@EuthanasiaForPoles and I suppose you've the evidence for this correct? I only ask because the Univeristy College of London published a paper "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" that says "Our results indicate the presence of a strong genetic barrier between Central England and North Wales and the virtual absence of a barrier between Central England and Friesland." Friesland, where the Anglo-Saxons come from.
@whitelandgermany; this troll has obviously been born genetically/intellectually deformed from living in a place that was bombed heavily in ww 2 or found a unexploded bomb that finally detonated.
you know what the weasly's do to trolls: they pull them out of their hiding places, whirl them really fast around in the air , & then release them so they go flying. if they return, the process is repeated.
@canadianskye1964 why should germans feel remorse??? the Britsh Empire did far worse then the Third Reich-actually >Third Reich and British Emire were brothers in crime--massacres on natives, enslavement and ethnic cleansing--british concentration camps where civilians were exterminated and prisoners executed--the brits were lucky the holocaus happenend blaming gemran made it s esier to hide crimes of the british empire
your anti-theory based on that the researcher was irish to take his crediblity away shows you being a bigotted racist--the saxons did an ethnic cleansing on the britons--since Rwanda we know that in 100 days 800thousand tutsis got killed by hutus using machetes.
later the french-norman invasion brought similar genes to england--the franks being a germanic tribe--the normans a few droplet of norse mixed with frankish-gallo roman blood--old english was actually the crude west-german language
@WhiteLandGermany "English niggers". Ok everyone don't listen to this Nazi wannabe. He's clearly a troll and an idiot. It's impossible to take this moron seriously.
@TemplarX2 Well, f*** me that's scientific. Of course they're not the same people they have different names. Not all English people look the same, and not all Swedes look the same. Of course you forget about the other Scandinavian lands. The fact is, they are related as they are both Germanic populations, speaking Germanic tongues. (And before you say it, no, that does not mean they are both German).
@LeeHoxton1 I feel the same. It was really just the forced Identification of these differences as certainly Anglo-Saxon that was bothering me(that was the reason why I went bitchy in the past on you calling things Saxon). I do not deny genetic influences from north/west to England in Haplogroups and such.
Sorry for the missunderstanding... I have to say I feel somewhat better now.
You are right, our struggle was about the same thing, but we were lost in translation and the Details.
@flyfysr Could be but this hasn't been overly disputed. What's been completely disproven is Sykes and Oppenheimers' theory (2 books published in '06) that the English who have the R1b Y chromo arrived straight from the Basque country.
@LeeHoxton1 It has not. R1b had a refugee in iberia and moved northwards. it has nothing to do with basques, but indeed with western european heritage. England however is in the north-west, and its haplogroups are perfectly native for the area.
@jagdflieger100 lol yes, as a german I have not encountered anywhere else as much resentiment then from english people. Its obvious that most english people dispair germans. Iam starting to feel the same way back I have to say.
@000000AEA000000 Merkel's acting like fat Bismarke...not really..but the German-Franco alliance are trying to cure the cancer and not the patient when it comes to the Euro. What's happening to democracy when a German can dictate policy to England and vise-versa. It's crazy! The Union was ment to stop a third European conflict, and these politicians are just casuing more problems
@LeeHoxton1 Damn its hard to follow your stuff. You were permanently babbling about ugly Germans since we started talking (examples you found funny Klinsmann and Merkel, with conclusions). I seldomly talked to a person that makes more remarks about peoples looks in general though. You permanently compare, forbid others to compare, babble about ugly and inbreeds, say it doesn't matter... London isn't a small Town, so congrats on your cousins
@LeeHoxton1 England is closest to Great Britain and 0.1 to france. The "R" branche comes indeed from an Refugee in Iberia... No chance to deny this. The English men are not directly linked to the Danish and Frisian area. Relation is high because of the nearth. But its by no way a direct link of ethnicity, nor is it any proof of recent germanic population replacement. Even the Jutes were not of a "northern" group, but linguisticly a western germanic one. So the links show only nearth.
@LeeHoxton1 as we talked you were not pro german at all, iam sure you still are hypocritic though. The problem is only your need to carry out what your personal truth is.
Relation is certain. Rather close relation is evident. But English people are not extremely close to for instance danish people. Periode.
And the shocker: This has nothing to do with the Anglo saxons. Nor would the links suggest this (especially for Frisia)
@000000AEA000000 Of course the English and Danish are not as close now. All that is that the English and the Danes share a paternal ancestor from many years ago, and that that ancestor travelled along Europe from the Balkans....and then were going back even further in time
And iam sorry... Frisians are neither Angles, nor Saxons, nor Jutes... Iam feeling the same tiredness talking with you then I did the month back. Selfomely I talked with people so immune against thinking about a subject. If you continue to be resistant against basic knowledge again, our "discussion" will end like last time with you leading a monologue over several sites.
@000000AEA000000 Frisians are the descendents of groups of Saxon type people. Again, your missing the point. This is about a genetic markers showing the movement of an ancestor from the Danish peninsula and his descendents penetrating the old Roman Empire. Explain to me why the English/Dutch/Danish Y is so closely linked and the numbers of people with this gene tail off across France and Italy. It's speculated that the mutation arrived with Franks, Lombards etc
@LeeHoxton1 *sigh* lastly... If you say this to a frisian who feels connected to his roots, he will be very upset. Frisians are neither saxons, NOR Frankish, they were in parts for some periodes incorporated, but with neither a saxon, nor a frankish cultural identity, but languages and culture on their own which they partly could preserve until today.
And also wrong. Haplogroups can not identify cultures, you dismantle sharlatanes like this. There can be made educated guesses on -
@000000AEA000000 how and where the haplogroup originated and how it could have arrived, but given englands position this isnt worth anything. (but iam sure I will have to repeat this another docend of times for you, which I ultimately wont do because you dont get it)
@000000AEA000000 Of course Frisians are not like old Saxons. The English are not the same as the old culture from the past, but the descendents of those cultures. Haplogroups can correlate with the historical evidence, otherwise the downstream of R1b being spread around Europe by the Germanic tribes is a complete co-incidence. If there are N. europeans with African Y haplo marker we can make assumptions about how there ancestor arrived in N. Europe
@000000AEA000000 Isn't there mixing of these tribes to form confederations? So Saxons would join the coastal Frisians. Just like the Alamanni would include the Suebi into their services.
Just like the Saxons would have taken over British farm-steads, take British wives and use Welsh labour
@LeeHoxton1 Of course. All societies mix. but no society becomes less close to its roots because the natives will always have the upper hand by nature.
But you are right on this! Iam sure frisians and saxons mixed on occasions naturally. The most close decendants of the saxons will however still be the saxons, and not the frisians. I hope you understand that.
@LeeHoxton1 yes. Yes. They will have got british wives for sure. Now tell me if the MDNA is untypical for the north-west of europe in britain... NO! There are more reason for this then to just assume these are all saxon women.
@000000AEA000000 I've had a brief look which has publications discussing distance between different areas. i.e South East English coast, across to Belgium, Holland and Denmark, and that the closer each area is the smaller the difference.
@LeeHoxton1 what I wanted to say is that Frisians aren't "a branch of the saxons" at all. They always were distinctive. Even today they are so unique. I said all I wanted to say to this. Maybe you should re-write history and write that britain got invaded by Frisians, because the English are more close to these (which I could have told you before, because they are more NEAR to them). Yet- The marker by some chunks will be ancient. The Romans already saw the british as distinctive
@000000AEA000000 What are you talking about. In England about 40% of R1b samples of English men have the downstream L11, and L11/S21/U106 and L48 and U198. These genetic markers have the highest levels in Frisia & along the Danish peninsula......It drops to 10% in France, and less in Italy, Spain, and in Ireland. It is attributed to the Germanic tribes which branched out from there. UCL did and East Anglia/Essex sample & 50% of R1b was U106/U198
@LeeHoxton1 then it shouldnt be hard for you to tipe the EXACT quote in here of those people, stating that these branches of R1b are definitely Anglo-Saxon without another conclusion.
