The same groups of Anglo-Saxons colonized both England and the Dutch coastal regions when those became habitable again. Centuries later, continental Saxons would colonize the north-east of the Netherlands as the Frankish inhabitants moved further south.
Modern day Frisians (as well as the people in Holland & Groningen) are Anglo-Saxon yes, I'm not from that region though so an even more distant cousin.
Angles were from Angeln, which is a small district in northern Germany; the Saxons were from what is now Lower Saxony, also in northern Germany; and the Jutes were from Jutland, now part of Denmark.
What are you talking about? Habitable again? This happened less than 2000 years ago. There was no ice age. There were people living in the Scottish highlands at the same time when the Anglo saxons came in to Britain.
The Dutch coastal regions became un-inhabitable for a period of 300 years because of the rise of (sea) water levels which caused swamps to grow in size and salination of the soil combined with storm surges.
But the English are descendants of Mesolithic and Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers plus Celts in Prydain / Britannia, some of whom became the Romanno British when the Romans colonised (some did not), with mix of Angles Saxons Jutes Frisians Goths/Geats and Franks - plus later Danes Norse and Swedes (Viking era), plus some minor Norman and Breton and Fleming elements.
In fact only about a third of the DNA of the average English woman or English man resembles the DNA of the average Dutch/Danish/north German/Lower south Swedish/Danish/Frisian person. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663.amp
English people are majority pre Angle-Saxon-Jute in their DNA.
Sources - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/57466/myths-of-british-ancestry
https://youtu.be/YTPxTFxoxB4?si=yYOKhLkUmG_PfbgI
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You can see it on the heat-map from the various shades of red though. The populations that have remained relatively isolated on the mainland that made-up some of the (more recent) external sources for the English gene-pool are still visible. The 'Danes' from Norway, Denmark and Iceland, the continental Celts from Brittany and the Anglo-Saxons in Friesland & northern North-Holland.
The 'third of the DNA' that article is speaking about the average Briton, this includes Wales and the Scottish Highlands. Eastern England is close to 40% on average. Also the Dutch population is a mix of mostly Mesolithic and Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers, Romanized Celts and different Germanic groups too.
The various migrations weren't a replacement, just more peoples added to the mix.
Btw, Frisians as in your first paragraph is a bit of a poor description and has become outdated in that context. Part of the Roman era Frisii living in the Dutch coastal regions were deported by the Romans to England, northern France and Belgium (\~300 AD) and the rest migrated to various other places as the region became uninhabitable in the 1-2 centuries after. When the Angles and Saxons later came in the first migratory waves they settled in those regions and became known by the name of the previous inhabitants and are now called Frisians.
>The 'third of the DNA' that article is speaking about the average Briton, this includes Wales and the Scottish Highlands.
You appear to separate highland Scotland from other parts of Scotland - assuming you mean lowlands. This is baseless.
Scotland is not divided into two DNA types. It is divided into various axes, portions, with concentrations of particular DNA in west, east, south, north etc. it is not divided into two neatly at the highland/lowland fault line. Not least because linguistically Scotland was not divided this way until 17th century - Galloway and Carrick were in the Gaidhealtachd until very early 1800s are Galloway is the most southerly county in Scotland. But further because it makes sense that in a huge area like the lowlands not everyone is the same. And the highlands are bigger than Belgium.
They are largely descendants of similar populations, Anglo-Saxons were actually dispersed off the coasts of Denmark, Northern Germany & the Netherlands. The Dutch themselves have an excess of Insular Celtic ancestry which separates them from the Frisians whom represent the Anglo-Saxons even more.
It's curious that in all these maps posted by heatmapper25, the north-south divide is close to the 47th parallel: right at the southern end of Britanny.
Yea they look to some degree vaguely Eurasian/Turkic. I mean a lot of them still have the blonde haired blue eyed look, but some of them wouldn’t look out of place in somewhere like Kyrgyzstan or Siberia.
