DNA study shows Celts are not a unique genetic group

Knight-Dragon

Unhidden Dragon
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
19,961
Location
Singapore
Specifically British Celts...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31905764

A DNA study of Britons has shown that genetically there is not a unique Celtic group of people in the UK.

According to the data, those of Celtic ancestry in Scotland and Cornwall are more similar to the English than they are to other Celtic groups.

The study also describes distinct genetic differences across the UK, which reflect regional identities.

And it shows that the invading Anglo Saxons did not wipe out the Britons of 1,500 years ago, but mixed with them.

Published in the Journal Nature, the findings emerge from a detailed DNA analysis of 2,000 mostly middle-aged Caucasian people living across the UK.

The individuals included had all four of their grandparents living close to each other in a rural area.

This selection criterion enabled the researchers, led from Oxford University, to filter out 20th-Century immigration and to peer back to migration patterns more than 1,000 years ago.
Striking similarities

According to Prof Peter Donnelly who co-led the study, the results show that although there is not a single Celtic group, there is a genetic basis for regional identities in the UK.

"Many of the genetic clusters we see in the west and north are similar to the tribal groupings and kingdoms around, and just after, the time of the Saxon invasion, suggesting these kingdoms maintained a regional identity for many years," he told BBC News.

Prof Donnelly and his colleagues compared genetic patterns now with the map of Britain in about AD 600, after the Anglo Saxons had arrived from what is now southern Denmark and Northern Germany. By then, they occupied much of central and southern England.

"We see striking similarities between the genetic patterns we see now and some of these regional identities and kingdoms we see in AD 600, and we think some of that may well be remnants of the groupings that existed then," he explained.

A map of different genetic groupings reveals subtle but distinct differences between those sampled in West Yorkshire and the rest of the country.

There is also a marked division between the people of Cornwall and Devon that almost exactly matches the county border. And the People of Devon are distinct again to those from neighbouring Dorset.

The Wellcome Trust-funded study, which is part of the People of the British Isles Research Project, also found that people in the north of England are genetically more similar to people in Scotland than they are to those in the south of England.

It also finds that people in North and South Wales are more different from each other than the English are from the Scots; and that there are two genetic groupings in Northern Ireland.

Prof Mark Robinson, an archaeologist who works with Prof Donnelly at Oxford University, said he was "very surprised" that Celtic groups in Cornwall, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland had such different genetic patterns.

"I had assumed at the very early stages of the project that there was going to be this uniform Celtic fringe extending from Cornwall through to Wales into Scotland. And this has very definitely not been the case," he told BBC News.

The researchers did see distinct genetic groups within those regions but those groups were quite different from each other, according to Prof Donnelly.

"Although people from Cornwall have a Celtic heritage, genetically they are much, much more similar to the people elsewhere in England than they are to the Welsh for example," said Prof Donnelly.

"People in South Wales are also quite different genetically to people in north Wales, who are both different in turn to the Scots. We did not find a single genetic group corresponding to the Celtic traditions in the western fringes of Britain."
Into the Dark Ages

The finding is the first genetic evidence to confirm what some archaeologists have long been arguing: that Celts represent a tradition or culture rather than a genetic or racial grouping.

Prof Robinson noted that the results also shed light on what happened during Britain's Dark Ages, in the years between AD 400 and AD 600, after the Romans left.

Towns were abandoned; the language over much of what became England changed (to Anglo Saxon, which became English); pottery styles altered; so too even the cereals that were grown, following the arrival of people from the base of the southwest Danish peninsula and northwestern Germany (the Anglo Saxons).

Some historians and archaeologists had wondered whether these changes occurred as a result of the Saxons entirely replacing the existing population as they moved westwards. That might have happened if the Saxons introduced disease, for example.

Others researchers suggested that the existing population simply dropped their old ways and adopted the Saxon way of life.

The new analysis shows a modest level of Saxon DNA, suggesting that the native British populations lived alongside each other and intermingled with the Anglo Saxons to become the English.

There is some evidence in the study that intermingling did not happen immediately following the Saxons' arrival, but occurred at least 100 years later. This suggests that Britons and Saxons had separate communities to begin with, and then over time they began to merge.
Northern Irish groupings

This may well be one of the first instances where genetics has been used to clear up historical controversy.

