Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Face sof Britain
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by anteos (U4228723) on Friday, 27th April 2007
Hi
I was wondering if anyone had been watching the series on C4. I've found it quite interesting, it has an enthusiastic presenter. But I was concerned about the 'dumbing down' of the science.
The term 'celt' crept in very early on in the program and has stuck. They've made a claim of a genetic basis for this, is this true? I thought the term covered a diseparate group of people only linked by technology (La Tene) and culture and not race?
At one point they claimed that the hunter gatherers who colonised Britain became 'celts'. And later in that the indigenous people of Britain were pushed west by the invading groups? I thought that the original settlers of the uk were different to the people of northern europe? Later on in the series they differentiate between anglo saxon and celt. I thought that the 'celts' and saxons lived on the same area of Germany by separated by a 1000 years?
They then tried to find out if Welsh people were 'celtic'. But they picked a part of Wales which has historically seen lots of migration. Surely a better test would have been further north where the population was more stable. It would be like trying to find a British gene in London?
The results of the tests are presented as x times more celtic than anglo saxon. Some people where 1.5 - 2 times more 'celtic' and they seemed pleased. But one person was 7x, was he a super celt? Or did he have more genetic markers?
Its quite an interesting program, but I'd liked to have seen a more indepth look at the science and methodology. -
Message 2
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Friday, 27th April 2007
Hi Anteos,
The Irish ‘Scholar Revolutionary’, Eoin MacNeill, of Sinn Féin, 1916 Rebellion and Boundary Commission fame [ ] frequently wrote about the concept of the ‘Celtic race’. MacNeill was Professor of Early & Medieval Irish History at UCD and in 1919 said the following:
We hear and read of the Latin races, the Anglo-Saxon race, the Celtic race… If these phrases had any value in clear thinking they would imply that it is possible to distinguish a section of mankind, which by its inherited physical characteristics, differs notably from the rest of mankind. … There is no Celtic race… The term Celtic is indicative of language, not race… [Phases of Irish History (1919)]Â
He goes on to refer to the Classical writers who wrote about the peoples of northern Europe. Tacitus described the Germans in his De Moribus Germanorum as follows:
Their physical aspect, even in so numerous a population, is the same for all of them: fierce blue eyes, reddish hair, bodies of great size and powerful only in attack. [Phases of Irish History (1919)]Â
He makes the point that what Tacitus here says of the Germans is the same as that which Livy and Florus say of the Gauls. In fact, he says, all of these classical writers describe the Germans and Gauls as similar to each other and what they are doing, in fact, is focusing on the DIFFERENCES to be found between the peoples of northern Europe and those of Mediterranean.
MacNeill goes on to say:
If then, by the name Celts we cannot properly understand a distinct race, what are we to understand by it? By what criterion do we recognize any ancient population to have been Celts? The answer is undoubted – every ancient people that is known to have spoken any Celtic language is said to be a Celtic people. … We give the name Celts to the Irish and the Britons because we know that the ancient language of each of these people is a Celtic language.Â
MacNeill was arguing against Victorian notions of race and ‘social Darwinianism’, the kind of notions that made Englishmen arrogant to the Irish. They were also the kind of ideas that informed the eugenic movement (Francis Galton, etc.) that led ultimately to Hitler and the concept of a pure Aryan race.
I think the Â鶹ԼÅÄ and people in certain academic quarters should be more careful in their use of racial and ethnic terms and should explain at length what exactly THEY mean by them.
The fact that this programme categorizes its volunteers as ‘so many more times likely to be one thing as opposed to another’ means what exactly? Is it not the case that one’s DNA profile is more to do with geography than ethnicity. If you are more likely to be Celtic your DNA profile fits better with those of the people in western Britain. If it is more likely Anglo-Saxon it sits better with those of the people of eastern Britain or north central Europe. So what!
