on Britain's genetic history. What are the relative contributions of Britons, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norse, French, etc?
>>6465493britain's history genetically goes like this afaikthere were some ancient ass people pre-ice age living there, 40,000 BC type shitthe ice age forced them outlater on, 10,000 BC or so, anatolian farmers inhabited most of europe for a while, but there were hunter gatherers in scandinavia and such that were native to europe as well.basically, ancient north eurasians/steppe niggers created "yamnaya" culture, mixed with the hunter gatherers native to europe, and spread out east and west, to the west creating the alpine celtic cultures and to the north creating germanics, to the east going to india and so on, forming all the indo-european languagesso anyway, these indo-europeans came to britain like 2,000-4000 BCE and genocided the native population replacing 90% of the genepool autosomally then in 500 BCE "celts" went to britain/ireland and didnt really change the gene pool much but britain/ireland became celtic culturallythese people were pretty indo-european, chariots being a main fighting style of the brittonic celts noted by the romans, indo-europeans were known to use chariots a lotanyway, romans ruled brittain from like 43 BC to 430 AD or so, they seem to have left a pretty small genetic footprint but romano-britons often spoke latin and its up for debate whether romans really left any DNA but they were instructed not to breed with locals generally.around 450 AD the anglo-saxons came, who were also indo-europeans, seperated by about 2000 years of genetic drift with the celts, so they werent really all that different but probably had slightly higher Ancient north eurasian and original hunter gatherer european DNA whereas the celts had more anatolian farmer DNA being from the mainland and not the isolated north. still both very indo-european though, northern europeans are very similar genetically.
>>6465626anyway, from like 700-1000 AD vikings would raid ireland and britain, norwegians raiding and settling ireland/scotland and mostly danish vikings settling england who were indistinguishable from the anglo-saxons basically who came from the netherlands, north germany, and denmark. in england they had settlements known as the "danelaw" and scotland had orkney/shetland and ireland's big settlements like wexford, waterford, dublin, etc all had prominent norse and norse-gaelic settlements so a decent amount of norwegian/danish DNA in these areas of the islesin england, in 1066, as the saxons beat the vikings, the normans invaded. the normans won and became the upper class, and the anglo-saxons were the peasant stock for 4-500 years in england, normans also went to ireland/scotland, many names there are french. william wallace and robert the bruce were of norman descent. anglo-saxons also fled to lower scotland after the harrying of the north right after 1066 making low scots similar to the northern english.normans would've had more roman/med DNA, but they also had anglo-saxon DNA, and Danish viking DNA hence their name, but they would've been predominately descendants of Gauls (native french). of course they also had frankish (german) DNA, but i dont think to a crazy extent. Normans also weren't just from normandy, people from brittany, flanders, and other places in northern france such as Anjou and others settled and invaded in 1066 as well, people pretend like it was just normans though for whatever reason but i've traced my english ancestry back to flanders/brittany/anjou as well and history backs this up its just easier to say they were all "normans" but they were really just northern french in generalanyway everyone in britain and ireland is basically descended from these groups in some form or another. but largely the original indo-europeans from 2000 BC are what their genetic stock is. anglo saxons, normans, etc. mostly just took over the culture
We are 1/2 Greek(From Troy) and 1/2 Ur people.
>>6465493>Ice retreats>Spaniards move into Britain>Later Celts move in, likely had little genetic impact, probably just spread their language. Might have been around 500 BC>Romans come and have little impact, but what they do have is focused around the southeast. This spreads further out over 2000 years and even many micks might have one Roman ancestor>Anglos come around 400-600 AD, but have much less genetic impact than some would have you believe. Probably only 25% of the average southeast Englishman is Anglo-Saxon, and it's not completely contained. The average mick is probably a few percent Anglo, as well, along with the Welsh and Scots.>Normans come and, again, have little genetic impact, but heavily affect the language>some Huguenots, Dutch, etc come much laterThe British are really one genetic group, as much as they hate to admit it. The most distant British groups are probably closer than the distant groups of most of the rest of Europe, especially France, Germany, Spain, etc.
Thanks for the detailed answers, anons!
>>6465493Brits are jumping from being southern to northern. Paleolithic and Mesolithic Brits - Northern (WHG, not comparable to any modern population, really)Neolithic Brits - Southern (more Southern than modern Spaniards)Bronze Age Brits - Northern - kinda like Nords but not reallyAll of these almost completely replaced the locals. Since the Bronze Age there was just mixing. Iron Age - slightly more Southern, closer to France than Bronze Age Brits (maybe thanks to Celts?)Anglo-Saxons and Vikings - basically Nords so they probably made Britain more northern again. Normans - more southern - Britain became similar to Iron Age Britain. This did not affect Ireland or Orcadian Scots so they are more northern.