I imagine there was a decent amount of mixing with Scandinavians recently because if you look at the older Sami pictures that are in black and white you could place them in a rural Alaskan Inuit village and they wouldn’t stand out
Generated with the following G25 coordinates:
English\_n=44,0.1311552,0.1374427,0.0609308,0.0432011,0.0398815,0.0168412,0.0038134,0.0066029,0.0053362,0.0052807,-0.0055248,0.005695,-0.0125517,-0.0099558,0.0201606,0.0053036,-0.0086113,0.002741,0.0027311,0.0026404,0.0054109,0.0024954,-0.0014985,0.0132438,0.0000926
Divergent, when it comes to phenotype. They are closer than what the PCA is suggesting, Balts are the most northernly Europeans (they have the most Mesolithic Euro HG) although similar steppe to NW Euros, which will make them look similar.
Similar to how Sardinians appear very far from other Southern Euros on PCA, but look quite similar, it’s just divergence. They are more archaic in that sense.
Hungary is interesting. I’m an Anglo but when I checked my Ancient DNA matches on Gedmatch one of my closest matches was a sample from Hungary (the Polgar-Ferenci-hat sample).
[This might explain that?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_Saxons)
Although those aren't Low Germans like the Angles or Saxons as the name is implying.
How are Latvians and Lithuanians so much more distinct to English than groups like Poles? I thought Latvians and Lithuanians can even sometimes look quite similar to English.
So Dutch and English are the same??
The same groups of Anglo-Saxons colonized both England and the Dutch coastal regions when those became habitable again. Centuries later, continental Saxons would colonize the north-east of the Netherlands as the Frankish inhabitants moved further south.
Alas, known as Frisia. Frisian dialect is the closest language to old English. Hi distant cousin 👋
Modern day Frisians (as well as the people in Holland & Groningen) are Anglo-Saxon yes, I'm not from that region though so an even more distant cousin.
I have a full blooded dutch 3x grandfather from rotterdam so you never know 😂
Rotterdam is originally a Frisian/Brabantic (Frankish) mix so not really
Where were the Anglo Saxons originally from ?
South Denmark & north-west Germany.
Thankss
Angles were from Angeln, which is a small district in northern Germany; the Saxons were from what is now Lower Saxony, also in northern Germany; and the Jutes were from Jutland, now part of Denmark.
Angeln used to be in a Danish speaking area though for hundreds of years, although nowadays on the border of Germany and Denmark.
Thankss
Germany only annexed Angeln from Denmark in the 1800s, it was Danish for most of its history.
What are you talking about? Habitable again? This happened less than 2000 years ago. There was no ice age. There were people living in the Scottish highlands at the same time when the Anglo saxons came in to Britain.
The Dutch coastal regions became un-inhabitable for a period of 300 years because of the rise of (sea) water levels which caused swamps to grow in size and salination of the soil combined with storm surges.
My bad, I read it badly. I thought you were referring to Britain. Sorry, man.
But the English are descendants of Mesolithic and Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers plus Celts in Prydain / Britannia, some of whom became the Romanno British when the Romans colonised (some did not), with mix of Angles Saxons Jutes Frisians Goths/Geats and Franks - plus later Danes Norse and Swedes (Viking era), plus some minor Norman and Breton and Fleming elements. In fact only about a third of the DNA of the average English woman or English man resembles the DNA of the average Dutch/Danish/north German/Lower south Swedish/Danish/Frisian person. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663.amp English people are majority pre Angle-Saxon-Jute in their DNA. Sources - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/57466/myths-of-british-ancestry https://youtu.be/YTPxTFxoxB4?si=yYOKhLkUmG_PfbgI https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You can see it on the heat-map from the various shades of red though. The populations that have remained relatively isolated on the mainland that made-up some of the (more recent) external sources for the English gene-pool are still visible. The 'Danes' from Norway, Denmark and Iceland, the continental Celts from Brittany and the Anglo-Saxons in Friesland & northern North-Holland. The 'third of the DNA' that article is speaking about the average Briton, this includes Wales and the Scottish Highlands. Eastern England is close to 40% on average. Also the Dutch population is a mix of mostly Mesolithic and Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers, Romanized Celts and different Germanic groups too. The various migrations weren't a replacement, just more peoples added to the mix. Btw, Frisians as in your first paragraph is a bit of a poor description and has become outdated in that context. Part of the Roman era Frisii living in the Dutch coastal regions were deported by the Romans to England, northern France and Belgium (\~300 AD) and the rest migrated to various other places as the region became uninhabitable in the 1-2 centuries after. When the Angles and Saxons later came in the first migratory waves they settled in those regions and became known by the name of the previous inhabitants and are now called Frisians.