The study seems to confirm the view that Celts retained their identity in western and northern areas of England where the regions were incorporated into Anglo Saxon territory by conquest.

But what could account for the variation in the DNA of those of Celtic ancestry in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland? Time would be one possibility, according to Prof Donnelly.

"If groups have been separated for a period of time, they will diverge genetically so some of the differences we see genetically are the result of those kinds of effects," he said.

The study also notes that there are two genetic groupings in Northern Ireland: one of which also contains individuals across the sea in western Scotland and the Highlands; the other contains individuals in southern Scotland and southern England.

The former appears to reflect the kingdom of Dalriada 1,500 years ago; the other probably represents the settlers of the Ulster Plantations.

And in Orkney, the study finds clear evidence of Norwegian DNA, as might be expected from the Viking settlement of the Islands.

Interestingly, it persists at fairly low levels, suggesting that the Vikings and the existing populations coexisted and intermingled more than people had expected - in the way that occurred with the Anglo Saxons.

The Viking armies that laid waste to parts of England, and for a while ruled what became known as the Danelaw, left little if any genetic trace, confirming that their success was due to their military prowess rather than large-scale population movement.

Likewise, the Norman conquest of England did not leave any genetic evidence.
 
The main problem is that vast majority of immigrants / invaders of Britain took the same route - the Celts and Belgians, the Romans, the Angles and Saxons, the Normans and French - all of them came to South-Eastern England first and only later expanded into other territories.

So technically the English people should not only be "more genetically Anglo-Saxon" than the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish people. The English should also be more genetically Celtic, more genetically Belgian, more genetically Roman (Mediterranean), and so on, and so on.

While the Welsh and the Irish should represent the oldest, pre-Celtic population, with less significant admixtures from all invaders (not just Germanic ones).

The only exception here are the Norwegian Vikings, whose patterns of settlement were a bit different (mostly parts of Scotland and Ireland).

But the Danish Vikings once again settled mostly in England (the Danelaw) - like almost all other immigrants.

Even today, in the 21st century, London alone probably has more immigrants than entire Wales. :p
 
"The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

You need to pay to read the whole study, but supplementary figures are for free.

Another article discussing this study:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2015/WTP058941.htm

Who do you think you really are? The first fine-scale genetic map of the British Isles

19 March 2015

An international team, led by researchers from the University of Oxford, UCL (University College London) and the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute in Australia, used DNA samples collected from more than 2,000 people to create the first fine-scale genetic map of any country in the world. Their findings, published in Nature, show that prior to the mass migrations of the 20th century there was a striking pattern of rich but subtle genetic variation across the UK, with distinct groups of genetically similar individuals clustered together geographically.

By comparing this information with DNA samples from over 6,000 Europeans, the team was also able to identify clear traces of the population movements into the UK over the past 10,000 years. Their work confirmed, and in many cases shed further light on, known historical migration patterns.

Key findings

- There was 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. For example, the Cornish are much more similar genetically to other English groups than they are to the Welsh or the Scots.

- There are separate genetic groups in Cornwall and Devon, with a division almost exactly along the modern county boundary.

- The majority of eastern, central and southern England is made up of a single, relatively homogeneous, genetic group with a significant DNA contribution from Anglo-Saxon migrations (10-40% of total ancestry). This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations.

- The population in Orkney emerged as the most genetically distinct, with 25% of DNA coming from Norwegian ancestors. This shows clearly that the Norse Viking invasion (9th century) did not simply replace the indigenous Orkney population.

- The Welsh appear more similar to the earliest settlers of Britain after the last ice age than do other people in the UK.

- There is no obvious genetic signature of the Danish Vikings, who controlled large parts of England (“The Danelaw”) from the 9th century.

- There is genetic evidence of the effect of the Landsker line – the boundary between English-speaking people in south-west Pembrokeshire (sometimes known as “Little England beyond Wales”) and the Welsh speakers in the rest of Wales, which persisted for almost a millennium.

- The analyses suggest there was a substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers, but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had little impact in Wales.

- Many of the genetic clusters show similar locations to the tribal groupings and kingdoms around the end of the 6th century, after the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons, suggesting these tribes and kingdoms may have maintained a regional identity for many centuries.