>>6465707fuck you bitch
>>6465711Northern Indian maybe.
>>6465679>>Spaniards move into Britainthis has been debunked actually they were from germany/france bell beaker culture. mostly indo-european.spaniards have way way way little in common with brits and celts. people only claimed they were related to spaniards because they share the r1b haplogroup but this was actually just indo-european migrations, also 90% of DNA in britain was replaced autosomally by indo-europeans whereas like 40% of spanish was.celts were northern europeans, they cluster really close to northern french/germans/danes/dutch/belgians and scandinavians.
>>6465728>Belgium higher even than ScotsWhat the hell?
>>6465728Northern French don't cluster with Scaindinavians, though. The few Hallstatt samples we have cluster with the French and Dutch/North French. One Celtiberian clusters with Spaniards.
>>6465731english are closer to scots overall autosomally. y-dna accounts for like 1% of your DNA at best, it doesn't mean much. the thing is y-DNA haplogroups are passed from father to son, so when normans/anglo-saxons/romans invaded and fucked english bitches, the Y-DNA of Englishmen was inherited from them. However since britain and ireland was overwhelmingly a celto-germanic mix and homogenous, their actual genetic relation is still basically the same. don't give too much attention to y-dna, that's how that bullshit spaniard theory came about. autosomal whole genome DNA is way more important.the brits and celts or whatever you want to call them are northern europeans, not much different to other northern europeans. you can clearly see this just from how they look, they don't look like spaniards at all but they could generally pass for north germans, north french, scandis, dutch, belgians often.
>>6465734ehh, brittany isn't too far off>>6465736
>>6465737Here is a better PCA. It clearly shows that Iron Age Brits and modern Brits are less Northern than Bronze Age Brits and Anglo-Saxons.
>>6465756this >>6465736 is a modern DNA plot was talking about the present day people in NW europe which do tend to cluster together.not really saying you're wrong. i don't disagree
>>6465775this is the amazing discussion i come to /his/ for. :^)great point lad
>>6465769Of course I agree, I'm just saying they are more southern than Scandinavians or Beakers, indicating gene flow from the South in Iron Age.
>>6465781yeah fair enough. it does seem like the people there in the bronze age were likely really similar to germanics/nordics though, probably broke off from the same indo-european people at some point not too far beforehand.
>>6465780The Normans fucked you good, eh?
>>6465780Irishman here. Here's mine.
>>6465788that's not mine, just using someone's as an example. there's other anglos that cluster with scandis and such pretty highly>>6465793not too far off from this guy's
>>6465807I don't know, most of you guys seem to be closer to the French than to Scandinavians.
>>6465812probably true, but i have seen people with dark red for both the british isles and scandinavia
>>6465807What province are you from? If you're English you probably have at least one Irish grandparent.
>>6465793>>6465807it's weird that the irish are coming back as similar to the danish/dutch. must be some ancient indo-european thing. figured they'd be closer to norwegians than the danish or dutch. northern french doesn't surprise me though as normans did go to ireland. although i guess they were anglo-normans, so maybe that's the reason they're getting dutch and danish as well.although i've heard the bronze age britons were really close to the dutch for whatever reason.
>>6465830I'm an American history autist. Here's mine if you wish. Huge mutt. British/Irish/German vast majority of my ancestry but if you go far back enough there's a few Dutch, Swiss, Austrian, and French. Not sure if they'd even show up in my DNA at this point though, that's from like the 1600s. Have some recent SW German which I think shows up on this chart but I'd say I'm like 3/4 British Isles mutt more or less.
>>6465756That Iron Age Briton could've been a Romano-Briton, possibly no? Would've definitely pulled them south.
>>6465812I think phenotypcially brits are closer to northern french but a little lighter, genetically many are closer to denmark (but not norway). atlantic climate obviously selects for different features, pale pink skin, light eyes, freckles, but less selection for straight or blond hair - even though anglos have a lot of this from saxon migration
>>6465731There's some evidence for a genetic/Cultural connection between Western England and the Belgae people. Caesar supposedly used Belgae translators when travelling through the Southeast, which led some Victorian scholars to propose that Western England used to be Belgae territory, and a genetically distinct western English population might account for the discrepancies between gnetic stdies of England saying we're either 50-100% Anglo descendants, or near competely unchanged.But there's no evidence for a Belgic migration.
>>6467258Well, I guess it's likely that it was from Belgium that we first entered the Isles in the first place. And even if there was no great migration, it's likely there have been Britons leaving and just going across to Belgium, and Belgians doing the same and leaving for Britain, since history first began.
mom is pure norman, dad is broadly british (english/irish with some welshand scottish thrown in)
>>6468914normans are basically anglos desu