Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England

Abstract

The role of migration in the Anglo-Saxon transition in England remains controversial. Archaeological and historical evidence is inconclusive, but current estimates of the contribution of migrants to the English population range from less than 10 000 to as many as 200 000. In contrast, recent studies based on Y-chromosome variation posit a considerably higher contribution to the modern English gene pool (50-100%). Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. It is likely that such a disadvantage would lead to differential reproductive success. We examine the effect of differential reproductive success, coupled with limited intermarriage between distinct ethnic groups, on the spread of genetic variants. Computer simulations indicate that a social structure limiting intermarriage between indigenous Britons and an initially small Anglo-Saxon immigrant population provide a plausible explanation of the high degree of Continental male-line ancestry in England.

Integration Versus Apartheid in Post-Roman Britain: A Response to Thomas et al. (2008)

“…In Pattison (2008), I critiqued three of these four arguments and, by applying a feasible alternative historical population model for Britain, showed that the invention of such a geographically and temporally extensive apartheid-like system among all warring disparate AngloSaxon kingdoms was not necessary. I showed that a long-term low-level of immigration from northwest Europe to Britain during the last two or more millennia had a cumulative effect that was greater than that predicted by Thomas et al (2006). My estimates of the percentage of people of preRoman indigenous descent in Britain in 1950 (64%) compared favorably with the geographicallyweighted mean value for all Britain estimated by Capelli et al (59%).…”

“…In addition, my estimates of the net percentage of immigrants and their descendants for the entire early AngloSaxon period (c.6.2%) compared favorably with Oppenheimer"s (2006) estimates for England (5.5%) and for all of Britain (3.8%). My corresponding estimated number of immigrants that arrived during this period was c.175,000, which is in the range commonly assumed for the elite replacement theory, and also within the range mentioned by Thomas et al (2006). Thus, with these agreements, I concluded that the assumption of a prolonged extensive apartheid-like system was not required to reconcile Capelli et al"s genetic results with the archaeological evidence from the early AngloSaxon period.…”

“…I considered this value as conservative because it did not account for possible earlier Germanic DNA input into Britain, such as from Neolithic immigrants from northwest Europe. Interesting, Thomas et al (2008) ignored my comment that "according to Oppenheimer"s (2006) interpretation of the same genetic evidence [as used by Thomas et al 2006, Pre-print version. Visit http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/ after 1 December 2011 to acquire final version.…”

“…Thomas et al (2006) modeled that suggestion using computer simulation of differential reproductive success with limited intermarriage between distinct ethnic groups on the spread of genetic variants, and found that it was necessary for all Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to impose apartheid-like systems for up to 15 generations (c.400 yrs) in order to account for the different estimates. Together with accepting certain historical data, Thomas et al concluded that the Germanic genetic input into Britain was only significant during the early Anglo-Saxon period (c.450 -c.850).…”

18 Europe and western Asia: genetics and population history

“…Two genetic studies using Y-chromosome data and population genetic modeling concluded that the AngloSaxon contribution to the English gene pool was greater than 50 percent (Weale et al 2002;Capelli et al 2003), an estimate that has proved unpalatable for many archaeologists. Subsequent computer simulations, in combination with historical evidence, indicate that social structure, wealth differentials, and a degree of reproductive isolation between Anglo-Saxons and native Britons could explain this rather high male-line contribution, commencing with a less than 10 percent initial contribution during the migration phase itself (Thomas et al 2006).…”