Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Myths of British ancestry

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 22nd September 2006

  There's a new article on this popular topic in the latest issue of Prospect magazine.
  
  Opening paragraph:
  
  Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands
  
  Read it all at:
  
  

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Friday, 22nd September 2006

  Whatever about the purity of the various groups in the British Isles in the past it is all mixed up now for sure.
  
  My own ancestors are a mixture of English, Irish and Scottish. So what does that make me?! Most of the people I know are of mixed ancestry also.
  
  I've been watching 'Who Do You Think You Are?' and wasn'treally surprised to learn that people are not genetically English or African. Appearances, like myths, are deceiving.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 22nd September 2006

  You sure they weren't bras, teddys or some other form of womens underwear?
  
  I'm pretty certain that that only accounts for one particular event as there is aat least another 20 to 40 percent of genetic affinity with Near eastern populations, give us this day our daily bread and all that.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Friday, 22nd September 2006

  The genetic distribution in the Uk and Ireland is complex and varies between regions.
  There was an influx of people from the Iberian and Franco glacial refugia after the Younger Dryas [postcirca 9650 BCE].Many males in rural Ireland, Cornwall,and coastal Wales can trace their ancestory to the initial influx of migrants.This does not apply to the females.The Neolithic imprint on Uk genetics is most pronounced on the east coast and diminishes in frequency westward. More recently the Danes made a substantial contribution to English genes in the old Dane Geld lands.The Anglosaxon genes are difficult to distinguish from the Danes.The Celts from central Europe probably left some traces of their presence around Yorkshire etc,but the DNA is difficult to recognize [not enough samples].The Norse made a significant contribution to the populations of the Shetlands and Orkneys,which diminishes in frequency southward towards Ireland.However there are a few Norse Y chromosome [male] concentrations along the west coast of the UK,which can "probably" be credited to the Viking invasions.
  The genetic history of Ireland and the UK is extremely complex and highly variable.We need a lot more samples.Broad generalizations can be deceiving.Females from the Western Isles of Scotland made a significant contribution to the Iceland gene pool.They accompanied their Norse partners,when Iceland was colonized.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 23rd September 2006

  Henvell,
  
  was it you, or Heuvel or Stoggler, who bought the Dutch language book I recommended about the language border between the Celts and the Germanics?
  
  That said, I have always difficulties with genetics, language and cultures. I made already many threads on these boards during the last four years about that and took part in discussions about that subject. I pointed to the in my opinion many inconsistencies in some theories.
  
  As now the article from the Byzantine Emperor. Some doubts to the well-established theory of the Halstatt centre and the La Tène culture? The name itself says it "culture"! If the Celtic culture! was spread allover Europe even till the nowadays Turkey from 500 BC till 600AD couldn't that be without the genetic fingerprints, while the people, who originated this culture, moved not always physically along the paths of their culture? BTW. I thought that the Belgae spoke a kind of Celtic language?
  
  I had the same difficulties (and perhaps you took also part) in the long-winding, Dark-Kitten-Kinghob style, discussion about the Anglo-Saxon invasions. I said the same, you don't need the physical replacement of the original people by Anglo-Saxons to make the original people Anglo-Saxon, because language and culture aren't always linked to genetic fingerprints.
  
  I said also that some "contributors" remember me about the "Blut und Boden" theories of the Nazis. I made the example of the Indian, who has perfectly adopted from the early childhood to the British (smile) culture and language and let's say even to the way of thinking of a Western Style Englishman. I said for me was it then an Englishman and it doesn't matter if he has a genetic-indian-subcontinent fingerprint. I said also that whatever his close comparison to the English style of life was, he would always be seen as an Indian because of his physiognomy, especially if he is from the darker South of India.
  
  I made yesterday again some research for Isaac about Amos Elon and his book: "The Pity of It All: German Jews before Hitler". I call it a drama. It didn't matter that the Jewish intelligentia adopted completely the German way of life and the German culture and even let there religion and conversed to Protestantism, after all they were still considered as Jews, because of their physiognomy and their familytree. What a luck that the Nazi's didn't know yet about DNA and all that stuff.
  
  Rant over and warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 23rd September 2006

  lol,
  
  I read again the Prospect article with your comments. As always with esteem.
  
  I think that I made that point in one of the Anglo-Saxon medleys. The difficulty to discern among the various migrations because "we" in the whole Europe have that high Near-Eastern background? Is it that what you mean?
  
  "Geef ons heden ons dagelijks brood en vergeef ons onze zonden..." (Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins...and all that) Lol, you don't drag us in another row with those easy-touched Near-Easterns. Haven't we enough already with one pope?
  