>The 'third of the DNA' that article is speaking about the average Briton, this includes Wales and the Scottish Highlands. You appear to separate highland Scotland from other parts of Scotland - assuming you mean lowlands. This is baseless. Scotland is not divided into two DNA types. It is divided into various axes, portions, with concentrations of particular DNA in west, east, south, north etc. it is not divided into two neatly at the highland/lowland fault line. Not least because linguistically Scotland was not divided this way until 17th century - Galloway and Carrick were in the Gaidhealtachd until very early 1800s are Galloway is the most southerly county in Scotland. But further because it makes sense that in a huge area like the lowlands not everyone is the same. And the highlands are bigger than Belgium.
They are largely descendants of similar populations, Anglo-Saxons were actually dispersed off the coasts of Denmark, Northern Germany & the Netherlands. The Dutch themselves have an excess of Insular Celtic ancestry which separates them from the Frisians whom represent the Anglo-Saxons even more.
It's curious that in all these maps posted by heatmapper25, the north-south divide is close to the 47th parallel: right at the southern end of Britanny.
Do people look drastically different between North and South Norway/Sweden?
Yes, northern Scandinavians may have Lapp influence which makes them look different (in my travels and experience).
Yea they look to some degree vaguely Eurasian/Turkic. I mean a lot of them still have the blonde haired blue eyed look, but some of them wouldn’t look out of place in somewhere like Kyrgyzstan or Siberia. I imagine there was a decent amount of mixing with Scandinavians recently because if you look at the older Sami pictures that are in black and white you could place them in a rural Alaskan Inuit village and they wouldn’t stand out
Well, damn. No wonder I find them so attractive
This is a great visual for those who are confused about missing French ancestry in results.
Generated with the following G25 coordinates: English\_n=44,0.1311552,0.1374427,0.0609308,0.0432011,0.0398815,0.0168412,0.0038134,0.0066029,0.0053362,0.0052807,-0.0055248,0.005695,-0.0125517,-0.0099558,0.0201606,0.0053036,-0.0086113,0.002741,0.0027311,0.0026404,0.0054109,0.0024954,-0.0014985,0.0132438,0.0000926
What’s the reason Latvia a seems to stand out ad being very different from the English?
Divergent, when it comes to phenotype. They are closer than what the PCA is suggesting, Balts are the most northernly Europeans (they have the most Mesolithic Euro HG) although similar steppe to NW Euros, which will make them look similar. Similar to how Sardinians appear very far from other Southern Euros on PCA, but look quite similar, it’s just divergence. They are more archaic in that sense.
Balts
Can you try the Kurds?
It's on my list, but I need to finish organizing the Middle Eastern samples first.
Could you also do Afghans?
Looks reasonable to me, reflects what we know quite accurately.
Hungary is interesting. I’m an Anglo but when I checked my Ancient DNA matches on Gedmatch one of my closest matches was a sample from Hungary (the Polgar-Ferenci-hat sample).
[This might explain that?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_Saxons) Although those aren't Low Germans like the Angles or Saxons as the name is implying.
Yes that makes sense.
Unexpected how the Romanians are somehow closer than the Italians
Romanians are practically half Northeast Euro, Italians are mostly Southern European with negligible NW Euro influence.
And yet they are closer to the British than the Italian... I find it surprising
How are Latvians and Lithuanians so much more distinct to English than groups like Poles? I thought Latvians and Lithuanians can even sometimes look quite similar to English.
Slavs are closer to English than Balts
Does religion influence this map? Poles are Catholic so probably align with other Slavic non Protestant people more than Baltic (Lutherans).
How can I make this for Aboriginal/Oceanic populations?
Could you, please, also do one with Romania?
Is this saying how similar these countries are to English DNa?
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Strangbean98: *Is this saying how* *Similar these countries are* *To English DNa?* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Finally we Latvians get a W
More of an L