Strathclyde

[ANDY-J2]

Yet both Anglo-Saxon and English are generic terms which are employed when talking about the invading Germanic peoples who settled in Britain after the Roman occupation therefore it is surely proper to talk about Anglo-Saxon or English DNA which is distinct from that of the existing Celtic population.

[Scottish_Republican]

They're generic terms, but how meaningful are they?

I worked out once that the Romans brought in the best part of twelve nationalities in with their armies, including Assyrian archers, Batavians, Germans and various other exotic things. It's hard to believe that they didn't father children through rape or relationship or whatever.

And that's before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

[ANDY-J2]

S.R.
But then how meaningful would a term like Brythonic or even Celtic be given that they encompass peoples who lived over a wide geographical area with fundamental differences in language and customs etc.These are general terms which historians use-they talk about the Saxon period when in fact the Saxons were only one of many peoples who settled in Britain during the dark ages.When I stated that Anglo-Saxon DNA was what one would expect to find predominately in the population of southern Britain I think that is a statement which most people would agree with.We tend to think of the Germanic peoples as having displaced the indigenous Celts when in fact increasingly the evidence suggests that assimilation rather than conquest is what actually occured.

[alex_ayr]

Interesting discussion.

Cut and paste job from this article:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html

Summarising this paper:
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

In a Principal Components analysis the Irish and Welsh samples (with one exception) cluster together with the Basque sample, supporting earlier findings. As the Basques speak a pre-Indo-European language, this suggests that the Irish and Welsh (so-called ‘Celts’) have a largely pre-Celtic genetic ancestry, possibly going back to the Palaeolithic. In Britain, the Orkneys, Shetlands, Western Isles, Isle of Man, and Cumbria (Penrith) show a clear Norwegian input, as expected. Elsewhere in mainland Britain there is no obvious Norwegian input, but varying degrees of German/Danish ancestry. Scottish mainland sites are intermediate between English sites and the ‘indigenous’ (Welsh/Irish) ones. However, all the English and Scottish sites show some ‘indigenous’ ancestry. The German/Danish component is strongest in eastern England and weakest in England south of the Thames.

I don't know if it's meaningful to talk of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon DNA. However these population groups do cluster around the R1a(post Indo-European/Germanic, Celtic etc.?) and R1b(pre Indo-European)haplogroups.

If the natives of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and parts of England are predominantly R1b then talk of either or Celtic and Anglo-Saxon genetics is spurious.

Just a thought..

[JohnAlister]

That last post was very interesting. Thank you.

[Eleana]

Yeap that's what I've been saying all along, no surprises here.

But does it matter? What defines us belonging to a certain group?

Genes? or culture?

[JohnAlister]

Culture definitely makes a difference, yes. Thanks for the post.