Anglo-Saxon Apartheid: Genetic evidence

[Loki]

An interesting study.

[Creeping Death]

Ancient Britain Had Apartheid-Like Society, Study Suggests (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/6153681.html)

When Anglo-Saxons first arrived in Britain 1,600 years ago, they created an apartheid-like society that oppressed the native Britons and wiped out almost all of the British gene pool, according to a new study. By treating Britons like slaves and imposing strict rules, the small band of Anglo-Saxons -- who had come from what is now Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands -- quickly dominated the country, leaving a legacy of Germanic genes and the English language, both of which still dominate Britain today. The new theory helps explain historical, archaeological, and genetic evidence that until now had seemed contradictory, including the high number of Germanic genes found in modern-day England... Historical and archaeological data suggest that no more than 200,000 Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain around the middle of the fourth century A.D. This is less than half of the 500,000 newcomers that genetic models suggest would be needed to swamp the gene pool of the native Britons, who are believed to have numbered around two million. And yet Germanic genes are abundant in the English population today. Genetic studies have shown that more than 50 percent of England's gene pool contains Germanic Y chromosomes... But the researchers say 200,000 Anglo-Saxons could have dominated the English gene pool in less than 15 generations if the newcomers held a higher social standing.

Then the Normans came along and wiped out all the Anglo-Saxons. Now, enter the Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Muslims, Hindus ...


Interesting though in that the article claims the English have no Celtic element in their gene pool.

[Jarl]

That's a very extreme theory - just like that of a perfect co-existence and gradual assimilation. Definitely this co-existence was never easy and peaceful. Constant struggle which the Brythons had to put up against the Saxon invaders found its way into the early English literature (the Arthurian legends). The sole existence of laws discriminating the Brythonic population refutes the theory of peaceful co-existence.

However, I'd be cautious about the genepool. Some Northern English dialects are evidently influenced by Brythonic. I also read in some article about mixed findings of Saxon male and Celtic female skeletons.

[Loki]

This has already been posted somewhere ... maybe someone can merge the threads?

[Treffie]

Interesting though in that the article claims the English have no Celtic element in their gene pool.


And yet Germanic genes are abundant in the English population today. Genetic studies have shown that more than 50 percent of England's gene pool contains Germanic Y chromosomes...

The article states that more than 50% of England's gene pool is of Germanic origin, where do you think that rest comes from?

The Anglo-Saxon conquest lasted approximately 250 years so initially there may have been some sort of `apartheid` in place, but I don't think that this would have lasted this long. Instead, I see a gradual assimilation of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic population. Maps below will help give you a better picture of what I mean.

Timeline starts at 450AD through to 700AD

[Beorn]

Germanic invaders did not rule Britain by apartheid (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/germanic-invaders-did-not-rule-britain-by-apartheid_10041000.html)


London, April 23 2008: A new analysis of British DNA has led geneticists to suggest that Germanic invaders may not have ruled Britain by apartheid.
According to a report in New Scientist, earlier, the discovery of a strong Germanic signal in the Y-chromosome of British men had prompted geneticists at University College London to suggest that enslavement and apartheid imposed by Saxon invaders was responsible.
The argument in support of this theory was that from AD 430 to 730, the Germanic conquerors of Britain formed an elite, with a servant underclass of native Britons. Inter-marriage was restricted, and the invaders and their genes flourished.

But, according to John Pattison of the University of South Australia in Adelaide, it is just not necessary to assume an apartheid-like system. The evidence is compatible with the idea of a much more integrated society, he said.
Pattison reviewed existing archaeological and genetic evidence, and conducted a new analysis of British DNA.
Then, starting in 2001 and working backwards to pre-Roman times, Pattison calculated for each generation the net population growth and the origins of immigrants.