  BTW: Those bras, teddys and women's underwear are that the mitochondrial (or something like that) traces?
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  PS: Do the scientists genetic research for the pattern of migration of people (in the broad sense of the word) as a science for the better understanding how life of all people on earth evoluated during history or is it to be used in some battles about territorial and etnic drivel?

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 29th September 2006

  Paul, I think the prospects article was trying to suggest there is a much longer history for population in the british Isles than simply we are Celts or Anglo Saxons. The initial poster assumed that the fact the Basques are mentioned as having close affinity with the populations that seem to repopulated the British Isles abvout twelve thousand years ago means we are all Basques. The Prospects article certainly sdoes not go as far as to state that this is the case.
  
  There seem to be all sorts of reasons to look at the genetic history of various nations although more often than not the "volkish" search for the original population and suggesting this infers one group precedence over another appears to be more the result of the interpreatation of such studies. Remember Macadonka and her Storm front affiliated site.
  
  Incidentally, touchy Near Easterners, never really bothered me as I speak so fast they can't catch what I'm saying. Besides which it doesn't seem any different to many of the Anglo Saxon speakers so far as I can tell as not a day seems to go by without someone moaning about Brit bashing or anti-Americanism and so forth. I'm surprised they've not set up their own anti defamation organistion the way some people get vexed about the whole issue.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd October 2006

  lol,
  
  thank you very much for your thoughtfull reply especially the two first paragraphs.
  
  Yes some anti defamation organisation...nowadays all kind of people get "vexed"...
  
  I was seeking for examples, but have to pay attention for "blackboards" and all that...
  
  Some lesbian ladies are that vexed by the insinuations of the "rude" other world that they start manifestations disturbing the squares of the big cities in flocks of nude women.
  
  Some Flemish groups into the however decentralized Belgium are vexed because their famous Flemish Lion is defamed by some cartoons. The Walloons as reaction to the Flemish boasting as if the Flemings are the "Herrenvolk" in Belgium, find that the reputation of their "Coq Wallon" (Walloon cock) is defamed by some denigrating Flemish slogans. So the Flemings burst into the famous "palais de la justice" (palace of justice?) in Brussels under the big dome to manifest their grievances, but the Walloons have the same idea...
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Saturday, 7th October 2006

  The Hallstatt culture included elements of the Catacomb cullure from the Pontic Steppe and the Urnfield field migrants from the east.Both of these people integrated with the local population.Genetic studies indicate that the Hallstatt populace was comprised of numerous "tribes".Many authors have classified the Hallstatt culture as Celtic [ie;B Cuncliffe,1997].
  The residents of Scotland,Wales,Ireland,Cornwall,
  and Brittany spoke Celtic languages.Celtic place names and inscriptions are common in these lands,but are rare in in England and east of the Rhine River.They are found in southern France and parts of the Iberian Peninsula,but are minimal on Basque lands. There are few Celtic inscriptions and place names associated with the Hallstatt and La Tene cultural sites.
  We are dealing with two distinct entities that had
  some common and some different genetic lineages. Both have genes that can be traced to the Neolithic migrations from the Near East.However the western populations have a strong genetic link to the people,who expanded from the Iberian Peninsula and southern France after the Younger Dyras.This is minimal among most of the Hallstatt people,whose genes were diluted by numerous,
  sporadic migrations from the Pontic Steppe.We need a lot more DNA samples before the above relations can be resolved.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  I think Oppenheimer is treying to get at the fact that there was a split in the UK before the Roman withdrawl. i.e. that there were differences between the west of the midlands, the welsh & irish operating on communications and link with an atlantic community if you like, with the basques of western france and iberia, whilst the north and east of the island were more linked to the continent.
  
  Thus there was already the germanic/"celtic" split before the romans even invaded.
  
  The Anglo Saxons invasion could thus being that of an elite with the east of the country already having a strong germanic element anyway.
  
  This link states it a little better:
  
  

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  Henvell,
  
  thank you for the reply although it seems to react to my less sophisticated thoughts to lol of message 8.
  
  I had a look again to John Haywood's the Cassell Atlas of the world. I read also a lot about this question in other books.
  
  As I read it and see the maps and the timetabels I still stick to th "old" concepts of the history writing as I understand it.
  
  With the first move around 1000BC the Urnfield culture was spread over the whole western Europe till Spain. IMO they were all Urnfield culture people and again IMO it wasn't important to what genetic source they belonged?
  
  The same with the second wave (800-500BC) the Halstatt culture till France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium the Netherlands and the South of England. Again IMO they were all people belonging to the Halstatt culture and as such one entity independent from their genetic footprint.
  
