Southeast England was 80% replaced by Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XenophobicPrussian

Yeah, not because of the Romans though, England oddly enough has the most actual Celtic admixture in the Isles despite being the first ones to stop speaking the language. Irish specifically may have had a lot of extra drift too as they may or may not have been separated from people in Great Britain since the time of the Beakers.

---

I agree it's mostly from Celts, but I think a very minor Roman/Med influence is not unreasonable given the number of troops sent to Britain. That influence may not have been evenly distributed amongst sub-Roman Britons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandeirante

not!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani...)#cite_note-22

---

Well, obviously not compared to Gaul, but they were the most Romanised parts of Britain, which also coincides with them being the areas of Britain with most Hallstatt/La Tene influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

I agree it's mostly from Celts, but I think a very minor Roman/Med influence is not unreasonable given the number of troops sent to Britain. That influence may not have been evenly distributed amongst sub-Roman Britons.

---

Weren't Roman-related populations be in worst conditions after the Saxon invasion? I mean the breaking of trade with Empire, loss of control and agressive invaders in form of both Celts and A-S, add to that the fact that Romans probably were the most urbanised demograpic, it's all very good predisposition for fast disappearence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not a Cop

Weren't Roman-related populations be in worst conditions after the Saxon invasion? I mean the breaking of trade with Empire, loss of control and agressive invaders in form of both Celts and A-S, add to that the fact that Romans probably were the most urbanised demograpic, it's all very good predisposition for was disappearence.

---

You maybe right, the urban population of Roman Britain was a smaller percentage than I initially thought, about 0.25 million out of 3.6 million, so roughly 4-5%, and of that, most would have been native Britons.

There's still 5-6% of English y-dna that is J2 or E1b, a lot of that might come from the Roman period. Either way the Roman genetic influence is certainly very small.

These "80% replaced" Anglo-Saxons when uploaded to GEDmatch, they will be close to modern Scandinavians, North Dutch and North Germans.

Not to modern South-East English.

Have watched a video posted on the Anthrogenica from someone who worked on the viking era project that talks about the Longobard Northern Italy connection that they found.

There are historical connections to the Saxons and some of the Collegno lot show connections here.

Perhaps could also explain some of the southern Influence into Southern Britain. Another possible connection to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Right. Med/Central Euro or Eastern Euro admixture shifts a population away from other NW Euro's more than anything, that's why English are further away from Anglo-Saxons than Irish on G25, also why South Dutch and South/West Germans are even further away, despite all obviously having much more Germanic influence than the Irish. It's why I'm sure sub-Roman Britons had to be noticeably different overall from Irish/Scots, England and Southern England especially wouldn't be so South shifted otherwise.

The English sample on G25 is mostly from Kent I believe, similar to the Southeast English average on Eurogenes K13/K15. The gedmatch averages I've collected from around England so far (including SE England) are different though.

K13
https://i.postimg.cc/VN8V0JHg/k13newcomparison.png
K15
https://i.postimg.cc/m21XdYvV/k15newcomp.png

---

The heightened amounts of G2a, E and J haplogroups in parts of England attest to this IMO.

There is no doubt to me, that E, J and in some degree R-U152 in south-east England was brought with romans and gallo-romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

I made the thread title, and I disagree. I think it's important to know whether the original migration of Anglo-Saxons was large and displaced the local population, or whether it was a smallish band of men who formed a minority elite, and with a founder effect created the modern English y-dna picture, as has often been hypothesised in recent decades (by people who think the Anglo-Saxon autosomal influence was minor).

It's also relevant to the lack of Celtic and Romano-British culture in early England; that's much more understandable with a mass migration.

---

I see your point. But the question is how much further did these 80/20 Anglo-Saxons mix with Britons? Afaik Roman Britain is said to of had a population exceeding 3 million, though that had dwindled by the Sub-Roman Britain period to around 2 million. The numbers of Anglo-Saxons are estimated to of been around 250 thousand. I don't think its unrealistic to imagine that these 80/20 Anglo-Saxons, mixed further with Britons, predominantly females, to the point in which you have a modern population which is around 25-40% Anglo-Saxon according to previous studies, whilst still retaining predominantly Germanic Y dna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

These "80% replaced" Anglo-Saxons when uploaded to GEDmatch, they will be close to modern Scandinavians, North Dutch and North Germans.

Not to modern South-East English.

---

Who knows. You can model English on the G25 as a north germanic, south-west Euro 80/20 mix. For example.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...61/unknown.png