Genetic Britain: How Roman, Viking and Anglo-Saxon Genes Make up the UK's DNA
Who are we? The genetic make-up of the British people is a hotly contested subject in academic and political circles. Britain has a tumultuous history that includes Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Roman invasions, but what legacy of these settlers and invaders remains in the DNA of Brits today?
The BNP's Nick Griffin, who has recently gained a foothold in British politics, claimed recently to represent the "indiginous people" of Britain, comparing modern English, Scots, Irish and Welsh with the indiginous populations of North America and New Zealand.
But today's Brit is a complex melting pot of influences. A revealing Channel 4 documentary in 2006 carried out genetic testing on eight people who believed themselves to be "100% English", and found them all to have a rich genetic heritage beyond their expectations.
Advances in DNA profiling have enabled scientists and historians to probe the depths of British history in a new way. Can little strands of DNA tell us who are and where we came from? And how do these new approaches alter the established timeline of British history?
The Science Bit
The field of genetic research into ancestry is still in its infancy – although, as projects such as the human genome demonstrate, it is moving at a rate of knots.
In the last 15 years scientists have adopted two key methods of tracing ancestry through DNA. Mitochondrial DNA can be used to unpick female ancestry, while Y-chromosomes can determine male lineage.
When passed from father to son, the Y-chromosome is usually unchanged. However, over time, small variations occur – and these variations can be used to identify different population strands.
Who Were the First Brits?
Archaeological evidence near Lowestoft, Suffolk, indicates that the first human settlement in the British Isles was around 700,000 years ago, when – believe it or not – the climate was almost Mediterranean.
Researchers on the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain Project at the Natural History Museum in London suggest there were seven failed attempts at human occupation in prehistoric times. Each time humans were beaten by changes in climate. Permanent settlement did not occur until after the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago.
The traditional view of British history has generally held that the first inhabitants of the isles were the Celts, who were thought to have originated somewhere in central Europe.
These original Britons were subjugated by the Romans then displaced by an influx of Anglo Saxons from Germany and Holland in the sixth and seventh centuries AD. Later invasions by the Vikings and the Normans further altered the local population.
Recent research in genetics has found evidence to both support and disprove this traditional viewpoint. Broadly speaking, there are two main schools of thought – one argues that the British gene pool was profoundly affected by the influx of invaders; the other maintains that the British genetic make-up has changed little over time.
Anglo Saxon Wipeout
Not the name of a Dark Ages quiz show, but rather a theory used to assess the impact of the Anglo Saxons on Britain.
The Roman occupation of Britain had a profound impact on trade, culture and technology, but saw little in the way of actual immigration. After the Roman withdrawal in around 400AD, Britain entered the Dark Ages – and found itself increasingly vulnerable to attack by outside forces.
Wave after wave of Europeans came to displace the native Britons. The three main tribes were the Angles from Angeln in northern Germany, the Saxons from Lower Saxony, and the Jutes from the Jutland Peninsular.
It is almost impossible to say how many Anglo Saxons arrived or how violent the clashes between natives and settlers were. Historical sources are limited to just a handful of scribes, most of them writing years after the event. The sixth-century cleric Gildas, for example, describes some of the battles between the Britons and the Anglo Saxons, but hard facts are in short supply
Mass migration of Anglo Saxons would have ensured the dilution of the original British gene pool over the course of several centuries. What, then, can genetics tell us about the Anglo Saxon invasion?
Mass Migration Event?
A 2002 study at University College London (UCL) looked for evidence linking modern-day Brits to ancient Anglo Saxons. They compared the Y-chromosomes of present-day males in central England with those of men in Friesland, a Dutch province thought to be an Anglo Saxon homeland.
The study found remarkable genetic similarities between the two populations and concluded that a ‘mass migration event’ must have occurred in the Dark Ages. In other words, a flood of Anglo Saxons came to dominate the English gene pool, stopping short at the Welsh border. (The same study found that despite thousands of years of shared history, there is a marked genetic dissimilarity between English and Welsh people.)
In order to explain the wide genetic spread of the Anglo Saxons, it has been suggested the invading force must have numbered some 500,000 people – an enormous population movement for the time.