@000000AEA000000 Dr David K. Faux:- To date it appears that S21 in Britain marks "Anglo - Saxon" and, so, on the Continent in Italy (perhaps a legacy of the Visigoth and Lombard Germanic invaders), north to Saxony and Friesland and the home of the Angles. Norway is about two thirds S21+; and the surrogate for the Anglo - Saxon homeland (Friesland) is about seventy five percent S21+
@LeeHoxton1 As I said. WORTH NOTHING. Norway has 2/3 s21 after this quote that sees it as proof of Anglo Saxons. And now name when the Anglo-Saxons EVER invaded Norway? NEVER. Its just sad that you believe in it without activating your brain.. And FRIESLAND is NOT an ANGLO-SAXON Homeland, Frisians are a completely different cultural Group..
@LeeHoxton1 there is a saying here "you find what you search for" the problem is you ignore all conflicts and just focus on seeing Anglo Saxons everywhere. lol
@000000AEA000000 I'm not an absolutist! I do see a significant contribution from invaders from the Danish peninsula, but I wouldn't rule out earlier contributions from German soldiers in the Roman army. The Belgae, and the Cimbric.
My point has always been that the English did not arrive here directly from the Iberian peninsula as the 2 books by Sykes and Oppenheimer state. OnlyEnglish1 on his upload has been this exact statement, which is wrong
@LeeHoxton1 *yawns* Angles and Saxons are from Germany. The yutes are from a western germanic group in the danis peninsula. And yes. R1b carriers would become English after their legacy out of spain upwardst to western europe and the north west.
*shakes his head so much about his theories* the German Legion in Britain was just one, most soldiers werent. And yes. YOU SEE. Others explain it without ships, and murder, and rape and submission. And they are more logical.
@LeeHoxton1 The logic of the "iberian english" is the same then yours btw..... just mirrored. And both are wrong alike. The English will in a vast majority NEVER be able to decend from germanic invaders. Probably by some settlers who arrived before, carrying similar haplotypes(without being "germanic), just like the R1b carriers weren't "Basque". This makes perfectly sense. But not the hundreds of ships and population replacement for which absolutely ZERO proofs exist.
@000000AEA000000 So what your suggesting is that the Anglo-Saxon (English) is a myth? Which makes no sense knowing what we know about the Ango-Saxon kingdoms and lines of kings..unless they weren't Saxons.
Archaeologist don't know where Boudica Iceni were destroyed but it's not questioned that it didn't happen.
If it wasn't for TV and historical records would we know about the magnitude of D-Day?
@LeeHoxton1 1: D-Day has nothing to do with this, its not comparable because it is modern, so are its backgrounds.
2: Please read what I said and UNDERSTAND. I believe in Anglo-Saxons. And yes, the huge Descendance of EXACTLY THOSE is a myth. a origo gentis, like the Franks said they are troians and the goths they are scandinavian.
@000000AEA000000 It might be modern, & probably not the best example, but to say something didn't happen because archaeologist can't find it is ridiculous. How about all of the bodies of all of the people who lived in the 9-10-11 centuries. There's no trace of most of them.
105 samples were taken in Anglia/Essex of which 45 had the downstream U106. Where did all of these men descend from?
Why wasn't there a large Anglo-Saxon invasion over 2 centuries again?
@LeeHoxton1 CAREFUL! dont put Words in my mouth I did not said Lee! I do not deny the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I advocate a more thoughtful reflection on this. But yes. If the Anglo Saxons erased the old population the evidence would be EVERYWHERE. They still can find the ash of burned individuals in Stonehenge, and you claim the Anglo-Saxons switched the population upside-down by force. There is no evidence.
@000000AEA000000 I'm talking about male displacement in the established Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which were established by 600 a.d. i.e. Essex, Kent, East Anglia, Midlands, Northumbria.
e.g. Historians have established that in the West of England British culture survives. In 927 King Athelstan expelled the Britons from the Brit 1/4 of Exeter. Cornish was spoken. Cumbrians were speaking their own British language.
@LeeHoxton1 one could also ask "why is such a huge north-south shift between southern and northern sweden". With sweden never being Invaded on the matter of settlement. Or between any country of some size for that matter. This is natural and by no means unique. Keep in mind- The extended movement of people is a phenomenon of our time. This is even more true when they belong to a huger meta-ethnic.
And in any case it is certain that the part from north and north-west europe
having arrived later on the now Isles, must have affected almost exclusively the east and south, with the rest already in firm Hands, thus mingling especially there.
I think England and the east coast of britain in general(also indeed I think the Vikings were raiding and settling on many occasions and thus probably being a rather huge part of it) will already have been slightly distant measured on Britain as a whole. After all, there were also permanently some small in-
vasions without a stop. for instance by Celts, By Belgae, by Pirates from almost everywhere in north-west europe long before the Anglo-Saxons. But then again, england is still not more distant from the west then from the east. Its genetics match its position very good. I think the impact of the Anglo-Saxons was probably comparable with other Impacts but happened in a more complex context (vacuume on Culture at this time), probably internal clashes, making every new Impulses hav
@000000AEA000000 ing a tenfold of its changing power. People like Andrew John Tyrrell mark very good that the differences of who was an Anglo Saxon can not be made out by Anthropology, but indeed can be only speculated by the cultural difference. (brooch, belt-buckle and so on)
@LeeHoxton1 yes, I confirm this. however, I am very reserved at ultimately identifying this Anglish or Saxon, which is my point. and further I am a bit restrained about the term "shift". I would call it "difference". It does not take me a second to realise that north-wales for instance received less influence of later waves then lets say the east coast of England.
@000000AEA000000 This does not have to indicate a shift as in "replacement by murder and breeding apart". But in my opinion an influence of incorporated newcomers who got, or took land mostly where they arrived (so not north-wales). So I confirm a logical difference in numbers which shrinks from east to west, yes.
@000000AEA000000 Ok. And, also I'm not an absolutist and can confirm the possibility of a gradual migration of people over many centuries before the fall of the Western Empire. It's the historical facts/loose facts about the 5-6 cent tribes that gives it some credibilty. Without the Romans cataloguing the migration not even genetics measures certainty.
Again, for me it's more about the direct Iberian connection which Sykes/Oppenheimer advocated, which needs to be erradicated
@LeeHoxton1 The Branch of R1b really had a refugee in what is now Iberia... this does however not make British, or west- ;and even a huge chunk of north-European people "Basques", because a "Basque" identity was not there at this time, and the genetic makeup changed with the move of those and created something new. People as a natural law always stay most close to themselves when they do not move, so the most close decendants of the old basques are the new basques (also evident in
the fact that nobody else preserved the Language and culture more). And wherever carriers moved at, they will have mixed and changed(thats why british people are NOT more similar to basques then to their next neighbours, because of later influences into their gene-pool). I just really think it is to easy to focus on exaggerated Church-Chronists about the almost Biblical Saxons, and the simplistic view that the Angles and Saxons did find a Land that must have been geneticly unif-
-orm to itself, with them being the only reason somebody can imagine for a change. In my opinion British people are way to fixated on Angles and Saxons. Although this might very well be due to the fact that nothing else landed in the written records and at school(an ironic owe to the roman influence-sphere). Apart from this I think everyone who denies a north-west-european Influence to a country that is precisely placed there (Island or not), must be an idiot.
@000000AEA000000 OnlyEngland1, who uploaded states:- 'The English, as well as Irish,Scots & Welsh are descended from the 1st settlers to these shores in the Stone Age, around 8000BC. These people were from the Iberian penin & were related to modern day Basques.it is our dominating gene which has been proven by S. Oppenheimer & B. Sykes.
This is complete wrong with regards to English YDNA
@LeeHoxton1 I would further be careful to identify Branches of Haplogroups, or haplogroups in general with Cultures. We can never be certain that Cultures incorporated exclusive Haplogroups. It can be a hint, but nor a certain proof.
@LeeHoxton1 yes, southern-Swedes are geneticly more close to north-central and north-western people then to alot of Northern-Swedes. It was also a surprisingly huge difference between Sweden and Finns.(which is weird, given the History of Finland and Sweden)
@LeeHoxton1 Some rare ones will be decending directly of them, but the gro of the English population will have remained unchanged and can have had the same haplotypes without the Saxons or Angles.(because it is a north-west european country). But England is not decending from the germanic tribes, and nor from the Basques, because these are not english identities or direct history, and are positioned far away.