  Then the La Tène culture about 450BC spread in a short time to Miidle and Western Europe and reached in 400 the British Isles. Again the same comment as before.
  
  You can follow all this with the artifacts and the timetables IMO. Also the spread of the oppida in the second century BC as testimonies of the spread of the Celtic culture.
  The Celtic languages you mentioned are the status of about 6OO AD?
  
  Why is the genetic link from Southern France and the Iberian peninsula important in relation with the Celts? As I understand it it are the spread of the several cultures and the people adhering to those "cultures", which give the Celtic or whatever culture the specificity to these people and not this or that genetic fingerprint?
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Tuesday, 10th October 2006

  The confusion can probably be reduced by treating Celtic solely as Celtic dialects [ie;the Welsh speak a Celtic dialect,but the Welsh are not Celts].Each of the Celtic speaking populations had their own seperate culture that had affinities with others[ie;
  the people of the Hallstatt culture spoke a Celtic dialect,but are not Celts].
  Spainish and French Celtic linguists had DNA closer to Britain than to to the Hallstatt,speaking Celts.
  Not significant--just a comment that the scribe made.Hope this reduces the confusion.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 10th October 2006

  Henvell,
  
  the confusion is even greater...big smile.
  
  I did some research and found some websites to comment my thoughts:
  
  
  
  As I understand you you are now restricting to languages? In my opinion and as I understand it, you had in the third century the apogee of expansion of the "culture" of the Celts in Europe?
  
  And with "Celts" I understand a common culture backed by the findings of artifacts, some remaining of language roots from that time and those places, some written allusions by other people like the Greeks and the Romans.
  
  And if that culture as in the traditional or not-traditional view is migrated by physical persons or by peer relation is irrelevant at least IMO (smile). It can be that there were local variations in this culture, but as I see it there is a common factor, important enough to call them all Celts?
  
  "each of the Celtic speaking populations (at one and the same time in history?) had there own separate culture" Was language not but only one aspect of their culture? Was there between all those separate Celtic communities not one common culture at one time in history?
  
  In confusion and with warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Wednesday, 11th October 2006

  Each of the Celtic speaking regions had their own culture,which varied with time as they intereacted with each other.Some were very similar [ie;Cornwall,Wales and Brittany].The Halstatt culture initially was quite different from that of Ireland.As time progressed both populations assimilated aspects of the others culture via trade links and travel.
  Although they spoke celtic dialects they had different genetic lineages.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 13th October 2006

  Re: Message 12.
  
  Henvell,
  
  yes the "confusion" starts while IMO when one discuss the "Celts", from the one side they think about languages and the other about culture or another of the two together.
  
  I found one approach as: Celts seems to be peoples in Europe using the Celtic languages and people not using Celtic languages but where Celtic art are found in archaeological evidence.
  
  "I" (smile) stick to the definition of Celts:
  
  The peoples of prehistoric and early historic Europe, who shared common cultural treats, which are thought to have originated in the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures.
  
  The possible Proto-Celtic language only be formed in the early first millenium BC. Between 800 and 500 BC the Halstatt culture seems to have spread in France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium and the South of Britain. The Proto-Celtic seems till 500 BC already to have differentiated in several dialects.
  
  If you speak of "each of the Celtic speaking populations had their own separate culture", do you mean then that these cultures were already separated from the main broader common culture and language, by the local influences? Or the (to speak (it's actuality, smile)in terms of genocide or by peer propagation) adaptation of the incoming general common Celt culture by different local people in different local ways? With other words the cultures and languages differ because they are local adaptations from the common one?
  
  For me, as I already said, DNA patterns have only value, because they seem to confirm the slowly adaptation by the locals of the common culture by peer propagation, instead of the "bloody" "genocide" (smile) theories from before?
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 13th October 2006

  Re: Message 14.
  
  Henvell,
  
  as I explained in my reply to message 12, when you say: "the Hallstatt culture initially was quite different from that of Ireland" I think than in my reasonement about Ireland as another culture as the Celtic one (which one?) and by peer propagation as you said "via trade links and travel" came to a "Celticized culture"?
  
  "They had different genetic lineages" Of course, that's no problem, while the culture came over via trade and travel and perhaps some slight physical migration?
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 17th November 2006

  My own ancestors are a mixture of English, Irish and Scottish. So what does that make me?Β 
  
  Try using the 'Duck Criteria':
  
  'If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, paddles like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck - then what is it?'.

  Link to this forum: Myths of British ancestry

  Report message17

Back to top