And more comments from Dienekes:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/british-origins-leslie-et-al-2015.html

The authors draw conclusions on several historical episodes of British history. The big one is the extent of Anglo-Saxon ancestry:

After the Saxon migrations, the language, place names, cereal crops and pottery styles all changed from that of the existing (Romano-British) population to those of the Saxon migrants. There has been ongoing historical and archaeological controversy about the extent to which the Saxons replaced the existing Romano-British populations. Earlier genetic analyses, based on limited samples and specific loci, gave conflicting results. With genome-wide data we can resolve this debate. Two separate analyses (ancestry profiles and GLOBETROTTER) show clear evidence in modern England of the Saxon migration, but each limits the proportion of Saxon ancestry, clearly excluding the possibility of long-term Saxon replacement. We estimate the proportion of Saxon ancestry in Cent./S England as very likely to be under 50%, and most likely in the range of 10–40%.

Two other details are the lack of Danish Viking ancestry in England:

In particular, we see no clear genetic evidence of the Danish Viking occupation and control of a large part of England, either in separate UK clusters in that region, or in estimated ancestry profiles, suggesting a relatively limited input of DNA from the Danish Vikings and subsequent mixing with nearby regions, and clear evidence for only a minority Norse contribution (about 25%) to the current Orkney population.

And, the absence of a unified pre-Saxon "Celtic" population. What seems to unify "Celts" is lower levels/absence of the Saxon influence, rather than belonging to a homogeneous "Celtic" population:

We saw no evidence of a general ‘Celtic’ population in non-Saxon parts of the UK. Instead there were many distinct genetic clusters in these regions, some amongst the most different in our study, in the sense of being most separated in the hierarchical clustering tree in Fig. 1. Further, the ancestry profile of Cornwall (perhaps expected to resemble other Celtic clusters) is quite different from that of the Welsh clusters, and much closer to that of Devon, and Cent./S England. However, the data do suggest that the Welsh clusters represent populations that are more similar to the early post-Ice-Age settlers of Britain than those from elsewhere in the UK.

Unfortunately, the authors have decided not to make their data publicly available. This is very unfortunate, and will keep this research out of the hands of many people who would be interested in it and who would be interested in analyzing this data. I can already guess the disappointment of people of British ancestry from around the world who have a genealogical interest in tracing their British ancestors to particular areas of the UK. Apparently, the data is deposited in the EGA archive, access requires red tape, and is apparently limited to institutional researchers. Thus, this data, perhaps the richest genetic survey of any country to date, will not be fully utilized to further science.
 
So it turns out that:

- regions of South+Central+East England are only* between 10% - 40% Anglo-Saxon
- Norwegian Viking ancestry is rather small and peaks at only 25% in Orkney
- Danish Viking ancestry is very small, hardly detectable throughout "the Danelaw"
- Wales was, relatively, least affected by all immigrations since the Stone Age


* I write "only" because some previous studies estimated the Anglo-Saxon ancestry to be between 40% - 100%.
 
I wasn't aware that anyone had assumed that "the Celts" were a discrete genetic group.

I mean, in Britain, "Celt" really just means "person whose ancestors spoke a Celtic language more recently than some other people's ancestors". We didn't come from the Moon.

So... thanks, science? I guess?
 
It says "Celts are not a unique genetic group", not "Celts were not a unique genetic group".

The same study confirms a substantial Celtic migration into the British Isles before the Roman conquest of Britain:

- The analyses suggest there was a substantial migration across the channel after the original post-ice-age settlers, but before Roman times. DNA from these migrants spread across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, but had [relatively] little [less] impact in Wales.

After the original post-ice-age peopling, but before Roman times. So either Celts or earlier Indo-Europeans, or both.

=================
=================

Obviously modern Celts (people of Celtic language & culture in the British Isles) are not genetically the same as ancient Celts.

To start with, the center of the Celtc world was in continental Europe, not in the British Isles. Britain was the periphery of the Celtic world.

So British Celts originated as mixtures of ancient Celtic immigrants from continental Europe and local Non-Celtic British populations.

Traitorfish said:
"person whose ancestors spoke a Celtic language more recently than some other people's ancestors

Well - indeed. For example Germans also have a lot of Celtic ancestry. Especially in southern and western regions of Germany.

