The Genetic Makeup Of Modern Europe (No, This Isn't A Thinly-Veiled Bit Of Racism)

[John_Mace]

@puddleglum

According to DNA testing. The average Uk resident is 37% Anglo Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% Western Europe, 9% Scandinavian, 3% Spanish, and 2% Italian/Greek.
Given those percentages someone 100% Anglo Saxon or Celtic would be very rare if they exist at all.

But keep in mind that when they say someone is “37% Anglo-Saxon” they are basing that on markers that match up with people who, today, are living in the areas where the Angles and the Saxon came from and are assumed to have deep ancestry there. But of course, those people are not pure Angle or Saxons, either, so the basic assumption has a certain amount of error in it.

[septimus]

@John_Mace

How could we know? What range of genomes defines someone as having been an Angle, a Saxon or a Jute? Or an Etruscan? And since I’ve seen estimates on the order of 1,000 years ago for the European Identical Ancestor point, it would appear that our best estimate would be: None.

Even if your Identical Ancestor claim is valid, do you think this means there are no discernable differences today based on 1000-year old European ancestry?

@John_Mace

But keep in mind that when they say someone is “37% Anglo-Saxon” they are basing that on markers that match up with people who, today, are living in the areas where the Angles and the Saxon came from and are assumed to have deep ancestry there. But of course, those people are not pure Angle or Saxons, either, so the basic assumption has a certain amount of error in it.

Subjects are generally asked where their grandparents are from before being used as references.

While there’s been much mixing, there are still distinctive DNA signatures. And, BTW, the Anglo-Saxons probably came from coastal areas including Frisia and Denmark (and certainly not present-day Saxony :)) although there’s been so much mixing within Germany that the Anglo-Saxon British is itself a distinct signature, most easily compared to that of a more general Germanic region.

[MrDibble]

@md2000

From what I understand - the Andaman Islanders are part of the first wave out of Africa that spread along the coast of India and on to Indonesia and Australia.

You understand wrong.

[MrDibble]

@septimus

Australia is more accessible than either the Philippines or the Andamanese Islands.

:dubious:

[John_Mace]

@septimus

Even if your Identical Ancestor claim is valid, do you think this means there are no discernable differences today based on 1000-year old European ancestry?

Of course not, and if you look at my earlier posts in this thread you’l see that I’ve said so. Even if we all have the same set of ancestors at Time T, the proportion of our DNA from each of those ancestors is going to be different. From some of those ancestors, our portion of DNA attributable to them will be 0. For instance, the claim is often made that most everyone who is European is a descendant of Charlemagne. But that doesn’t mean you have any of his DNA since he is 40 - 50 generations back in your ancestry.

Subjects are generally asked where their grandparents are from before being used as references.

While there’s been much mixing, there are still distinctive DNA signatures. And, BTW, the Anglo-Saxons probably came from coastal areas including Frisia and Denmark (and certainly not present-day Saxony :)) although there’s been so much mixing within Germany that the Anglo-Saxon British is itself a distinct signature, most easily compared to that of a more general Germanic region.

Right. But the point being that a today’s “Saxons” are the result of the population that existed 1,500 years ago (and part of which split off and went to England) + all the mixing from other Europeans that has happened during the intervening 1,500 years. No doubt there are markers that every Saxon today has that no, or few, Saxon had 1,500 years ago.