britain. The first that brought Goidelic language, the second that brought Brythonic language, and a third wave of Belgae into Southern Britain. They might have been centuries apart, but cumulatively they had an enormous influence, such that Southern Britons are likely more Continental Celtic in ancestry than British Bell Beaker.

[GreentheViper]

Autosomal makeup and phenotypical traits are more important imo

[Norb]

My thoughts:

1. I don't know that SE England/East Anglia are the most 'southern' shifted regions in Britain, I think that is Cornwall/Devon and maybe South Wales
2. The Anglo-Saxon in SE England is offset by higher non-Germanic continental input than other regions, which geographically and historically makes sense
3. The Scandinavian/Anglo-Saxon like admixture is roughly the same for most of England, bar the fringes that are much more Insular Celtic

1. makes sense as my results pull me South
2. can you explain more?

[Norb]

Interesting how Scandinavian like Anglo Saxon admixture peaks in eastern English from Kent/East Anglia yet these regions are the most ‘southern’ shifted in all of Britain?
Thoughts?

bump for this question

[Ayetooey]

If my paternal side was English; I would of hoped to get something Anglo-Saxon. So I1, R1b-u106 or R1a-L664. Saw someone with my maternal grandfathers surname name from the same area on a dna project ages ago and he was I1 so I'm assuming that's his Y dna. Always better to be the invader chad than the cucked native imo.

[Gwydion]

Almost every group of people on the planet is the result of an assimilation of some originally distinct but closely related group of people. Say like the Franks assimilating the Belgae to produce Flemings or Czechs assimilating Celto-Germanics already in Bohemia or Koreans assimilating originally Japonic peoples from South Korea. So I don't think the Celtic Britons (or later Normans for example) who became English can't be called English if they lack Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA. But I also don't buy the modern myth that extremely distinct people can be assimilated, i.e. a Mongol can't become an Irishman.

That said I suppose in a way you might be able to boast of being more English in the sense of Anglo-Saxon if you both have more Anglo-Saxon DNA autosomally along with Anglo-Saxon Y-DNA than say an R1b-L21 Englishman from Cumbria who plots with the Welsh or Irish.

[TheMaestro]

https://i.imgur.com/0BLpsIk.gif

[Gwydion]

If my paternal side was English; I would of hoped to get something Anglo-Saxon. So I1, R1b-u106 or R1a-L664. Saw someone with my maternal grandfathers surname name from the same area on a dna project ages ago and he was I1 so I'm assuming that's his Y dna. Always better to be the invader chad than the cucked native imo.

But then you get oddballs like my own Y-DNA branch...it is R1b-U152 but of a branch mostly found in N. Germany/Scandinavia and my final Y-DNA matches with a modern German from old Saxon territory and a Norwegian. I also know of someone with my surname who is R1b-DF27, which one might associate more with SW Europe, but his particular final branch is almost entirely found in Sweden and the British Isles. I suppose the point is knowing your final Y-DNA mutation is more revealing than just a broader group like R1b-U106 or I1.

[Phenix]

No, and the same goes for all ethnicities.

[Ayetooey]

But then you get oddballs like my own Y-DNA branch...it is R1b-U152 but of a branch mostly found in N. Germany/Scandinavia and my final Y-DNA matches with a modern Germany from old Saxon territory and a Norwegian. I also know of someone with my surname who is R1b-DF27, which one might associate more with SW Europe, but his particular final branch is almost entirely found in Sweden and the British Isles. I suppose the point is knowing your final Y-DNA mutation is more revealing than just a broader group like R1b-U106 or I1.

Yeah you need to test SNPS to find out your terminal subclade; until then its all guess work. It could be possible for someones R1b-u152 to of come from a continental celt who was assimilated by the anglo-saxons, and then brought to Britain. Thus it is "non germanic" in its ultimate origin, but still of Anglo-Saxon origin.

[Norb]

Yeah you need to test SNPS to find out your terminal subclade; until then its all guess work. It could be possible for someones R1b-u152 to of come from a continental celt who was assimilated by the anglo-saxons, and then brought to Britain. Thus it is "non germanic" in its ultimate origin, but still of Anglo-Saxon origin.

how much assimilation would of gone on in continental Europe involving Anglo-Saxons before they traveled across?

[Not a Cop]

If my paternal side was English; I would of hoped to get something Anglo-Saxon. So I1, R1b-u106 or R1a-L664. Saw someone with my maternal grandfathers surname name from the same area on a dna project ages ago and he was I1 so I'm assuming that's his Y dna. Always better to be the invader chad than the cucked native imo.

>implying that A-S were not cucked by Normans and don't speak a broken french.

