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

[Creoda]

That's what the Viking paper concluded but I don't know how much sense that makes as there was obviously English in both Ireland and Scotland. It would have been interesting if they sampled Dublin.

Here's the quote from the Viking paper.



The French component is really interesting as well. It looks like southeast England has had a high amount of immigration from the Continent even after the Anglo-Saxons arrival. Really looking forward to this paper coming out in a few weeks' time.

That ethnicity estimate again since you brought it up:



Modern samples on the left:

England - 42% Ancient Scandinavian (37% Danish), 38% Ancient British, 18% Southern European
Wales - 58% Ancient British, 26% Ancient Scandinavian (22% Danish), 13% Southern European
Scotland/N. Ireland - 67% Ancient British, 22% Ancient Scandinavian (16% Danish), 9% Southern European
All modern Scandinavians have 5-10% Southern European

Ancient samples on the right:

UK (presumably Celtic Briton) - 94% Ancient British, 2% Ancient Scandinavian, 3% Southern European
UKB (presumably Medieval English) - 51% Ancient Scandinavian (41% Danish), 32% Ancient British, 15% Southern European

The suggestion that France IA ancestry is present alongside Anglo-Saxons and Celtic Britons in the Early Medieval period might also explain why some of the Viking samples from England were Southern shifted/French-like.

Distance to:	VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK177
0.03391104	Afrikaner
0.03488216	Dutch
0.03633283	French_Pas-de-Calais
0.03689908	BelgianB
0.03726797	French_Brittany

Distance to:	VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK150
0.01931696	BelgianA
0.02053499	French_Nord
0.02217068	French_Alsace
0.02293013	BelgianC
0.02319291	Afrikaner

Distance to:	VK2020_England_Oxford_VA:VK146
0.02298720	Swiss_French
0.02448343	French_Auvergne
0.02544676	French_Provence
0.02572225	French_Occitanie
0.02646668	Spanish_Penedes

Distance to:	VK2020_England_Dorset_VA:VK260
0.03043597	Afrikaner
0.03124193	Dutch
0.03270752	French_Brittany
0.03391314	Welsh
0.03413193	Irish

[Grace O'Malley]

Interesting discussion about the Franks and the French_IA component bringing that to South England and that these Franks might have been more French like autosomally. There has always been some puzzle to Southeast England because people they cannot be modelled as just Insular Celtic and Anglo-Saxon. Any thoughts?

[Russki]

Any thoughts?

The English are continental Europeans.

This is what I'm pondering right now.

[Creoda]

Interesting discussion about the Franks and the French_IA component bringing that to South England and that these Franks might have been more French like autosomally. There has always been some puzzle to Southeast England because people they cannot be modelled as just Insular Celtic and Anglo-Saxon. Any thoughts?

The possibility of a large 'Frankish' (but French-like) element in Early Medieval England is fascinating, and not something I think anyone saw coming. I believe that much/most of this French IA blood in England was there before the Normans, whether it be from Belgae, Roman Gauls, Franks or all. Nearly all of the British Isles is on a near straight cline, from NW Ireland down towards the meeting point of ancient Celts and Germanics in the Low Countries; not towards Scandinavia. With such uniformity that mixture is likely to be older rather than newer IMO.

A slide showing the French IA (green) element present in early Medieval England. Much larger South of the Thames then than North, which is weird because East Anglia now has the highest French IA (despite not being thought a hot spot of Norman migration). Some are suggesting the Flemish migration to East Anglia in the late Middle Ages may have had a disproportionate effect and be the reason, but I don't know.


Even though we've been waiting for this paper for nearly 2 years, these presentations have really whetted the appetite, and I can't wait for it to come out now.

[Creoda]

The English are continental Europeans.

This is what I'm pondering right now.

I demonstrated that with K36. Even the West Midlands kits score closer on average to Dutchmen across the North Sea than to Welshmen across Offa's Dyke.

Distance to: English_West-Midlands(n=44)
3.83334058 Dutch(n=135)
4.14254753 Welsh(n=42)

But I still don't believe the Celtic Briton component is as low in England as that chart is suggesting.

[Grace O'Malley]

The possibility of a large 'Frankish' (but French-like) element in Early Medieval England is fascinating, and not something I think anyone saw coming. I believe that much/most of this French IA blood in England was there before the Normans, whether it be from Belgae, Roman Gauls, Franks or all. Nearly all of the British Isles is on a near straight cline, from NW Ireland down towards the meeting point of ancient Celts and Germanics in the Low Countries; not towards Scandinavia. With such uniformity that mixture is likely to be older rather than newer IMO.