@000000AEA000000 You say that the English didn't descend from the ANglo-Saxons with such conviction, and without in much evidence to substantiate it! Your just hypothesizing for the sake of it
@LeeHoxton1 this does NOT MEAN that they can not have had Anglo-Saxon chiefs and adopted the culture and names!!! I beg to understand. The gauls also adopted the name "Roman" without decending from them, and they later also adopted a frankish culture and a frankish ethnicy without being any of those two. (but certainly having received SOME influences)
@000000AEA000000 Yes, but in France there is a clear downstream marker from R1b which originated in Germania. In continental studies it stands at a low 10%. This marker together with a other broader markers could symbolize the Frankish invasion. The Britons by all a/c never even adopted Roman culture. Why would they then adopt the Saxons ways?
The Franks must of invaded a Gaukish pop. of 8 million.
What about the East West genetic devide in England.?
@LeeHoxton1 wrong. Because the Marker is older then Germania and shared with other populatens. People were never unmixed societies. You find the same variety in other countries the other way arround without being colonized by the french. Ceasar already spekulated the difference in the population. Yes the british were in those areas conquered by the romans and adopted much of their ways. As the romans left, they needed to look for a new identity. Life went on.
@000000AEA000000 I've never heard the idiginous population of England at the time of the Roman sphere of influence having ever adopting Roman culture. Most of the peoples of Briton were still living in small cluster settlements away from the towns and Villas
@LeeHoxton1 The Roman Impact on Britain was huge and long. Not much shorter then the Roman dominance in Gaul, and on much smaller room which was connected by good roman roads. After the breakaway of the Romans, the people in romano-britain needed to look for a new identity. This was filled by the Anglo-Saxons. They erased the Roman legacy comparable succesful like the Germanic people did with the romaniced rhineland. And probably more peaceful because of the huge distance to rome.
@LeeHoxton1 *sigh* no. It could just as the same mean pretty much everything. Look at a map of old gaul...... R1b (which you have become obsessed with now, former it was I1a on you) can be explained much more logical and by many other reasons.
@000000AEA000000 Euro Journal of Genetics2011:-using all the available male samples, the East contribution to the Central population was still substantially greater than the Western contribution. It suggests a very substantial contribution to the central population from the East, putatively the Anglo-Saxons.
My my opinion it could mean all contributions. Angles, Saxons, Belgae, Vikings etc
@LeeHoxton1 that is good for you. At least you LEARNED something now, that you cant just call something "Anglo Saxon" which can have a dozend of reasons.
@LeeHoxton1 Nope, The Land of The Angles and Saxons lies in modern Germany, the Land of the west-germanic(language) tribe of the Jutes in modern South-Denmark.
East Anglia and Essex is NAMED most likely by, but surely after the Saxons and Angles. East Anglia and Essex have a Saxon/Anglian History. As soon as you claim overwhelming closeness and your de-and Repopulation, it becomes laughable for people not of your Island and away from your personal complex.
those halo groups they represent today are not real accurate. i know how they do that, they take in europe 1000 maybe 10000 people and look on their dna and thats it. but thats inaccurate like hell. at some point i agree with u ofc.
and yet another u tube vid using gentics to try and prove history.England exists b/c of the Anglo Saxon invasion,we do not speak a brythonic language ,b/c the Angles et al were not Britons .The English are not Germans they are Germanic the evidence is all around you.To deny this obvious fact is as ridiculous as trying to claim the moon does not exist.If you are English and don't like it to bad ,you can't just rewrite history
@Amorstopineed Geezer. My Deutscher brothers' on the site. I've moved away from Saving Private Ryan and advocating a large Anglo-Saxon German migration. The English are the paternal descendants of German tribes. I love Deutschland bugt Merkel's starting to look like an ugly Bismarke lol
@TemplarX2 Modern Franks, Danes, Germans and the English have all gone down different paths. There are French citizens of Germanic paternal origin and there are those of Gallic. There are Italians' who's paternal ancestor was a Visigoth, Thurugian, or a Lombard. It's just the Y chromo which can link Europeans to a German/ nordic tribe.
@TemplarX2 This has absolutely nothing to do with looks. If I married a Western Indian girl and had a son who then married another West Indian girl, my grandson wouldn't really look much like me, but his paternal Y chromosome (which gets passed down unbroken/with a mutation every 3000 years or so) still remains European. English ancestors arrived mostly in 5-9 cents. They took over farmsteads, and native women. The geneticists Weale/Capelli were looking at the Y chromo and Opp used that data
Most of the UK is of Basque descent. The English language may indeed have Germanic roots, but in the end, DNA does not lie. I suggest taking a closer look at Stephen Oppenheimer's studies (VendeeD85 provided a clue no one picked up on).
@MrLostMarbles The English are not the first hunter-farmers from the Basque region. The English share a paternal ancestry with the north continental Frisians, and those from the Danish peninsula. The Y mutations that have been identified in English groups are conclusive. The Welsh and French and Spanish don't have these mutations. Oppenheimer used Weale & Capelli's data. Weale/Thomas stated a 50-100% displacement of Britons. Capelli argued 55% A-Saxon types. Opp doesn't deny the East-West shift
This is actually a misinterpretation of Stephen Oppenheimer's findings. He acknowledges that there is a East-West split on mainland Britain i.e. a Germanic-Celtic divide. But rather, he believes that it existed BEFORE the Anglo-Saxon invasions and goes as far to say that "a germanic tongue was spoken in England long before the Romans" so English started BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons. It is known as the 'Proto-English' theory - the youtube video is favourited on my channel - take a look.
@VendeeD85 That;s right. He used Weale & Capelli's data and come up with a different conclusion. Perhaps he convinced himself in order to shock and sell more copies of his book. There's not a shread of evidence to really back up his theory. Anyone can conclude that the Belgae might have known some German words, or that the Roman army was German. Read Bryan Sykes? He concluded that the Englsh R1b was from the Atlantic coast and his been conclusively disproved.
Very interesting video and arguments, some fascinating topic it is. I too believe English people's ancestry has predominantly been that of the indigenous people. You are rightly at home on the island along with two other nations and that's that.
'Hi' seems Germanic to me but if you ask someone else it may sound like an ordinary hailing sequence....
Where is the problem if the English are nothing more than one more Germanic Tribe who developed their own distinct Culture after coming to the British Isles?
@jbingfaII German just Latin for tribes over the Rhine and Danube. The English are just the paternal ancestors of the Angles, Jutes, Danes, Frisians, Saxons, and maybe even the Belgae
@jbingfaII I'm not sure what your really getting at, but Camaron went to Europe and just had to sit there and say ''get on with it'' because the English are not in the Euro anyway, The UK media and some of our communist/liberal politicians have made something of this, but it really means nothing. Britain will continue to do well as long as Europe sorts it self out. Frankly the Euro as a collective was doomed from the start. Politicians creating European conflict. Like that's never happened!
@LeeHoxton1 If we gonna starve to death for a piece of metal that will fit some rich dudes or coinage manic collectors personal self in a thousand years time i say 'where is the ferry i go to UK while we have still time'...'Or UK here we go back to where we are while we know who is Us and who is not'...English Europe... Europe English... Speak the Tongue of Truth and that is all...
@LeeHoxton1 Frankly i Disagree with the Video Post that's all... People looking to Arouse Hostilities between what someone could call Brotherly Nations are usually outsiders or ex Fellow Country Men or Officially Country Men but Still Outsiders who remembered their roots from far and away...
When a Nation Forgets where or how it was born the lights fall and this Man's show ends before the Storm Reins Hell and Fire...
@jbingfaII I read Oppenheimer & Sykes' books and decided to investigate further. Clearly the prat who uploaded this didn't do his research, because his statement is so bold, & completely wrong. At any rate this nuts statement that even England's ancestors arrived 8000 years ago is wrong. English paternal mutations occurred 3000 years ago and it's shared with groups of people in what used to be Germania. There's about 20 studies which clearly show this now.