Apartheid System
Another UCL study in 2006 offered a different explanation. Anglo Saxons came to dominate the gene pool not through sheer weight of numbers but rather through their imposition of an ‘apartheid-style’ social hierarchy. The native Britons were reduced to second-class status and the Anglo Saxons enjoyed greater ‘reproductive success’; they had more babies, more often and more successfully than the subjugated, downtrodden Brits.
The researchers cited examples of other apartheid systems throughout history in support of their theory, alongside fragmentary evidence that appears to show Anglo Saxon laws discriminated against native people. The UCL team theorised that a force of 200,000 invaders could have dominated the gene pool in just 15 generations.
Other historical sources indicate that there was widespread Celtic migration away from Britain during the Dark Ages, as defeated Britons fled their lands to set up enclaves in Brittany (its name derived from Briton) and Galicia in Spain. The Celtic influence is still visible in the culture of these regions today.
In addition, diseases such as the plague of Justinian may account for what historians believe was a significant population decrease in the Dark Ages. A combination of these factors, therefore, radically altered the make-up of the British population.
The gene pool received new input with the arrival of the Vikings in the ninth century and the Normans in the eleventh. However, genetic researchers have yet to find a way of distinguishing between the Y-chromosomes of the Anglo Saxons and the later invaders – making it hard to say how much impact these groups had on the population.
Basque Country?
There are, however, high-profile voices that argue against the Anglo Saxon wipeout theory. Leading geneticists Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer maintain that the British gene pool has remained largely unchanged since the first settlers arrived 12,000 years ago.
Both writers refute the traditional view that the Celts originated in central Europe and insist that they hailed from the Iberian peninsular – specifically the Basque country. The Irish, the Welsh and people in the west of England have been found to share up to 80% genetic similarity with modern-day Basques, falling to around 65% in eastern parts of England where Anglo Saxon and Viking influence was greater.
Oppenheimer goes further by questioning the notion that the British Isles were uniformly Celtic at the time of the Roman invasion. He has argued that the absence of Celtic words in English and the conspicuous lack of Celtic place names implies that England itself was not in fact a Celtic nation.
The theory goes that, by the time the Romans arrived, southern England was occupied by Germanic-speaking tribes with connections to Belgic Gaul. Julius Caesar himself, on a fleeting visit in around 50BC, reported that the locals spoke a dialect similar to that of the Gauls.
Oppenheimer’s reading of the genetic evidence also indicates there were people of Scandinavian origin living in northern and eastern Britain long before the Vikings invaded.
Perhaps most important of all, Oppenheimer’s research on specific gene types has found that Anglo Saxon DNA contributed as little as five per cent to male lines, with virtually no evidence of it occurring in female lines. Any similarities between modern-day Britons and Anglo Saxons, he argues, can be attributed to common ancestors way back in the distant past.
A Cultural Legacy
If DNA cannot yet provide a definitive answer, historians must approach the problem from more traditional angles. Over the course of time, invaders left more than just a genetic stamp on the British Isles – they built towns and forts, changed the culture and radically transformed the language.
The Romans founded London, built roads, baths and aqueducts, overhauled trade and introduced coinage.
The Vikings brought with them words from Old Norse that remain in our language today – some of them tellingly aggressive (knife, ransack, die), some rather more elemental (husband, sky, bairn, get, call).
The Normans had arguably the greatest impact, establishing one of the oldest monarchical lines in the word, overhauling the political and legal systems, and fusing French and English words together, as well as kick-starting a thousand-year rivalry with the Old Enemy.
The Original Briton
No study can ever fully measure the vast contributions made by each of these invading forces to the make-up of the British Isles - linguistically, culturally and genetically. The idea of the ‘original Briton’ may continue to obsess certain political elements, but it seems likely that he will remain as mythical as King Arthur – a Briton who would probably have his own things to say on Anglo Saxon wipeout.
It is clear, then, that the answer to who we are lies as much beyond these sceptred isles as within them. Life here, it seems, began out there. As the UCL scientists Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas summarised in their study of the Y chromosome, “if we go back far enough, all men are not only born equal, but are paternally related.”