If geneticists have discovered Celtic genes then I would be delighted. I’m sure I will have them in my make-up. But if it turned out that I don’t, what difference does it make? I’m sure the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ members of this board will think the same as I do and agree with me! -
Message 3
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Friday, 27th April 2007
PS
The reason I quote MacNeill so much is simple.
It is to show that nearly one hundred years ago, at a time when many were enthralled by racist ideas and at a time when Irishmen were at their most gung-ho about their heritage and culture there were Irish academics who were clear and level-headed about their ethnicity and these issues.
There have been many academics and others since then, and there are an increasing number today, who should take a leaf out of MacNeills book. -
Message 4
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Friday, 27th April 2007
‘social Darwinianism’??????
even 'social Darwinism'!!! -
Message 5
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 6
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Friday, 27th April 2007
Mick mac,
These writers seem to explain everything and tell you nothing, much the same as physicists tell you everything and explain nothing.
-
Message 7
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Saturday, 28th April 2007
I was wondering if anyone had been watching the series on C4Â
Who with any sense watches television?
It tries to make you believe bad things. -
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 7th May 2007
The term 'celt' crept in very early on in the program and has stuck. They've made a claim of a genetic basis for this, is this true? I thought the term covered a diseparate group of people only linked by technology (La Tene) and culture and not race?
At one point they claimed that the hunter gatherers who colonised Britain became 'celts'. And later in that the indigenous people of Britain were pushed west by the invading groups? I thought that the original settlers of the uk were different to the people of northern europe? Later on in the series they differentiate between anglo saxon and celt. I thought that the 'celts' and saxons lived on the same area of Germany by separated by a 1000 years?Â
It was just so much contrived ethnology coupled with pat-a-cake history anteos.
During the programs, Neil Oliver, the presenter, kept repeating the canard that 'the Celts were the original inhabitants of Britain'.
He then went on to ask 'just how English are the English - or in other word just how Anglo-Saxon are they?'. This was as though being 'Anglo-Saxon' was some kind of pre-requisite to being English. He then contradicted himself later by saying such things as 'the Danish vikings were genetically identical to the Anglo-Saxons'.
There are, of course, many English people of Celtic descent just as there are many English people of Anglo-Saxon descent etc.
Thankfully Victorian-style ethnologists like Oliver, with their obsession with the myth of 'Anglo-Saxon militarism and brutality' versus 'Celtic high-culture and victimhood', are on their way out. They're drowning in a tide of modern science and public experience. Programs like Channel 4's Face of Britain are essentially on the wrong side of history.
I think the Â鶹ԼÅÄ and people in certain academic quarters should be more careful in their use of racial and ethnic terms and should explain at length what exactly THEY mean by them.
The fact that this programme categorizes its volunteers as ‘so many more times likely to be one thing as opposed to another’ means what exactly? Is it not the case that one’s DNA profile is more to do with geography than ethnicity. If you are more likely to be Celtic your DNA profile fits better with those of the people in western Britain. If it is more likely Anglo-Saxon it sits better with those of the people of eastern Britain or north central Europe. So what!
If geneticists have discovered Celtic genes then I would be delighted. I’m sure I will have them in my make-up. But if it turned out that I don’t, what difference does it make? I’m sure the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ members of this board will think the same as I do and agree with me!Â
Good points Mick_mac. It was also unscientific. Sir Walter Bodmer, the geneticist featured in the program, could only come up with such useless vagueries as 'there's a 75% chance that so-and-so might be of Anglo-Saxon descent as opposed to being of Celtic descent'. It was all so vague and non-commital.
Neil Oliver also contradicted himself here. He first said that there was 'no slaughter of the Celts by the Anglo-Saxons'. And then (without providing any proof to substantiate his assertion) he later said 'but there was no intermingling between the Anglo-Saxons and the Celts. The Celts were driven out wholesale to the west - they were purged'. This despite that fact the the program had categorically been unable to prove if any of the volunteer cases was either 100% Anglo-Saxon or 100% Celtic.