But in case of Germans this is deep ancestry from ancient times, while in the British Isles many people still remember their Celtic heritage.
 
Anyway, maps from this new study show that roughly along the Offa's Dyke there was - among our great-grandparents (before the recent increase in people's mobility)- a sharp genetic boundary in terms of autosomal DNA, with people to the east of it having 10%-40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry, while people to the west of it 0%-10% Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

A similar sharp boundary is observed when it comes to the frequency of R1b-S21 (also known as U106) haplotype of Y-chromosome - it also corresponds to the Offa's Dyke (as the map that I will post below shows). This haplotype is frequently found among Germanic-speaking populations, though is not exclusive to them - it could be present at a lower-than-today frequency already in Ancient Britain, being spread over it by Belgian (Belgae), Celtic and Roman immigrants. However it seems that Anglo-Saxons brought with them more of this haplotype, causing the increase of its frequency in areas where they settled - hence today it can be found at much higher frequencies among people whose grandparents were born in villages located to the east of the Offa's Dyke, than among people whose grandparents were born in villages of Wales:

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#frequency

Spoiler :
 
I want to make a few unrelated points. To save bandwidth for those with slow modems, I'll combine the points into a single post.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Eventually one will want to distinguish at least two types of migration:
(a) movements of mtDNA and autosomal DNA as wives travel short or medium distances to their husband's home. This leads to blurring of mtDNA signature. (Some societies are matrilocal instead of patrilocal, but I recall no European cultures that have been described as matrilocal.)
(b) intrusion of Y-dna specifically (and some autosomal) as male adventurers raid or emigrate and assume an elite status, passed father-to-son, that gives the invaders a procreative advantage. This leads to "crisper" Y-dna signatures than those of mtDNA. Several distinct clades just of R1b are visible in the British Isles, possibly reflecting separate migrations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Breaking down British history very crudely:
(a) During an "historical" period from 100 AD to 900 AD, multiple waves of migration to Britain from its Southeast or Northeast occurred.
(b) There were probably many migration waves during the 2500 BC to 100 AD period also, about which very few details are known, though this is three times the time-span of the "historical" period. 2500 BC, roughly the arrival of Beakers in England, is taken arbitrarily.
(c) There were migrations before 2500 BC about which even less is known.

For these reasons, as well as general blurriness of autosomal genes in Western Europe, I'm doubtful how much confidence can be placed in detailed reconstructions of Saxon invasions from the genetic evidence. Genetic data is accumulating by leaps and bounds and a detailed picture may emerge soon, but I'm not sure we're there yet. Can we even be completely certain that R1b-L11 arrived with Corded Ware rather than copper workers who arrived by a southern route? Remember: the L11 Y-chromosome started from a single "royal family," not mass migration. Immediately sibling to R1b-L11 is R-Z2115 found in ... Sardinia, far from obvious Corded Ware influence.

There were migration paths from Portugal to British Isles via Atlantic ocean, and from southern France via rivers and Brittany. 5000 years ago, might not some of these migration routes been largely one-way, involving once-in-a-lifetime adventures rather than cyclic trading?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

R1b-S21 (also known as U106) haplotype of Y-chromosome

Nitpick: I think "haplogroup" is preferred here over "haplotype." The latter doesn't mean deep clade (i.e., clade with recent MRCA) but rather distinguishes clades derived from STR markers rather than haplogroups defined by SNPs. (Of course haplogroup can be guessed from haplotype.)
 
Swammerdami said:
Remember: the L11 Y-chromosome started from a single "royal family," not mass migration.

How do we know it? That could as well be a "tribe", not a single "royal family".

BTW I have found alternative TMRCA (or age?) estimates - in thousand years:

R1b-M269 7.5 (7.0-8.1)
R1b-L23 7.2 (6.7-7.7)
R1b-Z2103 6.4 (5.9-6.9)
R1b-L51 6.7 (6.2-7.2)
R1b-L11 5.7 (5.2-6.2)
R1b-P312 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1b-U106 5.5 (5.0-6.0)

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7) ------------ and according to Underhill: (4.8-6.8)
R1a-CTS4385 5.8 (5.3-6.3)
R1a-L664 4.8 (4.3-5.2)
R1a-Z645 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1a-Z93 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
R1a-Z282 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
 