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed. Even german is not the true designation of Germans/Germany rather Deutsch/Deutschland or Teuton/Tiotsch/teutsch...!!!
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed.
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed. Anglo-Saxons-Jutes are tribes that arrived in the UK via northern Europe- partly through what is now Germany. British are distinct from germans as germans are from poles or russians.
OMG! If one goes down far back in history, one will always find proof that all humans come frome Africa (Mitochondiral Eve theory). Has Oppenheimer thought that neolithic tribes coming from spain northwards settled only in England?? They crossed the channel but didn't go northeast to France and Germany??
I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but the English Anglo-Saxon heritage is not a myth!! So, if you're not pure Welsh, you might as well be of Danish or Germanic descendance.
@99smite Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed.
@FromTheGuy , It was used ultimately as a way to resist Britishness by making out that Celtic was an ethnicity when it was never. The Scots are truly Caledonian Picts as attested in the evidence form 1996~2006 and OGAP4 code, and the real Irish were Iberians.
Thanks to the seminal works of Simon James (1999) and Brian Sykes (2006) the 'Celtic' term is debunked and can be understood for the Victorian romantic idiocy that it is.
@FromTheGuy 'Celtic' is a made up modern term that was popularised in the mid 1800's first coined by an English linguist Edward Lhyund earlier to group only old languages from the British isles, it was later hi-jacked by Irish republicans and Catholic revisionists in the early 1900's to link more than just languages to give the Irish a springboard to hi-jack Scottish and Welsh cultures and people as well to give the Irish more to be proud of.
@FromTheGuy The battle of Culloden was not Scotland vs England dumb cow, the Scots played both sides, there was even some English who fought on the Jacobite side. Most Scots are protestants because Scotland's own brand of religion is Presbyterianism, many agree historically that the Scottish Enlightenment is a key factor of the Scottish religion which modernised the world, Scotsman John Knox a Scottish reformer is widely known as the father of the United States.
@FromTheGuy The Bagpipes are Scottish, they hold the highest claim in the world for bagpipe music, and historians agree that the Scots come out top of a list who always seem to have had the pipes as far back as you can go.
English don't have anything of their own, that's why they claim others traditions and achievements and switch the stories round. It's the same with resources, they don't have their own so they colonise what they can to steal other resources.
ha.....english and germans are the SAME...look at the common nature of their comments here... people always hate their closest neighbours the most sibling hatred ...and everyone wants to be something other than WHAT THEY ARE somalians and ethiopians indians and pakistanis black peopleand their blackness white people and their whitenes chinese hate their chinese-ness and they hate the japanese who want to be western as well jews pretending to be something other than jewish ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE
@natmanprime Indians aren't black at all, they are Caucasoid by anthropology and are not as dark as the Negroid race, skin colour does not indicate race.
The 3 main races of the world are Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negriods.
i would say 3 asian races, west asian, east asian and south asian.
as for african, there is north african and sub saharan african.
there's an ancient god called Jah Bul On, a trinity. i reckon jah is the west asians (land of Ur, caucasoid), Bul is the bull headed deity for the indians, and On,( or Om) is the east asian deity.
there's far more genetic diversity among africans(as u say skin colour etc) esp.Kenya
@natmanprime Indians aren't Pakistanis at all, Pakistan used to be a piece of Indian land that was given off to Islamic Arabs who migrated to that part of India, but many of their customs were not compatible with Islamic shariah law, so India had to be rid of that piece of land, this is why Islamic Shariah law should not be taken into western regions, as the same thing will happen as what India had to do.
@TheFatalInstinct1 1st of all, apology accepted(ie the one u didnt give...)
ok, next, pakistanis are not arabic, they dont have a semitic look, curly hair, in fact they have the straightest hair possible, they are more like the other 'stan' countries, west asian. arabs are a cross between west asians and africans.
next, pakistan is in fact to a large proportion made of indians who converted to islam. pakistanis look way more indian than arab. thats obvious.
stupid video please go to college and studie some science if you can but if you cant stand the truth because it didnt fit with your stupid political idiology well then thats your problem
btw no one in the scientific community takes oppenheimer serious and thats for a reason
you have millions of confused disgusting chavs in this country that go round identifying themselves as part of a foreign culture anyway. i think history lessons are the last of this country's concern.
did anyone see "blood of the vikings" bbc series from around 2002/2003? this programme did a nationwide study from towns across britain to look for viking dna.as norwegian dna markers differed greatly from danish/saxon dna markers they established that areas such as the wirral, south wales and cumbria had markers as did the orkneys/shetlands. eastern england had a large amount of what they called "invader blood"..anglo-danish, where as the west had mainly pre-roman dna markers.ie celtic.
@EuthanasiaForPoles germans are not only germanic people... scandinavians, dutch, icelanders and english people are germanic people also
Askar9992 5 days ago
@EuthanasiaForPoles Please read my comment before replying to it.
ZukutoBTD 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EuthanasiaForPoles and I suppose you've the evidence for this correct? I only ask because the Univeristy College of London published a paper "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" that says "Our results indicate the presence of a strong genetic barrier between Central England and North Wales and the virtual absence of a barrier between Central England and Friesland." Friesland, where the Anglo-Saxons come from.
tinyurl . com / 743koog < PDF of the paper
galenwolf 6 days ago
EVERY BODY NOWS THAT THE ENGLISH ARE BLACK.....COME ON THEY LOVE FRIED CHICKEN>>>AND BIG WHITE CHICKS
winningtrolls 1 week ago
@EuthanasiaForPoles even so you look like phycopaths.
JammyBullet1 1 week ago
Comment removed
ganulu3 1 week ago
@EuthanasiaForPoles true English look nothing like Danes and Germans hoenstly nothing alike, most English people wold say they have )% German blood.
nounever 2 weeks ago
@Nemeton212, yes please, thank you.
t1t296 3 weeks ago
@WhiteLandGermany Seriously, you are fucked up beyond all recognition
t1t296 3 weeks ago
@WhiteLandGermany, wrong again
t1t296 3 weeks ago
@whitelandgermany; this troll has obviously been born genetically/intellectually deformed from living in a place that was bombed heavily in ww 2 or found a unexploded bomb that finally detonated.
you know what the weasly's do to trolls: they pull them out of their hiding places, whirl them really fast around in the air , & then release them so they go flying. if they return, the process is repeated.
canadianskye1964 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canadianskye1964 why should germans feel remorse??? the Britsh Empire did far worse then the Third Reich-actually >Third Reich and British Emire were brothers in crime--massacres on natives, enslavement and ethnic cleansing--british concentration camps where civilians were exterminated and prisoners executed--the brits were lucky the holocaus happenend blaming gemran made it s esier to hide crimes of the british empire
hyurgy123 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your anti-theory based on that the researcher was irish to take his crediblity away shows you being a bigotted racist--the saxons did an ethnic cleansing on the britons--since Rwanda we know that in 100 days 800thousand tutsis got killed by hutus using machetes.
later the french-norman invasion brought similar genes to england--the franks being a germanic tribe--the normans a few droplet of norse mixed with frankish-gallo roman blood--old english was actually the crude west-german language
hyurgy123 4 weeks ago
@canadianskye1964 I'm an 18-year-old German. Why should I be ashamed?
And btw it's really hard to stay in the same emotional state for a longer time.
But please note I don't think that english people are albino-africans (lol).
Xalxitz 1 month ago
Comment removed
Mauritiogaudino 1 month ago
@vendeed85 what do you expect from a german nazi?
canadianskye1964 1 month ago
Comment removed
Nemeton212 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rarely see English people looking like that, or any humans, sounds like a description of a "scary"gnome :) :)
Nemeton212 1 month ago
Comment removed
Nemeton212 1 month ago
@WhiteLandGermany "English niggers". Ok everyone don't listen to this Nazi wannabe. He's clearly a troll and an idiot. It's impossible to take this moron seriously.
Klinkerklunk 1 month ago
I'm think other people of Europe have Germanic roots , for example the French or the Italians .
jeffkodiac 1 month ago
@dagnab1 Friesland is in the Netherlands...