A slide showing the French IA (green) element present in early Medieval England. Much larger South of the Thames then than North, which is weird because East Anglia now has the highest French IA (despite not being thought a hot spot of Norman migration). Some are suggesting the Flemish migration to East Anglia in the late Middle Ages may have had a disproportionate effect and be the reason, but I don't know.


Even though we've been waiting for this paper for nearly 2 years, these presentations have really whetted the appetite, and I can't wait for it to come out now.

The same. It is incredibly fascinating.

[Grace O'Malley]

Here's the Pre-print of one of the papers discussed at the Conference. Apologies if it has been posted previously.

https://osf.io/jzfv6/

Biomolecular evidence has great potential to address unanswered questions about the
nature and scale of migration into early medieval England. Previous isotopic studies of early
medieval mobility and migration have mostly been site specific, focussing on the
identification of outliers, occasionally comparing to a baseline or other sites for context.
Here we present the results of a large-scale synthetic analysis of isotopic data for mobility in
early medieval England, utilising both published and new data. We show gendered and
regionally specific mobility histories in early medieval England for the first time at scale, and
demonstrate chronological fluctuations linked to events such as the Adventus Saxonum and
Scandinavian settlements of the 9th century AD onwards. First generation migrants and
their possible regions of origin are identified, and narratives of migration from the end of the
Roman period to the 11th century AD are re-framed considering the new evidence
presented.

[Lucas]

The possibility of a large 'Frankish' (but French-like) element in Early Medieval England is fascinating, and not something I think anyone saw coming. I believe that much/most of this French IA blood in England was there before the Normans, whether it be from Belgae, Roman Gauls, Franks or all. Nearly all of the British Isles is on a near straight cline, from NW Ireland down towards the meeting point of ancient Celts and Germanics in the Low Countries; not towards Scandinavia. With such uniformity that mixture is likely to be older rather than newer IMO.

A slide showing the French IA (green) element present in early Medieval England. Much larger South of the Thames then than North, which is weird because East Anglia now has the highest French IA (despite not being thought a hot spot of Norman migration). Some are suggesting the Flemish migration to East Anglia in the late Middle Ages may have had a disproportionate effect and be the reason, but I don't know.


Even though we've been waiting for this paper for nearly 2 years, these presentations have really whetted the appetite, and I can't wait for it to come out now.

What about post Roman population in Britain, it is evident from continental Europe it wasn't nowhere completely destroyed after Migration period so also in Britain must persisted to some extent.
It shifted SE England to continent simply. But of course French_IA is also the thing, but not from Franks (or very tiny share) IMO but from Belgae-like migrations in late Celtic period.

[Creoda]

What about post Roman population in Britain, it is evident from continental Europe it wasn't nowhere completely destroyed after Migration period so also in Britain must persisted to some extent.
It shifted SE England to continent simply. But of course French_IA is also the thing, but not from Franks (or very tiny share) IMO but from Belgae-like migrations in late Celtic period.

Well Belgae as the main source of France IA in Southern England would fit best with the historical record and common sense, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Sceptillionaire]

The Anglo-Saxon colonisation of the British Isles is unique in that there were multiple factors going against the Britons at the time.

The Roman empire had undergone a slow and painful collapse over the last century, in which urban settlements collapsed. London was almost entirely depopulated for centuries, Winchester and Colchester were the principal settlements of southern England in this time, London only being settled again later on in the Dark Ages. This probably meant that Britons had dispersed from highly populated areas and were now a sparse, rural, unorganised people, fairly easy to conquer, and is probably the principal reason behind why the Anglo-Saxons were able to steamroll through Britain in the first place. The collapse of any big empire and a social order at large in those times would've also brought about disease and famine, causing more Britons to die out.

When the Anglo-Saxons did arrive, they at first conquered small areas along the coast, allowing them to build up dense camps and proto-settlements of their people. While there were significantly more Britons in the British Isles at the time than Germanic peoples who migrated over, they were probably able to build thin but densely populated areas along the coast, watching the inland Britons struggling, conquering one village at a time. This means that regardless of how many Britons were eventually assimilated, the Anglo-Saxons were able to undermine the eventual British admixture.