Neil Oliver was also true to form in his dealings with the woman from Orkney. She said that her family name was of Norse origin and she believed that her family were descended from Norse vikings. He replied with something along the lines of: 'How can you be proud of being associated with those pirates and murderers - those baddies?'. He's a walking caricature of a 1970s-style Celtomaniac. 'Celtic = Good! Nordic = Bad! Ra! Ra! Ra!'.
He and Sir Walter Bodmer then interpreted the genetic history of Orkney in the most cliched and melodramatic way possible. 'The Norse vikings probably slaughtered all the Celtic men and raped the Celtic women'.
The possibility that the vikings were, perhaps, wealthy traders and technologically advanced carpenters and boat-builders and skilled and innovative farmers and fisherman and could, therefore, by virtue of these positive characteristics, have attracted wives to themselves, from among the various British tribes with which they traded, does not seem to have occured to them.
Never mind that. Lazy, melodramatic interpretations of history, of course, make better television. Not to mention the fact that this interpretation also re-inforces Oliver's Celtomaniac view of history in which the Nordic peoples are militaristic brutes while the Celts are their cultured victims.
Bodmer should stick to genetics and Oliver should stick to archaeology because their venture into the human history of the British Isles has been woeful. -
Message 9
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Monday, 7th May 2007
Mon, 07 May 2007 18:50 GMT, in reply to Vizzer aka U_numbers in message 8
im glad i didnt see it i would have been spitting!
'just how English are the English - or in other word just how Anglo-Saxon are they?'Â
not very;
study on the Y chromosome, so that cuts out the 'kill or drive off the men and enslave the women' argument in england at any rate.
The possibility that the vikings were, perhaps, wealthy traders and technologically advanced carpenters and boat-builders and skilled and innovative farmers and fisherman and could, therefore, by virtue of these positive characteristics, have attracted wives to themselves, from among the various British tribes with which they traded, does not seem to have occured to them.Â
oooh capable big strong hairy norsemen... i'd go for it mmmm
(i may be a bit biased, east coast blue eyed ginger/blond beserker myself)
besides, orkney was *settled* by the norsemen, not celts! they dont wear the kilt there. -
Message 10
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
He wasn't contradicting himself though - he set out the conflicting interpretations of AS settlement in Britain at the time.
Once the results of the survey came through in East Anglia, he made his comments that the Anglo Saxons settled and largely did not intergrate with the Britons, in this part of Britain.
It was very simplified, but it was for general consumption. Basically there is a cline from a more germanic east and a "celtic" west. Hence the 51% celtic - 49% germanic split in Oxford. -
Message 11
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Tue, 08 May 2007 14:01 GMT, in reply to mykingdomforanus in message 10
yes, but the 'kill the men and rape the women' ideas annoy me. if you settle, have a good farm, marry the girl from the farm next door, how many generations does it take to cross a small country like this?
(i'm biased, i dont want to think i'm a great great etc. grandchild of rape) -
Message 12
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Well yes, another explanation ss that the littoral coastal areas in the east were fairly deserted, allowing an intial largely homogenous AS settlement. It doesn't have to mean that people were destroyed.
Naturally the expansion westward thus created a gradual merger of the two groups of peoples, increasingly under AS control. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Re: message 2,3,4.
Mick_mac,
what a delight to have you as contributor to these boards.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Re: Message 8.
Vizzer,
thank you for this message too.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 15
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Tue, 08 May 2007 19:14 GMT, in reply to mykingdomforanus in message 12
another explanation ss that the littoral coastal areas in the east were fairly deserted,Â
i seriously doubt that! rich wetlands, georgeous soil, easy acess...prime real estate. -
Message 16
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
if the area was under attack and the roman garrison gone its quite feasable that many of the local would run south and west i.e. to the major population centers and the more heavily fortified lands (colchester/london and chester area respectively)
-
Message 17
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Tue, 08 May 2007 20:29 GMT, in reply to marduk-slayer of tiamat in message 16
thats a very townie, modern way of thinking, why would they 'run for town' when all they needed was in the marshes? who needs 'roman protection'? from what exactly? -
Message 18
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
err....i was under the impression that the whole roman west was under attack-which would logically cause civvies to run.