VendeeD85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dagnab1 You are fucking ignorant and you know it. Then again you probably don't shit for brains.
jacksbacksucker 1 month ago
Comment removed
jacksbacksucker 1 month ago
You're an idiot! and in the true language of the British you're a cont gwirion. From a Welsh/Northern Irish Celt.
camross97 1 month ago
what's the difference if english come from germanic tribes or not? you're still a great nation and people admire you!! greetings from Greece!!
MrAntonios17 1 month ago
@TemplarX2 Well, f*** me that's scientific. Of course they're not the same people they have different names. Not all English people look the same, and not all Swedes look the same. Of course you forget about the other Scandinavian lands. The fact is, they are related as they are both Germanic populations, speaking Germanic tongues. (And before you say it, no, that does not mean they are both German).
VendeeD85 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeeHoxton1 I feel the same. It was really just the forced Identification of these differences as certainly Anglo-Saxon that was bothering me(that was the reason why I went bitchy in the past on you calling things Saxon). I do not deny genetic influences from north/west to England in Haplogroups and such.
Sorry for the missunderstanding... I have to say I feel somewhat better now.
You are right, our struggle was about the same thing, but we were lost in translation and the Details.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
An Anglo-Saxon is a German who forgot his grandmother was Welsh.
flyfysr 2 months ago
@flyfysr *laughs so hard*. I didn't see your comment until now.
Very witty.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@flyfysr Could be but this hasn't been overly disputed. What's been completely disproven is Sykes and Oppenheimers' theory (2 books published in '06) that the English who have the R1b Y chromo arrived straight from the Basque country.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 It has not. R1b had a refugee in iberia and moved northwards. it has nothing to do with basques, but indeed with western european heritage. England however is in the north-west, and its haplogroups are perfectly native for the area.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
"Piss the English off".
Do you have a problem with being classed as German because you hate Germans.
jagdflieger100 2 months ago
@jagdflieger100 lol yes, as a german I have not encountered anywhere else as much resentiment then from english people. Its obvious that most english people dispair germans. Iam starting to feel the same way back I have to say.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Merkel's acting like fat Bismarke...not really..but the German-Franco alliance are trying to cure the cancer and not the patient when it comes to the Euro. What's happening to democracy when a German can dictate policy to England and vise-versa. It's crazy! The Union was ment to stop a third European conflict, and these politicians are just casuing more problems
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Damn its hard to follow your stuff. You were permanently babbling about ugly Germans since we started talking (examples you found funny Klinsmann and Merkel, with conclusions). I seldomly talked to a person that makes more remarks about peoples looks in general though. You permanently compare, forbid others to compare, babble about ugly and inbreeds, say it doesn't matter... London isn't a small Town, so congrats on your cousins
We were here before, it was pointless.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Who said anything about ugly Germans.
I've never said anything like that. I'm pro-German. I like Germany.
All I'm saying is that the upload is incorrect and Oppenheimer and Sykes have been conclusively proven wrong. What's wrong with that?
The Y chromosome of sample of Englishmen are directly linked to the Danish/Frisian area.
It means that the English didn't start of in Iberia and move up the Atlantic coast straight onto the Isles
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 England is closest to Great Britain and 0.1 to france. The "R" branche comes indeed from an Refugee in Iberia... No chance to deny this. The English men are not directly linked to the Danish and Frisian area. Relation is high because of the nearth. But its by no way a direct link of ethnicity, nor is it any proof of recent germanic population replacement. Even the Jutes were not of a "northern" group, but linguisticly a western germanic one. So the links show only nearth.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 as we talked you were not pro german at all, iam sure you still are hypocritic though. The problem is only your need to carry out what your personal truth is.
Relation is certain. Rather close relation is evident. But English people are not extremely close to for instance danish people. Periode.
And the shocker: This has nothing to do with the Anglo saxons. Nor would the links suggest this (especially for Frisia)
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Of course the English and Danish are not as close now. All that is that the English and the Danes share a paternal ancestor from many years ago, and that that ancestor travelled along Europe from the Balkans....and then were going back even further in time
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Maaaaaan at least read. Thats the least I can assume.
Danish and English people are rather close due to position and its connection with the Festland. So are Frisians and English.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000
And iam sorry... Frisians are neither Angles, nor Saxons, nor Jutes... Iam feeling the same tiredness talking with you then I did the month back. Selfomely I talked with people so immune against thinking about a subject. If you continue to be resistant against basic knowledge again, our "discussion" will end like last time with you leading a monologue over several sites.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Frisians are the descendents of groups of Saxon type people. Again, your missing the point. This is about a genetic markers showing the movement of an ancestor from the Danish peninsula and his descendents penetrating the old Roman Empire. Explain to me why the English/Dutch/Danish Y is so closely linked and the numbers of people with this gene tail off across France and Italy. It's speculated that the mutation arrived with Franks, Lombards etc
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 *sigh* lastly... If you say this to a frisian who feels connected to his roots, he will be very upset. Frisians are neither saxons, NOR Frankish, they were in parts for some periodes incorporated, but with neither a saxon, nor a frankish cultural identity, but languages and culture on their own which they partly could preserve until today.
And also wrong. Haplogroups can not identify cultures, you dismantle sharlatanes like this. There can be made educated guesses on -
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 how and where the haplogroup originated and how it could have arrived, but given englands position this isnt worth anything. (but iam sure I will have to repeat this another docend of times for you, which I ultimately wont do because you dont get it)
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Of course Frisians are not like old Saxons. The English are not the same as the old culture from the past, but the descendents of those cultures. Haplogroups can correlate with the historical evidence, otherwise the downstream of R1b being spread around Europe by the Germanic tribes is a complete co-incidence. If there are N. europeans with African Y haplo marker we can make assumptions about how there ancestor arrived in N. Europe
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Isn't there mixing of these tribes to form confederations? So Saxons would join the coastal Frisians. Just like the Alamanni would include the Suebi into their services.
Just like the Saxons would have taken over British farm-steads, take British wives and use Welsh labour
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Of course. All societies mix. but no society becomes less close to its roots because the natives will always have the upper hand by nature.
But you are right on this! Iam sure frisians and saxons mixed on occasions naturally. The most close decendants of the saxons will however still be the saxons, and not the frisians. I hope you understand that.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 less close compared to others I meant
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 yes. Yes. They will have got british wives for sure. Now tell me if the MDNA is untypical for the north-west of europe in britain... NO! There are more reason for this then to just assume these are all saxon women.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Don't know. There you go!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 what?
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Your going to tell me. Do you know?
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 the mtdna? Of course it is!
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 I don't know about female DNA in Europe.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 you should look it up. Its very typical northern in Britain. More precise. North-Western. And close to germany and denmark.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 I've had a brief look which has publications discussing distance between different areas. i.e South East English coast, across to Belgium, Holland and Denmark, and that the closer each area is the smaller the difference.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Yes. That is what I said. England is very close to its neighbouring countries. It IS a north-western country after all.
Greetings Lee.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 As far as i have read the mitochondrial/female DNA is old and around 80% of females are descended from hunter gatherer's..
Example, new tests have show that many of the males in Orkney share "strong" ancestry with Norway vikings, but the women are mostly native..
Nemeton212 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeeHoxton1 what I wanted to say is that Frisians aren't "a branch of the saxons" at all. They always were distinctive. Even today they are so unique. I said all I wanted to say to this. Maybe you should re-write history and write that britain got invaded by Frisians, because the English are more close to these (which I could have told you before, because they are more NEAR to them). Yet- The marker by some chunks will be ancient. The Romans already saw the british as distinctive
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 What are you talking about. In England about 40% of R1b samples of English men have the downstream L11, and L11/S21/U106 and L48 and U198. These genetic markers have the highest levels in Frisia & along the Danish peninsula......It drops to 10% in France, and less in Italy, Spain, and in Ireland. It is attributed to the Germanic tribes which branched out from there. UCL did and East Anglia/Essex sample & 50% of R1b was U106/U198
I don't understand yr argument!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 by the way East Anglia is land of the East Angles and Essex is East Saxons.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 iam talking about your inability in math.