Latest
Get Real About Advertising Fakes ASA Tells Semmel Concerts King Tut Tour- Unique Iron Age Hoard goes on display at Ipswich Museum
- Missing the revolution but making the party!
- Royal Artefacts - Including King Tut's Golden Trumpet - Returned to Egyptian Museum Cairo
SCA releases full list of treasures missing from the Cairo Museum- Petrie Museum celebrates the extraordinary life of Amelia Edwards
- New Face for 5,300-year-old Otzi the Iceman
- New Clues to Welsh Origins of Stonehenge Bluestones
- Read latest articles, blogs & reviews
Most Popular
- New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix'
- Top 10 Animal Gods and Goddesses in Ancient Egypt
- Treasures of King Tut - Tutankhamun's Jewellery and the Love of a Queen
- 19th Century Manuscript and Drawings by Egypt Explorer Frédéric Caillaud Discovered
History Library
HK Editor's Picks
Latest Comments
Focus on
King Tut –
Stonehenge
Terracotta Warriors
Pyramids –
Archaeology
Britain –
China –
Egypt
Greece –
Rome
Heritage Key Words
ancient london, british museum, roman, art, zahi hawass, london, ancient egypt, religion, burial, valley of the kings
Next major 'ancient' exhibition in London:
Journey Through the Afterlife: The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead
at the British Museum
November 2010 - March 2011
(learn more)







videos
Comments
I'm amazed that the English have so little in common genetically with the Welsh since the two nations seem to have been quite connected since very early times. It is thought that the Welsh may have been involved in the build of Stonehenge, and may even have colonised that area of England.
yes, the study's authors suggested this was an example of a political boundary being stronger than a geographical boundary. Therefore, it was possible for English people to have more in common with people living over the sea than people living next door to them, just over the hills. But it should be stressed that other researchers may well read the evidence differently. This is why it is such an interesting field of research - our understanding of it is constantly evolving.
This article has a bit of a typo. Shouldn’t that read 7,000 years ago rather than 700 000 for the Mesopotamian farmers?
I was intrigued, thought it was a typo but followed the link wondering if a Mesopotamian farmer was some sort of jargon for a proto Neanderthal hominid who perhaps carried seeds or raised goats.
In fact the first evidence of humans in Britain does indeed come from 700,000 years ago - although who knows if there are even older deposits to be found? This article paints a vivid portrait of what the land might have looked like at that time: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jan/06/g2.archaeology
The discovery has no doubt given bragging rights to the local tourist industry:
http://www.visit-suffolkcoast.co.uk/history/pakefield-man-unlocks-secrets-early-humans
Thanks for pointing out the confusion regarding the Mesopotamian farmers - I have removed that link.
I have my doubts about the conclusions reached by the 2002 UCL study as I have always believed that the remaining ancesters of the Anglo-Saxons that remained in their continental homeland fell victim to mass genocide at the hands of Charlemagne as they were viewed as a threat to his expanding state. If this is the case then the present inhabitants of Friesland etc can't be the Anglo-Saxons ancestors, and as nature abors a vacum must have recolonised the devasted area from somewhere else. Could the similarities between modern English DNA and modern Frieslander DNA be down to the fact that Friesland and the old Anglo- Saxon homelands was actualy recolonised by the English when times got safer there, this would mean that the English may be the ancestors of the modern Frieslanders etc?
There has been a tremendous amount of Celtic migration into England from Ireland, Scotland, and Wales since at least the advent of the industrial revolution. Was this fact taken into account in the dna studies? If not, then perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion was even greater than the 2002 study suggests.
JAYM, There is actually some historical evidence which may lend at least some support to your point. Apparently, the Anglo-Saxon settlement stalled quite badly for some decades (in the 6thC, I think - I'm remembering from past readings), due to British resistance, and there was some significant back-migration to the continent. Whether this ties in chronologically with the events you mention, I don't know, but it would presumably increase the already close genetic links, though much-modified since, of course.