When the Anglo-Saxons did start moving further inland, it's known that they had a tendency to enslave captured populations. They also fought many battles with the Britons, and won. Many British men would've been slaughtered in these battles, and the civilians would've been largely enslaved. Maybe two or three in the village would pledge their allegiance to their Germanic overlords and stay free, perhaps even becoming respected members of the Anglo-Saxon community. However, most would not and slavery for obvious reasons has a high incidence of disease, malnutrition and untimely death. Lots of enslaved Britons would die childless, and the few that did reproduce would've likely been slave women who were used by Anglo-Saxon males, or women who were freed by an Anglo-Saxon man. Over time this would've led to a bleeding of Celtic ancestry from the pool and overrepresentation of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

As a lot of these Britons died in slavery, or were otherwise slain in battle, there would've been a noticeable loss in common workers. It is known that Frisians also participated in the Anglo-Saxon migration, however they didn't do any conquering and came slightly later, probably in the 6th century onwards. This fourth group is known to have settled a large area of central England, as well as parts of East Anglia and Kent. My hypothesis is these people were invited to come over by the original three Anglo-Saxon groups to replace Britonnic labour that had died out. The Frisians of this period were not particularly related to the old Frisii, and were mostly formed from Angles and Saxons meeting in the early age of migration, so they likely had good connections to the insular Germanic peoples.
Franks are also said to be a group that participated, and assuming they were largely invited over to replace common Brittonic labour that died out due to Anglo-Saxon activity, they would've likely been of partial Gaulish stock and may be a partial explanation of the modern clustering with French populations.

Wessex was a unique kingdom in the Anglo-Saxon world. It's first kings all had Celtic names, so it seems likely that it was originally a British kingdom that became assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon world at some point. Eastern Hampshire, the founding place of Wessex, had a large influx of Jutish settlers in the early Anglo-Saxon period, so these people may have influenced the British nobility, or the nobility of the incoming Jutish group intermixed with the existing British nobility, because it was better than mixing with filthy peasants. The West Saxons made all the major advancements in the Anglo-Saxon world, so they come off as the very shrewd type to me. My hypothesis is that the original founders of Wessex saw what was going on in the East, and instead of being defeated and conquered by the Germanic peoples, decided to integrate into the Germanic world, calling themselves West Saxons after the East Saxons and South Saxons to the east of them, learning Old English, or proto-English if it hadn't fully differentiated from Anglo-Frisian at this stage, and inviting Anglo-Saxon settlers to come over to their kingdom. Thanks to this, they developed a large, healthy population of Anglo-Saxons and assimilated Britons, and achieved much success, becoming a major hegemon in the Anglo-Saxon world. The original West Saxons making this move to willingly integrate may have influenced surrounding petty kingdoms to do the same, or the landlords of their populations, wanting to avoid bloody war, willingly accepted their new Saxon overlords. Aside from geography and distance, this may be a reason why the west of what is now England didn't go through the same degree of population turnover. If this hypothesis is true, then considering that it was the West Saxon royal house that unified the Anglo-Saxon world, that would mean the modern English country and its royal family can find its origins in a Celtic petty kingdom.

Aside from that, the Romans employed various Germanic peoples as mercenaries and foederati for centuries, so it is probable that there has been some level of Germanic presence in Britain since Roman times, and perhaps even earlier, if you acknowledge the Belgae as having at least partial Germanic background.

Further French admixture would've happened during Norman times, and to a greater extent, the early modern period, with the large influx of Hugenots, most of whom were from central France. England and France are also geographically close, so you would expect that a sustained population exchange between the two would have been going on since ancient times.

The truth is, all these populations are very similar. Insular Celts, Gaels, Gauls, West Germanics and Scandinavians all descend from Bell Beaker populations. You would expect them all to be closely related and cluster together, and they do. While the Romans aren't necessarily to be trusted as a great source, they noted that they found it hard to tell the difference between Germanic and Gaulish tribes because they looked so similar, and there was large overlap in the Low Countries as to where Gaulish ended and Germanic began. The biggest genetic divide in Europe is North-South. The Insular Celts and Gauls may have been a part of the same culture as Celtiberians, but they were genetically distinct populations. "Gauls" in southern France were Gallicised Celtiberians. The original Gauls of northern-central France are Bell Beaker descendants who shared a common ancestor with Insular Celts and Germanic populations. Insular Celts' closest relatives are probably West Germanic peoples and not other Celts considering Bell Beakers came to Britain from the Low Countries. The Celtic culture was not genetic and spread through social influence, as shown by its huge spread throughout genetically different and unrelated populations.