No, This branch or R1b is no proof of anything. Give me the name of the Book that says that people with your named Mutations have to be saxons.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 David Weston, Jim Wilson, Mark Thomas of UCL. David Faux of the East Anglian project.
Natalie Myres and Underhill of the R1b-3 project.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 then it shouldnt be hard for you to tipe the EXACT quote in here of those people, stating that these branches of R1b are definitely Anglo-Saxon without another conclusion.
Iam waiting for that.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Dr David K. Faux:- To date it appears that S21 in Britain marks "Anglo - Saxon" and, so, on the Continent in Italy (perhaps a legacy of the Visigoth and Lombard Germanic invaders), north to Saxony and Friesland and the home of the Angles. Norway is about two thirds S21+; and the surrogate for the Anglo - Saxon homeland (Friesland) is about seventy five percent S21+
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 As I said. WORTH NOTHING. Norway has 2/3 s21 after this quote that sees it as proof of Anglo Saxons. And now name when the Anglo-Saxons EVER invaded Norway? NEVER. Its just sad that you believe in it without activating your brain.. And FRIESLAND is NOT an ANGLO-SAXON Homeland, Frisians are a completely different cultural Group..
Iam dissapointed by you once more.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 there is a saying here "you find what you search for" the problem is you ignore all conflicts and just focus on seeing Anglo Saxons everywhere. lol
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 I'm not an absolutist! I do see a significant contribution from invaders from the Danish peninsula, but I wouldn't rule out earlier contributions from German soldiers in the Roman army. The Belgae, and the Cimbric.
My point has always been that the English did not arrive here directly from the Iberian peninsula as the 2 books by Sykes and Oppenheimer state. OnlyEnglish1 on his upload has been this exact statement, which is wrong
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 *yawns* Angles and Saxons are from Germany. The yutes are from a western germanic group in the danis peninsula. And yes. R1b carriers would become English after their legacy out of spain upwardst to western europe and the north west.
*shakes his head so much about his theories* the German Legion in Britain was just one, most soldiers werent. And yes. YOU SEE. Others explain it without ships, and murder, and rape and submission. And they are more logical.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 The logic of the "iberian english" is the same then yours btw..... just mirrored. And both are wrong alike. The English will in a vast majority NEVER be able to decend from germanic invaders. Probably by some settlers who arrived before, carrying similar haplotypes(without being "germanic), just like the R1b carriers weren't "Basque". This makes perfectly sense. But not the hundreds of ships and population replacement for which absolutely ZERO proofs exist.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 So what your suggesting is that the Anglo-Saxon (English) is a myth? Which makes no sense knowing what we know about the Ango-Saxon kingdoms and lines of kings..unless they weren't Saxons.
Archaeologist don't know where Boudica Iceni were destroyed but it's not questioned that it didn't happen.
If it wasn't for TV and historical records would we know about the magnitude of D-Day?
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 1: D-Day has nothing to do with this, its not comparable because it is modern, so are its backgrounds.
2: Please read what I said and UNDERSTAND. I believe in Anglo-Saxons. And yes, the huge Descendance of EXACTLY THOSE is a myth. a origo gentis, like the Franks said they are troians and the goths they are scandinavian.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 It might be modern, & probably not the best example, but to say something didn't happen because archaeologist can't find it is ridiculous. How about all of the bodies of all of the people who lived in the 9-10-11 centuries. There's no trace of most of them.
105 samples were taken in Anglia/Essex of which 45 had the downstream U106. Where did all of these men descend from?
Why wasn't there a large Anglo-Saxon invasion over 2 centuries again?
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 CAREFUL! dont put Words in my mouth I did not said Lee! I do not deny the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I advocate a more thoughtful reflection on this. But yes. If the Anglo Saxons erased the old population the evidence would be EVERYWHERE. They still can find the ash of burned individuals in Stonehenge, and you claim the Anglo-Saxons switched the population upside-down by force. There is no evidence.
What large invasion?
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 I'm talking about male displacement in the established Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which were established by 600 a.d. i.e. Essex, Kent, East Anglia, Midlands, Northumbria.
e.g. Historians have established that in the West of England British culture survives. In 927 King Athelstan expelled the Britons from the Brit 1/4 of Exeter. Cornish was spoken. Cumbrians were speaking their own British language.
I've only advocated a larger male displacement...
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 I do not think there was much male displacement. But yes. Cornwall and Cumbria were probably isolated a bit more from new influences.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 So why is that such as East to West shift of genetic markers between England and our Welsh cousins?
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 one could also ask "why is such a huge north-south shift between southern and northern sweden". With sweden never being Invaded on the matter of settlement. Or between any country of some size for that matter. This is natural and by no means unique. Keep in mind- The extended movement of people is a phenomenon of our time. This is even more true when they belong to a huger meta-ethnic.
And in any case it is certain that the part from north and north-west europe
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
having arrived later on the now Isles, must have affected almost exclusively the east and south, with the rest already in firm Hands, thus mingling especially there.
I think England and the east coast of britain in general(also indeed I think the Vikings were raiding and settling on many occasions and thus probably being a rather huge part of it) will already have been slightly distant measured on Britain as a whole. After all, there were also permanently some small in-
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vasions without a stop. for instance by Celts, By Belgae, by Pirates from almost everywhere in north-west europe long before the Anglo-Saxons. But then again, england is still not more distant from the west then from the east. Its genetics match its position very good. I think the impact of the Anglo-Saxons was probably comparable with other Impacts but happened in a more complex context (vacuume on Culture at this time), probably internal clashes, making every new Impulses hav
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@000000AEA000000 ing a tenfold of its changing power. People like Andrew John Tyrrell mark very good that the differences of who was an Anglo Saxon can not be made out by Anthropology, but indeed can be only speculated by the cultural difference. (brooch, belt-buckle and so on)
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Can I confirm that we are both agreeing to a shift in the YDNA from East to Wales in England?
And can I confirm that we are looking at the same named designated markers of R1b
R-P310 undefined. U106, U198, U152, R-P312 Unde. R528/L21, M222
There's a shift with the last 3 being the highest across France, Spain, Ireland, Wales. With the first 3 being the highest in England?
40% of of all samples being U106 or U152. Ireland 8% and France 20% (% of all samples)
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 yes, I confirm this. however, I am very reserved at ultimately identifying this Anglish or Saxon, which is my point. and further I am a bit restrained about the term "shift". I would call it "difference". It does not take me a second to realise that north-wales for instance received less influence of later waves then lets say the east coast of England.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 This does not have to indicate a shift as in "replacement by murder and breeding apart". But in my opinion an influence of incorporated newcomers who got, or took land mostly where they arrived (so not north-wales). So I confirm a logical difference in numbers which shrinks from east to west, yes.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Ok. And, also I'm not an absolutist and can confirm the possibility of a gradual migration of people over many centuries before the fall of the Western Empire. It's the historical facts/loose facts about the 5-6 cent tribes that gives it some credibilty. Without the Romans cataloguing the migration not even genetics measures certainty.
Again, for me it's more about the direct Iberian connection which Sykes/Oppenheimer advocated, which needs to be erradicated
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 The Branch of R1b really had a refugee in what is now Iberia... this does however not make British, or west- ;and even a huge chunk of north-European people "Basques", because a "Basque" identity was not there at this time, and the genetic makeup changed with the move of those and created something new. People as a natural law always stay most close to themselves when they do not move, so the most close decendants of the old basques are the new basques (also evident in
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
the fact that nobody else preserved the Language and culture more). And wherever carriers moved at, they will have mixed and changed(thats why british people are NOT more similar to basques then to their next neighbours, because of later influences into their gene-pool). I just really think it is to easy to focus on exaggerated Church-Chronists about the almost Biblical Saxons, and the simplistic view that the Angles and Saxons did find a Land that must have been geneticly unif-
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
-orm to itself, with them being the only reason somebody can imagine for a change. In my opinion British people are way to fixated on Angles and Saxons. Although this might very well be due to the fact that nothing else landed in the written records and at school(an ironic owe to the roman influence-sphere). Apart from this I think everyone who denies a north-west-european Influence to a country that is precisely placed there (Island or not), must be an idiot.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 OnlyEngland1, who uploaded states:- 'The English, as well as Irish,Scots & Welsh are descended from the 1st settlers to these shores in the Stone Age, around 8000BC. These people were from the Iberian penin & were related to modern day Basques.it is our dominating gene which has been proven by S. Oppenheimer & B. Sykes.