More-or-less by definition there was a line of males each of whom was the agnatic ancestor of the entire R-L11 "tribe." The final male in this series had two sons, one ancestral to the P312 tribe, the other ancestral to U106. Thus there really were three specific men -- a father and two of his sons -- defining a "royal family", just as Denmark's King Christiaan III (1503-1559) had two sons, Frederik and Johan, who were agnatic ancestors of two royal Danish dynasties. Unlike Christiaan, Frederik and Johan we'll never know the names of the man (L11 MRCA) and his two sons (P312-"Adam" and U106-"Adam"), but they surely existed, and existed in some specific place and time, perhaps Corded Ware circa 3000 BC, or perhaps Yamna or the Aegean several centuries before 3000. As more and more genetic evidence accumulates the time-and-place of this family should be narrowed down.

Within a few generations, this trio had fanned-out into a large "royal family" whose members were ancestral to the various subclades of U106 and P312.

As a separate event, these "royal chiefs" separated, traveling different directions, and sowing their seeds throughout Western Europe. This fanout might have occurred centuries after the time of L11 MRCA, but I think it's more probable the geographic fanout began relatively soon after the births of P312-"Adam" and U106-"Adam".
 
The final male in this series had two sons, one ancestral to the P312 tribe, the other ancestral to U106.

How do we know that they were both sons of the same man and that they both lived exactly at the same time? We don't (or do we?). What we know is that they lived within few centuries from each other (but not necessarily as parts of the same generation) and had a common direct male ancestor, but not necessarily their father. IMO these age estimates are not accurate enough to prove that they were brothers.

Within a few generations, this trio had fanned-out into a large "royal family" whose members were ancestral to the various subclades of U106 and P312.

Perhaps not within a few generations, but rather within a dozen or even more generations.

Which makes a difference.
 
It's a simple matter of family tree definitions. Perhaps I and my grand-nephew (George III) are considered the founders of two dynasties, because George's father (George II) and grandfather (George I) died early (or absconded to an island never to be heard from again), but Georges I and II did exist. If you define "P312-Adam" to be the grand-nephew of "U106-Adam", what about P312-Adam's grandfather? That there were two brothers ancestral to the two lines is a simple fact intrinsic to genealogy.
 
More-or-less by definition there was a line of males each of whom was the agnatic ancestor of the entire R-L11 "tribe." The final male in this series had two sons, one ancestral to the P312 tribe, the other ancestral to U106.

... we'll never know the names of the man (L11 MRCA) and his two sons (P312-"Adam" and U106-"Adam"),

but they surely existed, and existed in some specific place and time, perhaps Corded Ware circa 3000 BC, or perhaps Yamna or the Aegean several centuries before 3000. As more and more genetic evidence accumulates the time-and-place of this family should be narrowed down.

Within a few generations, this trio had fanned-out into a large "royal family" whose members were ancestral to the various subclades of U106 and P312.

As a separate event, these "royal chiefs" separated, traveling different directions, and sowing their seeds throughout Western Europe. This fanout might have occurred centuries after the time of L11 MRCA, but I think it's more probable the geographic fanout began relatively soon after the births of P312-"Adam" and U106-"Adam".

I see the possible confusion. From the man I call "P312-Adam" to the P312-MRCA is a delay of perhaps 300 years,about 11 or 12 generations. (The link shows "R-P312 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp".) The actual mutation P312 could have occurred at any of those 11 generations -- precisely which is irrelevant (at least until a new SNP discovery divides P312* further). Thus the actual P312 mutation might have occurred in P312-Adam's son, or grandson, or ... gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt-gt grandson.

That P312-Adam is the son of L151-MRCA is seen in that the "formed date" of R-P312 is the same as the TMRCA of its immediate parent, and so on as shown at the link. E.g., "R-L151 formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp." (Strictly L151-MRCA should be shown 27 years earlier than R-P312-"Adam", which is the son of L151-MRCA.)
 
I want to thank forum participants, especially Domen, for encouraging me to take a closer leak at the Bell Beaker culture, probably ancestral to the proto-Celtic speakers. I found especially useful the Beaker propagation map at Wikipedia, which clearly shows relevant one-way migrations alluded to above, and (though some of its conclusions seem doubtful) pages 141ff in Peer polity interaction and socio-political change.

