Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University finds A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in Anglo-Saxon England By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 6:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2015 Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years. Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to birthplace is DNA deep. The most striking genetic split can be seen between people living in Cornwall and Devon, where the division lies exactly along the county border. It means that people living on either side of the River Tamar, which separates the two counties, have different DNA. Similarly there is a large area in southern and central England with a shared genetic heritage which coincides with the boundaries of Anglo-Saxon England. Likewise, separate genetic groups can be found in areas of North and South Wales corresponding to the ancient kingdoms of Gwynedd and Dyfed. In the North, specific groups were found in the North East, tallying with the area of Bernicia which was colonised by the Angles from Southern Denmark. And, intriguingly, a small genetic cluster was spotted in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which coincides with the former small kingdom of Elmet, one of the last strongholds of the ancient Britons. Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD. “When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity. “It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference lies directly on the boundary.” Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of perhaps 1400 years ago.” The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80km of each other. Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles, using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic groupings. Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such exquisite and fascinating detail. “We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are closer genetically. “In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland. “And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.” The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically. And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities. The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population. But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA. “We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly. “Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.” There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up. The research, which was also carried out by University College London and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, was published in the journal Nature. https://t.co/w6MrFLN3xa -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: [] >A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >Anglo-Saxon England [] >The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 >people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all >born within 80km of each other. > >Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, >the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, >allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before >mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. [] Thanks for posting this; interesting. Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic) influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have already discovered that people before even up to the end of the nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of where they were born. It would be interesting to have another study taken without the restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected. Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I find quite a lot of them are from local areas. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. - Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 9:05:20 AM UTC+2, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes > <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > [] > >A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement > >between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in > >Anglo-Saxon England > [] > >The 'People of the British Isles' study analysed the DNA of 2,039 > >people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all > >born within 80km of each other. > > > >Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, > >the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, > >allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before > >mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. > [] > Thanks for posting this; interesting. > > Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two > paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus > to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it > is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is > that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary > would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still > interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic) > influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to > genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have > already discovered that people before even up to the end of the > nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of > where they were born. > > It would be interesting to have another study taken without the > restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". > > In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the > mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the > country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected. > Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I > find quite a lot of them are from local areas. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal > your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. - > Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14 I think even before the railways there was quite a lot of movement over long distances in some families and notably mine. Both my mother's and my father's family have a diverse footprint with the movement happening in the late 18th/ early 19th century if not before. Mum's 18th century ancestors come from West Cumberland, Lancashire, Scotland, north Wales and Ireland mixing in the West Cumberland/Liverpool economy in the late 18th century; Dad's from a line tracing from Somerset through Gloucestershire and up into Staffs, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, with outliers in Norfolk and Herts. they mixed in the blackcountry and London in the early 19th century and later My step father's family all come from a circle round Bedford that only slips into Bucks and doesn't even stretch down to Luton. His DNA would definitely have been of use to the survey. This shows you can take nothing for granted about the movement of people in the past. Each family is different and some were very mobile, particularly mariners and artisans. Just think stone masons building castles and cathederals v. ag labs regards melanie chesnel

On 24/10/2015 06:16, Steve Hayes wrote: > There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up. They need to look at Roman history. Who were the "Romans" that formed the occupation force in Britain? They weren't all, or even the majority, natives of a small part of the Italian peninsular but drawn from all over the Roman Empire so their genetic footprint would be very diffuse. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:16:25 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University >finds > >A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >Anglo-Saxon England > >By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor > >6:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2015 > >Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th >Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into >our genetic make-up. > >Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically >similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the >Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire. > >In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical >to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, >suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 >years. > >Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional >identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to >birthplace is DNA deep. > >The most striking genetic split can be seen between people living in >Cornwall and Devon, where the division lies exactly along the county >border. It means that people living on either side of the River Tamar, >which separates the two counties, have different DNA. > >Similarly there is a large area in southern and central England with a >shared genetic heritage which coincides with the boundaries of >Anglo-Saxon England. Likewise, separate genetic groups can be found in >areas of North and South Wales corresponding to the ancient kingdoms >of Gwynedd and Dyfed. > >In the North, specific groups were found in the North East, tallying >with the area of Bernicia which was colonised by the Angles from >Southern Denmark. And, intriguingly, a small genetic cluster was >spotted in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which coincides with the >former small kingdom of Elmet, one of the last strongholds of the >ancient Britons. > >Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: >“What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British >population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD. > >“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel >between areas and genetic similarity. > >“It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I >expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference >lies directly on the boundary.” > >Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of >archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of >perhaps 1400 years ago.” > >The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 >people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all >born within 80km of each other. > >Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, >the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, >allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before >mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. > >They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within >the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles, >using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were >able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic >groupings. > >Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for >Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations >differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such >exquisite and fascinating detail. > >“We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle >differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are >closer genetically. > >“In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North >and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland. > >“And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the >North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.” > >The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic >group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, >Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other >genetically. > >And the research has finally answered the question of whether the >Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out >communities. > >The team found that people in central and southern England have a >significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the >invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing >population. > >But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though >they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th >century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and >then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA. > >“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is >from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the >intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” >added Prof Peter Donnelly. > >“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the >English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the >differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms >of population movements.” > >There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up. > >The research, which was also carried out by University College London >and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, was >published in the journal Nature. > >https://t.co/w6MrFLN3xa Thanks for posting this, Steve. My line of Kirkmans, who arrived in the Maryland colony mid-17th century, have a significant Scandinavian DNA factor not found in any other US Kirkmans from other parts of England so far. I wonder if Orkney is a clue our researchers should be looking at. -- Don Kirkman donsno2@charter.net

On Saturday, 24 October 2015 06:15:53 UTC+1, Steve Hayes wrote: > Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University > finds > > A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement > between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in > Anglo-Saxon England <snip> That a core population has remained doesn't say anything about movement. The area that I study is largely rural. It could only support a limited population. Any surplus had to move somewhere else.