This is complete wrong with regards to English YDNA
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 I would further be careful to identify Branches of Haplogroups, or haplogroups in general with Cultures. We can never be certain that Cultures incorporated exclusive Haplogroups. It can be a hint, but nor a certain proof.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 *not
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Can't argue one way or the other about Sweden, but the suggestion is that the S. Sweds are closely related to the Danes?
What it be possible that there was a transatlantic movement of people with out larger scale invasions being recorded.
I don't know so can't really comment!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 yes, southern-Swedes are geneticly more close to north-central and north-western people then to alot of Northern-Swedes. It was also a surprisingly huge difference between Sweden and Finns.(which is weird, given the History of Finland and Sweden)
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Some rare ones will be decending directly of them, but the gro of the English population will have remained unchanged and can have had the same haplotypes without the Saxons or Angles.(because it is a north-west european country). But England is not decending from the germanic tribes, and nor from the Basques, because these are not english identities or direct history, and are positioned far away.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 You say that the English didn't descend from the ANglo-Saxons with such conviction, and without in much evidence to substantiate it! Your just hypothesizing for the sake of it
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 this does NOT MEAN that they can not have had Anglo-Saxon chiefs and adopted the culture and names!!! I beg to understand. The gauls also adopted the name "Roman" without decending from them, and they later also adopted a frankish culture and a frankish ethnicy without being any of those two. (but certainly having received SOME influences)
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Yes, but in France there is a clear downstream marker from R1b which originated in Germania. In continental studies it stands at a low 10%. This marker together with a other broader markers could symbolize the Frankish invasion. The Britons by all a/c never even adopted Roman culture. Why would they then adopt the Saxons ways?
The Franks must of invaded a Gaukish pop. of 8 million.
What about the East West genetic devide in England.?
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 wrong. Because the Marker is older then Germania and shared with other populatens. People were never unmixed societies. You find the same variety in other countries the other way arround without being colonized by the french. Ceasar already spekulated the difference in the population. Yes the british were in those areas conquered by the romans and adopted much of their ways. As the romans left, they needed to look for a new identity. Life went on.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 I've never heard the idiginous population of England at the time of the Roman sphere of influence having ever adopting Roman culture. Most of the peoples of Briton were still living in small cluster settlements away from the towns and Villas
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 The Roman Impact on Britain was huge and long. Not much shorter then the Roman dominance in Gaul, and on much smaller room which was connected by good roman roads. After the breakaway of the Romans, the people in romano-britain needed to look for a new identity. This was filled by the Anglo-Saxons. They erased the Roman legacy comparable succesful like the Germanic people did with the romaniced rhineland. And probably more peaceful because of the huge distance to rome.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 *sigh* no. It could just as the same mean pretty much everything. Look at a map of old gaul...... R1b (which you have become obsessed with now, former it was I1a on you) can be explained much more logical and by many other reasons.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 Euro Journal of Genetics2011:-using all the available male samples, the East contribution to the Central population was still substantially greater than the Western contribution. It suggests a very substantial contribution to the central population from the East, putatively the Anglo-Saxons.
My my opinion it could mean all contributions. Angles, Saxons, Belgae, Vikings etc
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 that is good for you. At least you LEARNED something now, that you cant just call something "Anglo Saxon" which can have a dozend of reasons.
All speculations.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
@000000AEA000000 There is no absolute just educated historical proofs!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 What are those proofs? Where are the mass-graves, the layers of ash?
No proove at all. England is a melting pot of cultures and there is until now absolutely no proof on how high the number of saxons was.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
Comment removed
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LeeHoxton1 Nope, The Land of The Angles and Saxons lies in modern Germany, the Land of the west-germanic(language) tribe of the Jutes in modern South-Denmark.
East Anglia and Essex is NAMED most likely by, but surely after the Saxons and Angles. East Anglia and Essex have a Saxon/Anglian History. As soon as you claim overwhelming closeness and your de-and Repopulation, it becomes laughable for people not of your Island and away from your personal complex.
000000AEA000000 2 months ago
those halo groups they represent today are not real accurate. i know how they do that, they take in europe 1000 maybe 10000 people and look on their dna and thats it. but thats inaccurate like hell. at some point i agree with u ofc.
blackeagle681 2 months ago
and yet another u tube vid using gentics to try and prove history.England exists b/c of the Anglo Saxon invasion,we do not speak a brythonic language ,b/c the Angles et al were not Britons .The English are not Germans they are Germanic the evidence is all around you.To deny this obvious fact is as ridiculous as trying to claim the moon does not exist.If you are English and don't like it to bad ,you can't just rewrite history
jupes70 2 months ago
Heyy Guys, no worry, just exept it :D
I know you love Sauerkraut and chrismas-markets xD
Amorstopineed 2 months ago
@Amorstopineed Yes if they are free or have goodies in discount...
jbingfaII 2 months ago
@Amorstopineed Geezer. My Deutscher brothers' on the site. I've moved away from Saving Private Ryan and advocating a large Anglo-Saxon German migration. The English are the paternal descendants of German tribes. I love Deutschland bugt Merkel's starting to look like an ugly Bismarke lol
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 only joke ^^ interesting discussion here
Amorstopineed 2 months ago
@Amorstopineed Yep, the English share the same Paternal ancestor as some of the Deutscherd & Danes.......er........I'm bored!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@TemplarX2 Modern Franks, Danes, Germans and the English have all gone down different paths. There are French citizens of Germanic paternal origin and there are those of Gallic. There are Italians' who's paternal ancestor was a Visigoth, Thurugian, or a Lombard. It's just the Y chromo which can link Europeans to a German/ nordic tribe.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@TemplarX2 This has absolutely nothing to do with looks. If I married a Western Indian girl and had a son who then married another West Indian girl, my grandson wouldn't really look much like me, but his paternal Y chromosome (which gets passed down unbroken/with a mutation every 3000 years or so) still remains European. English ancestors arrived mostly in 5-9 cents. They took over farmsteads, and native women. The geneticists Weale/Capelli were looking at the Y chromo and Opp used that data
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
Most of the UK is of Basque descent. The English language may indeed have Germanic roots, but in the end, DNA does not lie. I suggest taking a closer look at Stephen Oppenheimer's studies (VendeeD85 provided a clue no one picked up on).
MrLostMarbles 3 months ago
@MrLostMarbles The English are not the first hunter-farmers from the Basque region. The English share a paternal ancestry with the north continental Frisians, and those from the Danish peninsula. The Y mutations that have been identified in English groups are conclusive. The Welsh and French and Spanish don't have these mutations. Oppenheimer used Weale & Capelli's data. Weale/Thomas stated a 50-100% displacement of Britons. Capelli argued 55% A-Saxon types. Opp doesn't deny the East-West shift
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
This is actually a misinterpretation of Stephen Oppenheimer's findings. He acknowledges that there is a East-West split on mainland Britain i.e. a Germanic-Celtic divide. But rather, he believes that it existed BEFORE the Anglo-Saxon invasions and goes as far to say that "a germanic tongue was spoken in England long before the Romans" so English started BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons. It is known as the 'Proto-English' theory - the youtube video is favourited on my channel - take a look.
VendeeD85 3 months ago
@VendeeD85 That;s right. He used Weale & Capelli's data and come up with a different conclusion. Perhaps he convinced himself in order to shock and sell more copies of his book. There's not a shread of evidence to really back up his theory. Anyone can conclude that the Belgae might have known some German words, or that the Roman army was German. Read Bryan Sykes? He concluded that the Englsh R1b was from the Atlantic coast and his been conclusively disproved.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
Very interesting video and arguments, some fascinating topic it is. I too believe English people's ancestry has predominantly been that of the indigenous people. You are rightly at home on the island along with two other nations and that's that.
DrugiPoWojcie 3 months ago
Well...
Uhm...