It appears that the L151-->P312 origin coincided exactly with the spread of Bell Beaker from an upper-Rhine culture sibling to Corded Ware, south and west to Iberia, with very nearly the 3000-2700 BC timeframe suggested at yfull.com. In this construction, genetic and archaeological findings fit together like hand and glove.
 
Baile Atha Cliath and Caerdydd, Celtic town names. They sure differ from the modern Dublin and Cardiff names the Germanic Anglo Saxons gave them.
The history of the British Isles and it's people is a very interesting one indeed.
 
Those are both Anglicised Celtic names, actually. "Dublin" is an Anglicisation of the Middle Irish "Dubhlind", which means "the black pool"- the official Irish name of "Baile Átha Cliath" is just a traditional alternative, historical sources use both- and both "Cardiff" and "Caerdydd" derive from the Middle Welsh "Caerdyf".
 
From this British genetic study it appears that Anglo-Saxons to a large extent assimilated previous Romano-Briton populations, rather than completely exterminating them. The story could be similar with Germans and Slavic populations in what is now East Germany and beyond. My current avatar shows a 16th century bas-relief from a town hall in Großbrembach (near Weimar), Thuringia. It shows two people - a Slav (left, with a moustache) and a German (right) - under one hat, which commemorates the 16th century merger of two towns - Slavic Windischenbrembach and German Brembach - into one, Großbrembach.

Here is an interesting article (in English):

Roman Zaroff, "Germanisation of the land between the Elbe-Saale and the Oder river. Colonisation or assimilation?":

http://luzicane.narod.ru/RZaroff.html

Too bad that nobody in Germany seems interested in a similar genetic study to this British study.

What is important is of course to examine where did grandparents of each person live, just like British scholars did in their study. Knowing where did grandparents of people live allows scientists to research the genetic structure of populations prior to the population movements of the 20th century.

================================

However, life for Celts (Britons) under Anglo-Saxon rule as well as for Slavs under German rule was not a bed of roses.

Anglo-Saxon ethnic laws did discriminate against ethnic Celts (Britons) - see for example private law of the Kingdom of Wessex.

Also laws in the Holy Roman Empire did discriminate against ethnic Slavs - the Sachsenspiegel being just one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenspiegel

 

Attachments

  • Sachsenspiegel.jpg
    Sachsenspiegel.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 883
The poor Slavic guy, always on the outside looking in.
Wonder why nobody in Germany seems interested in such genetic studies, dear Domen.
Is this because Germans consider themselves superior to Slavs?
Welsh and Cornwall Britons were treated worse than Anglo Saxons?
Was this the reality after the conquest of Wales? (and Cornwall)
 
Welsh and Cornwall Britons were treated worse than Anglo Saxons?

Welsh & Cornish Britons were independent at that time, living in their own realms, so they weren't under Anglo-Saxon rule. I was talking about Britons living in areas conquered by Anglo-Saxons, like the kingdom of Wessex. But after the final subjugation of Wales discrimination applied to Welsh people too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_...he_Black_Death_and_Glynd.C5.B5r.27s_rebellion

As a response to Glyndŵr's rebellion, the English parliament passed the Penal Laws in 1402. These prohibited the Welsh from carrying arms, from holding office and from dwelling in fortified towns. These prohibitions also applied to Englishmen who married Welsh women.

As for the kingdom fo Wessex - in private law of that kingdom values of weregild were different for Britons and Saxons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

If an Anglo-Saxon killed a Romano-Briton noble, he had to pay 600 schillings.
If a Romano-Briton killed an Anglo-Saxon noble, he had to pay 1200 schillings.

If an Anglo-Saxon killed a Romano-Briton free commoner, he had to pay 120 schillings.
If a Romano-Briton killed an Anglo-Saxon free commoner, he had to pay 200 schillings.

So value of a human in the kingdom of Wessex was different depending on class / estate and ethnicity of each person.

1 Saxon noble = 2 Briton nobles = 6 Saxon commoners = 10 Briton commoners

=================

Here another scene from Sachsenspiegel - this time a for-Slavs-only court:



Spoiler :
 

Attachments

  • Sachsespiegel Slavs.png
    Sachsespiegel Slavs.png
    413.7 KB · Views: 190
Top Bottom