He concluded that people with Germanic origins came to Britain well before and after the early Anglo-Saxon period, and this long period of immigration can explain a relatively strong Germanic genetic signal today.
He adds that about 60% of the current British population still has some native Briton DNA, arguing against the idea, put forward by Mark Thomas at University College London and colleagues that Saxon invaders ethnically purged the country.
According to Pattison, while the Anglo-Saxon King Ine of Wessex did formulate a code that imposed heavier taxes on native Britons than Saxons, for example, this might have been intended to encourage reluctant Britons to fully adopt the new Germanic culture and language, and to label themselves Germanic, rather than to penalise an underclass.
Overall, the evidence suggests the picture of life in early Anglo-Saxon Britain was not as dismal as that portrayed by Thomas and his team, he said.

It was still the Dark Ages. People were pretty brutal and there was a lot of fighting going on but it wasnt necessarily as grim for the Britons as has been suggested, Pattison added.

[Æmeric]

He concluded that people with Germanic origins came to Britain well before and after the early Anglo-Saxon period, and this long period of immigration can explain a relatively strong Germanic genetic signal today. He adds that about 60% of the current British population still has some native Briton DNA, So by British he means English? And just was is the average percentage of native British DNA for the 60% of English who have native Briton DNA?

[Loki]

"Some native British DNA" doesn't say much at all, and thus meaningless. I would expect almost 100% of English people to have at least tiny bits of it, after a millennium and a half. :rolleyes2:

[Allenson]

I've wondered before and I'll wonder again: why haven't any of these genetic studies of Britain/England mentioned or taken into account (somehow) the incredible amount of genetic material that left the island during colonial times for North America, Australia, South Africa, etc?

What effects did this population drain have on the genetic make-up of the population that stayed behind? I wonder if the geneticists just assume that it was a roughly equal draw from all parts of the island?

[Beorn]

So by British he means English?

I would have thought so, but unfortunately you can never tell. All the more reason to abandon the tired British routine and get with the promotion and preservation of the individual nations.


And just was is the average percentage of native British DNA for the 60% of English who have native Briton DNA?I simply couldn't be bothered to make a summary of his summary, so I will just copy and paste the thread.


Maciamo: (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24907) Population studies use historical, archeological, linguistic, place-name and surname evidences to determine the ethnic origins of the people found in a specific region.

DNA tests now offer a more reliable way to confirm the previous hypothesis. Various research projects are under way, including several testing ancient or medieval DNA to see the genetic evolution of the studied population in time.

This thread aims at gathering and comparing the results and conclusions of each study available for Britain and Ireland. Here are a few links :

1) Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-Based Sampling: The Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in Northwest England (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/301) : aim at assessing the genetic impact of Norwegian Vikings in West Lancashire and the Wirral Peninsula. Comparison with samples from Norway, Orkney, the Shetlands, the Isle of Man, Cheshire, Anglesey, etc.

Summary :


Percentage of Scandinavian admixture in modern populations (average with other studies cited) : Anglesey (10%), Western Scotland (15%), Mid-Cheshire (21%), Western Isles and Skye (22.5%), Cumbria (37%), Wirral and West Lancashire (38%), Isle of Man (39%), Orkey (40%), Shetlands (42.5%).
Comparison with medieval samples : Wirral (47%), West Lancashire (51%)


2) People of the British Isles (http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/) : genetic comparison of the British population by region. The main purpose is medical, to create a map of genetic diseases in the UK. 3500 people tested in 30 different rural regions. The target date for collecting the sample is January 2009, so the final results won't be published before that.

3) Tracing the Phylogeography of Human Populations in Britain Based on 4th-11th Century mtDNA Genotypes (http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/mtDNA/T%F6pf20005%20.pdf) : analysis of ancient and medieval British mtDNA samples to assess the importance of female migrations of Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Viking origin. Unfortunately, the conclusion isn't clear because of too limited samples. Results from Roman and early Saxon cemterries were merged under "Early Ancient" to add to the confusion.

4) Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration (http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/yDNA/Weale2002.pdf) : attempts to find evidence of an Anglo-Saxon mass migration to central England (East Anglia and Midlands) by comparing Y-DNA haplotypes of Wales, central England, Friesland and Norway.