'Hi' seems Germanic to me but if you ask someone else it may sound like an ordinary hailing sequence....
Where is the problem if the English are nothing more than one more Germanic Tribe who developed their own distinct Culture after coming to the British Isles?
Is it Bad being German or English?
jbingfaII 3 months ago
@jbingfaII German just Latin for tribes over the Rhine and Danube. The English are just the paternal ancestors of the Angles, Jutes, Danes, Frisians, Saxons, and maybe even the Belgae
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 I guess next time the PM dude will go to Brussels the rest nord folks should call him Dad!
I guess what the quarrels we read are cause to that Mama Dada Syndrome...
jbingfaII 2 months ago
@jbingfaII I'm not sure what your really getting at, but Camaron went to Europe and just had to sit there and say ''get on with it'' because the English are not in the Euro anyway, The UK media and some of our communist/liberal politicians have made something of this, but it really means nothing. Britain will continue to do well as long as Europe sorts it self out. Frankly the Euro as a collective was doomed from the start. Politicians creating European conflict. Like that's never happened!
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 If we gonna starve to death for a piece of metal that will fit some rich dudes or coinage manic collectors personal self in a thousand years time i say 'where is the ferry i go to UK while we have still time'...'Or UK here we go back to where we are while we know who is Us and who is not'...English Europe... Europe English... Speak the Tongue of Truth and that is all...
jbingfaII 2 months ago
@jbingfaII That's very nice.........but don't be offended.....I haven't got a clue what yr talking about.....If you'd like to elaborate
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
@LeeHoxton1 Frankly i Disagree with the Video Post that's all... People looking to Arouse Hostilities between what someone could call Brotherly Nations are usually outsiders or ex Fellow Country Men or Officially Country Men but Still Outsiders who remembered their roots from far and away...
When a Nation Forgets where or how it was born the lights fall and this Man's show ends before the Storm Reins Hell and Fire...
jbingfaII 2 months ago
@jbingfaII I read Oppenheimer & Sykes' books and decided to investigate further. Clearly the prat who uploaded this didn't do his research, because his statement is so bold, & completely wrong. At any rate this nuts statement that even England's ancestors arrived 8000 years ago is wrong. English paternal mutations occurred 3000 years ago and it's shared with groups of people in what used to be Germania. There's about 20 studies which clearly show this now.
LeeHoxton1 2 months ago
watch?v=Jc79zByuC2E
Katharer666 4 months ago
...and the windsors are actually saxe-coburg-gothas lul
Katharer666 4 months ago
@Katharer666
the royal family is english
this isn't how germans look and act like
there was exactly 1 german in the british royal family
the rest was mainly british and from other nationalities
TurkishIQis90 4 months ago
Comment removed
Katharer666 4 months ago
Comment removed
TurkishIQis90 4 months ago
I say old chap, i reckon your video and comments are just about spot on, it's funny it's not taught in schools. Cheddar man supports your comments.
northman585 4 months ago
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed. Even german is not the true designation of Germans/Germany rather Deutsch/Deutschland or Teuton/Tiotsch/teutsch...!!!
gs032009 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed.
gs032009 4 months ago
Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed. Anglo-Saxons-Jutes are tribes that arrived in the UK via northern Europe- partly through what is now Germany. British are distinct from germans as germans are from poles or russians.
gs032009 4 months ago
@gs032009
germans and polaks and russians are actually not very different
english and germans, polaks or russians are 100 % different
TurkishIQis90 4 months ago
Comment removed
Katharer666 4 months ago
OMG! If one goes down far back in history, one will always find proof that all humans come frome Africa (Mitochondiral Eve theory). Has Oppenheimer thought that neolithic tribes coming from spain northwards settled only in England?? They crossed the channel but didn't go northeast to France and Germany??
I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but the English Anglo-Saxon heritage is not a myth!! So, if you're not pure Welsh, you might as well be of Danish or Germanic descendance.
English are Krauts too!
99smite 4 months ago
@99smite Ônce more people are making mistakes and misusing words: germanic is not german, and even german is only more or less synonimous with descendant of germanic tribes. Germanic was a term created by romans to designate tribes from central-northern Europe long before germans existed.
gs032009 4 months ago
@FromTheGuy , It was used ultimately as a way to resist Britishness by making out that Celtic was an ethnicity when it was never. The Scots are truly Caledonian Picts as attested in the evidence form 1996~2006 and OGAP4 code, and the real Irish were Iberians.
Thanks to the seminal works of Simon James (1999) and Brian Sykes (2006) the 'Celtic' term is debunked and can be understood for the Victorian romantic idiocy that it is.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
@FromTheGuy 'Celtic' is a made up modern term that was popularised in the mid 1800's first coined by an English linguist Edward Lhyund earlier to group only old languages from the British isles, it was later hi-jacked by Irish republicans and Catholic revisionists in the early 1900's to link more than just languages to give the Irish a springboard to hi-jack Scottish and Welsh cultures and people as well to give the Irish more to be proud of.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
@FromTheGuy The battle of Culloden was not Scotland vs England dumb cow, the Scots played both sides, there was even some English who fought on the Jacobite side. Most Scots are protestants because Scotland's own brand of religion is Presbyterianism, many agree historically that the Scottish Enlightenment is a key factor of the Scottish religion which modernised the world, Scotsman John Knox a Scottish reformer is widely known as the father of the United States.
Uncle Sam was based on a Scot.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
@FromTheGuy The Bagpipes are Scottish, they hold the highest claim in the world for bagpipe music, and historians agree that the Scots come out top of a list who always seem to have had the pipes as far back as you can go.
English don't have anything of their own, that's why they claim others traditions and achievements and switch the stories round. It's the same with resources, they don't have their own so they colonise what they can to steal other resources.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
natmanprime 4 months ago
@natmanprime Indians aren't black at all, they are Caucasoid by anthropology and are not as dark as the Negroid race, skin colour does not indicate race.
The 3 main races of the world are Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negriods.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
@TheFatalInstinct1 um, i never said they were black...
i compare them to pakistanis
i would say 3 asian races, west asian, east asian and south asian.
as for african, there is north african and sub saharan african.
there's an ancient god called Jah Bul On, a trinity. i reckon jah is the west asians (land of Ur, caucasoid), Bul is the bull headed deity for the indians, and On,( or Om) is the east asian deity.
there's far more genetic diversity among africans(as u say skin colour etc) esp.Kenya
natmanprime 4 months ago
@natmanprime Indians aren't Pakistanis at all, Pakistan used to be a piece of Indian land that was given off to Islamic Arabs who migrated to that part of India, but many of their customs were not compatible with Islamic shariah law, so India had to be rid of that piece of land, this is why Islamic Shariah law should not be taken into western regions, as the same thing will happen as what India had to do.
TheFatalInstinct1 4 months ago
@TheFatalInstinct1 1st of all, apology accepted(ie the one u didnt give...)
ok, next, pakistanis are not arabic, they dont have a semitic look, curly hair, in fact they have the straightest hair possible, they are more like the other 'stan' countries, west asian. arabs are a cross between west asians and africans.
next, pakistan is in fact to a large proportion made of indians who converted to islam. pakistanis look way more indian than arab. thats obvious.
finally, thx 4 ignoring my stuff..
natmanprime 4 months ago
stupid video please go to college and studie some science if you can but if you cant stand the truth because it didnt fit with your stupid political idiology well then thats your problem
btw no one in the scientific community takes oppenheimer serious and thats for a reason
AdrianDeMoxica23 4 months ago
who the fuck cares.
you have millions of confused disgusting chavs in this country that go round identifying themselves as part of a foreign culture anyway. i think history lessons are the last of this country's concern.
Adrza011 4 months ago
did anyone see "blood of the vikings" bbc series from around 2002/2003? this programme did a nationwide study from towns across britain to look for viking dna.as norwegian dna markers differed greatly from danish/saxon dna markers they established that areas such as the wirral, south wales and cumbria had markers as did the orkneys/shetlands. eastern england had a large amount of what they called "invader blood"..anglo-danish, where as the west had mainly pre-roman dna markers.ie celtic.
randypan71 4 months ago