[Ayetooey]

how much assimilation would of gone on in continental Europe involving Anglo-Saxons before they traveled across?

I'm not fully sure since I haven't read much into that topic; but I do remember on one of the I2a dna projects I'm on, seeing a pure English guy with the I2a-Din subclade which I have, mainly found in south slavs; and the explanation was that it was from a bordering slavic tribe where one of its members must of assimilated into either the angles or the saxons. So I'm sure it could be possible for the same to have happened with some celts. In such a case however there'd be clear TMRCA and genetic clusters with specific subclades where they could be linked to the invasion period. Bulk of the Anglo Saxons would of been proto germanic in terms of Y dna tho. I1, R1b-u106 or R1a-L664.

[Gwydion]

Yeah you need to test SNPS to find out your terminal subclade; until then its all guess work. It could be possible for someones R1b-u152 to of come from a continental celt who was assimilated by the anglo-saxons, and then brought to Britain. Thus it is "non germanic" in its ultimate origin, but still of Anglo-Saxon origin.

True, but I suppose it also depends on how long ago a particular branch either migrated north or remained in the north for it to be called non-Germanic in ultimate origin. To use my own example, after much research it seems not long after the formation of R1b-Z49 my ancestral branch made its way into what is now northern Germany and hence this could be as early as 2000 BC. Another possible scenario, assuming my branch remained around the Rhineland instead, would be that it expanded north during the Urnfield culture, say between 1200 BC to 800 BC, but it's almost certain that it wasn't any later than this. Hence it is quite likely to have been part of the Jastorf and/or Harpstedt-Nienburg cultures and thus part of the proto-Germanic ethnogenesis despite being a haplogroup not typically associated with Germanics.

[Leto]

>implying that A-S were not cucked by Normans and don't speak a broken french.
Why cucked? Assimilation and language shift have been happening since ever. Not to mention that I doubt the Anglo-Saxons gave up without fighting. Losing a war doesn't mean being cucked.

[MercifulServant]

No that logic is retarded. Ydna is a very small portion of ur overall genetic makeup.

[Rædwald]

I am Saxon genetically, but not my Y-DNA :rolleyes:

https://i.postimg.cc/rwZJQgdx/L233.png

[Not a Cop]

Why cucked? Assimilation and language shift have been happening since ever. Not to mention that I doubt the Anglo-Saxons gave up without fighting. Losing a war doesn't mean being cucked.

Just was making fun of cucked celts argument.

[J. Ketch]

1. makes sense as my results pull me South
2. can you explain more?
I don't really know how to explain further. The people who lived in your area prior to the Saxon conquest were more Gaulish and possibly more Roman influenced than other parts of Britain. Then after the Norman conquest there was more French and Flemish economic migration into the South East which might also contribute to your Southern shift.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/England_Celtic_tribes_-_South.svg

[Tong]

My haplogroup is R1b-U152 gaulish. My celtic ancestors killed your germanic ones then assimilated into their society. My mtDNA is common among siberians. I'm over 80% english on most tests. Do you have a problem, retard?

[Tong]

>implying that A-S were not cucked by Normans and don't speak a broken french.

This guy is right. Normans completely cucked our germanic nerdick invaders both culturally and socially, and empowered our country back to its italo-celtic roots in general. All nordic larpers gtfo.

[J. Ketch]

I've mentioned it before but Caesar talked about the difference between the 'maritime' Britons of the South and the 'interior' Britons of the Midlands and North.


XII.—The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither, and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands. The number of the people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous, for the most part very like those of the Gauls: the number of cattle is great. They use either brass or iron rings, determined at a certain weight, as their money. Tin is produced in the midland regions; in the maritime, iron; but the quantity of it is small: they employ brass, which is imported. There, as in Gaul, is timber of every description, except beech and fir. They do not regard it lawful to eat the hare, and the cock, and the goose; they, however, breed them for amusement and pleasure. The climate is more temperate than in Gaul, the colds being less severe.

XIV.—The most civilised of all these nations are they who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins.
Honestly he makes it sound like the interior Britons were pure unrefined Bell Beakers.

[J. Ketch]

This guy is right. Normans completely cucked our germanic nerdick invaders both culturally and socially, and empowered our country back to its italo-celtic roots in general. All nordic larpers gtfo.
Aren't you part Jewish or something?

[Tong]

Aren't you part Jewish or something?

LOL yeah. My grandfather's grandfather was ashkenazi jewish.

[Gründig]

:picard2:

[celticdragongod]

I am Saxon genetically, but not my Y-DNA :rolleyes:

https://i.postimg.cc/rwZJQgdx/L233.png

Where did you get the map from in your spoiler?