Some recent authors have also questioned whether Old English (Anglo-Saxon) is the true ancestor of modern English, postulating some alternative Germanic tongue (pre-dating the AS settlement) as the language of the masses of the time. This seems to be based on an assumption that OE and Modern English are far too dissimilar for the one to have grown into the other. However, anyone who has studied OE (and Middle English) can see how the changes happened, in the context of the historical changes going on. Also, King Alfred, a monarch dedicated to bringing religious and philosophical works to his people, had those works translated (many by himself) into the standard Old English of the time, obviously considered by him to be the vernacular. Why would he do that, if most of his people were speaking a different language, as these revisionist authors suggest?
The United Kingdom and Ireland overlap completely genetic-wise. Not to mention that both the UK and Ireland overlap genetically a lot with Norway and the Netherlands. For people wondering, the original Britons were not Celts, the Celts came to the British Isles and conquered the native people, imposing Celtic culture (language, lifestyle) on the native Britons. Then the Romans did the same and the Anglo Saxons came to be permanent residents from the area of Germany/Denmark. Surprisingly both Ireland and the UK are very close genetically with Germany and Denmark.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=1
I don't see how it can be untangled, really. To date, it's been found that 25% of all English people are of Irish ancestry; and just about every person who claims to be of one of the British countries, has blood-links to at least one of the others! (Eg, how many northern English people are descended from the Scottish occupation of the north of England?) Also; how do we assess the DNA input of the Romans (when for instance, one of their main posts - Hadrian's Wall - was policed by Ethiopians) and how to determine what genetic input came from the Normans, when they were basically Mt "Celtic" and Y Norse? Interesting that, in the Domseday book, Old Norse names outnumber Old English by 9 to 1 , and I wonder why it hasn't occurred to anyone that the Rh factor would have had great influence on genetic heritage. For example - British people have a level of Rh Neg blood second only to the Basques. To this day, the Germanic peoples have the lowest level of Rh Neg blood in Europe. In contrast, the Norwegians - one of the primary "Norse" invading groups - have a level of Rh Neg blood only slightly below the British. Rh Neg blood in the mother effectively destroys a Rh Positive fetus by building antibodies against the fetus. It is only possible for a Rh neg mother to produce ONE healthy Rh positive child, and unless the father of the fetus is also Rh Neg, the child is likely to be Rh Positive. Therefore, although the best chance for healthy children would have been two Britons, it's clear that invaders of "Norse" heritage - vikings, and Normans - with their higher levels of Rh Neg blood, would have a far greater chance of producing a large; healthy family with a native British wife, than a Saxon would. A typical Rh Pos Saxon, with a British wife, would produce one healthy child, followed by a succession of increasing sickly babies, finally culminating in stillbirths as the level of antibodies in the mother grew higher. Could this also explain the Anglo Saxon myth of the "Changeling child" - born perfect but bewitched, skin a greenish colour, and crying constantly, only to become thin and subsequently die young? These all fit the description of "Rhesus babies." Perhaps our genetic heritage has less to do with great battles, and more to do with the small personal tragedies of babies dying, victims of genetic factors beyond their control?
Germanic scientists tend to conclude England is Germanic, British scientists/historians tend to conclude England is British etc. Results tend to take the side of the ethnic group of the scientist/historian.
<p> Let's say that Stephen Oppenheimer was very wrong. It was originally thought that R1b originated in the Iberian penninsula during the last ice age, however it is nowadays thought that R1b arrived in Europe only 8000-4000 years ago. </p>
<p><br />
Also, Oppenheimer was unaware of the vast differences in the R1b subclades. The claim that the dominance of R1b in Britain "invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout" theory is also wrong, since there's a huge difference between the R1b subclades U-106 (associated with the Germanic peoples, accumulated in England by the Anglo-Saxon invasion) and the subclade M-153 (associated with Basques). There's also a difference between the various Celtic R1b subclades and U-106.<br />
<br />
Also, I am afraid to say this, Oppenheimer is an eccentric, and based on his (outdated) finding he formed some very crazy ideas, including the idea that the English "have always been there", and that English was spoken in Britain before the Roman period, which of course is totally ludicrous.</p>