and whilst yes-the AS' by no means killed all the romano british-they wont have landed, paid import tax on their goods and marched to the nearest immigration office would they?? they where raiders primarily from what i understand. raiders raid things.
and as for th marshes=why would someone run to a place thatll result in your family dting of plague? specially with so much of it going round already? -
Message 19
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Tue, 08 May 2007 20:40 GMT, in reply to marduk-slayer of tiamat in message 18
ague (malaria) more of a problem than plague, but marshes give a very good living and are easy to defend, especially against strangers. -
Message 20
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
well then praps they all went to the marshes and the saxons took the good land then either kept them off it or more likely the indigenous population integrated with the saxons...
-
Message 21
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
If the Army were composed wholly of Ghurkas now and decided to take over, we'd have about the same situation as in the Fifth Century. There can't have been that many Germans - the cost of the Roman army was the probable reason we kicked them out, though German boat people would doubtless have been a bit cheaper. Give it a couple of hundred years and much of Britain would find itself be speaking whatever Ghurkas speak, as happened then with the mercenaries' German. How would you get four million people into marshes anyway? They'd be standing on one another's heads!
-
Message 22
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
The survey you post does not contradict the large scale settlement of the AS into eastern Britain. Genetic analysis is a evolving subject with more detailed analysis coming through all the time.
Why are you posting an old survey on a thread that is talking about the results of a 2007 survey?
If you look at the geological records - sea levels were rising during this period - there were more Scilly Isles for example.
Pressures from rising sea levels and migration westward from peoples from the steppes of Eastern Europe is a contributing factor to the saxons looking to leave their lands.
The same rising sea levels would have covered a lot more of the rich fertile land we have today in East Anglia.
Anyway Rhys you know very well it wasn't 4 milliion people but 100,000 or so at the most over a lengthy period. -
Message 23
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
'Anyway Rhys you know very well it wasn't 4 milliion people but 100,000 or so at the most over a lengthy period.'
Cross-purposes? 100,000 Germans, 4 million British was my meaning. The genetics business is still being argued about, but I find Oppenheimer most convincing of what I've read so far. -
Message 24
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
Hi Gerda,
thats a very townie, modern way of thinking, why would they 'run for town' when all they needed was in the marshes?Â
Everything you need in a swampy marsh? Kinda reminds me of an ancient English king who said these words of wisdom to his son...
Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get lad: the strongest castle in these islands.Â
Cheers,
RF -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
"One day lad, all this will be yours"
"What, the curtains?"
"No, not the curtains...
Genius!!
-
Message 26
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
lol
-
Message 27
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
I've just checked in Bede's "The Ecclesiastical History of the English People", and it appears the same king tried to marry his son to a certain Princess Lucky who's father had "Huge tracts of land". Bede quotes the reasons the king gave for this marriage as:
"We live in a bloody swamp. We need all the land we can get."Â
I think that this evidence may disprove Gerda's theory of the power, attraction and beauty of swamps and marshes...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 28
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
Ok sorry Rhys - I see what you mean. I would place Oppenheimer in the same ball park as Sykes, Capelli / Goldstein, and I would imagine, Bolmer too.
Not sure about Oppenheimer's idea about the east coast speaking English prior to the Romans though. -
Message 29
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 10th May 2007
All the while us Picts get the raw deal...
-
Message 30
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Saturday, 12th May 2007
'Not sure about Oppenheimer's idea about the east coast speaking English prior to the Romans though.'
mykingdomforanus - No, I find that one a bit dubious too. Mean to check it all over when - I hope before I die - I get the book back. -
Message 31
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Monday, 14th May 2007
Make sure you get it back! I have numerous books, cds and dvds that I have never got back after lending them out.
Mind you I have a few in my collection that I didn't buy either..! -
Message 32
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Monday, 14th May 2007
I, alas, have a wife who insists I clear my shelves from time to time!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.