Conclusion : samples from central England and Friesland are almost undistinguishable. proving that a massive proportion of central English people descend from the Anglo-Saxons. Conversely, samples in North Wales and Norway were quite different.

5) Genetic evidence for different male and female roles in the British Isles (http://class.csueastbay.edu/anthropologymuseum/2006IA/DNA_PDFS/mt&yDNA/Wilson2001.pdf) : attempts to estimate the impact of successive migrations on the genetic make-up of Britain, by comparing the Y-DNA, mtDNA and X-chromosome in Wales, England and Orkney to Ireland, Norway, Friesland, the Basques (closet assumed descendent of the Paleolithic Europeans), the Anatolian Turks and Syrians (bothassociated with the source population of the Neolithic migrations).

Conclusion : the Y-DNA of the Basque, Irish and North Welsh are closely related to each others, and most likely represent the population of Europe least affected by Near Eastern migration since Paleolithic times. The mtDNA of the Basque differs more from that of Celtic-speaking population of Britain and Ireland, indicating that the latter have undergone more female-mediated gene flow from other European populations than the Basques have. This could be either caused by a massive female migration during the Neolithic or Iron Age period, or it could mean that the original Paleolithic population of Britain and Ireland was in fact closer to that of Germanic countries, and that the Neolithic invadors were men (and a small percentage of women) from northern Iberia.
His next post then went onto conclude that:


Maciamo: (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24907) 'the population of England could be composed of :

- 31.5% of Ancient Briton paternal lineages
- 11% of Near-Eastern paternal lineages
- 26.5% of Anglo-Saxon/Frisian paternal lineages (19.5% R1b + 4% I1 + 3% I2b1)
- 31% of Danish Viking paternal lineages (15% R1b + 4.5% of R1a + 10% I1 + 1.5% I2b1)

snip

The real native Briton subclades like M222, M167 or M37, or just R1b-S116+* should reach about 30% in England, with the highest concentration in the South and West.
He does go on to conclude for Scotland and Ireland.

[Barreldriver]

The real native Briton subclades like M222, M167 or M37, or just R1b-S116+* should reach about 30% in England, with the highest concentration in the South and West.



Well, M222 is the Nial of the Nine Hostages type, so is he suggesting the native Britons are Ulstermen? :D

[Osweo]

That's a very extreme theory - just like that of a perfect co-existence and gradual assimilation.
Exactly. Now let's get back to real things like placenames, history, logic and traditional narratives. Genes are pretty nigh on useless here.

Some Northern English dialects are evidently influenced by Brythonic.
REALLY??!? I speak at least two. What did you have in mind?

I've wondered before and I'll wonder again: why haven't any of these genetic studies of Britain/England mentioned or taken into account (somehow) the incredible amount of genetic material that left the island during colonial times for North America, Australia, South Africa, etc?

What effects did this population drain have on the genetic make-up of the population that stayed behind? I wonder if the geneticists just assume that it was a roughly equal draw from all parts of the island?
I imagine that the conclusions would be rather too far reaching for many's tastes...

Well, M222 is the Nial of the Nine Hostages type, so is he suggesting the native Britons are Ulstermen? :D
I hate it when they give irresponsible names like this...
M222 existed before Niall, surely?

[Goidelic]

Brits and the British Isles have always essentially been aboriginally derived from the ethnic Celto-Germanic spectrum of tribes (Saxons, Vikings, Celts/Britons etc.) That makes up the indigenous isles. However, lately because of mass immigration some people are trying to undermine English or British as an ethnicity. :mad: This is generally what happens when mass immigration takes over nations, just look at the French. :rolleyes: Native indigenous French have originally been composed of Celto-Germanic/Romance "Gallo-Romanic" influence, dividing the indigenous North & South. Now in France we have many North African Muslims & Congo Blacks that are so-called "very indigenous native French." :rolleyes:

[Lahtari]

Exactly. Now let's get back to real things like placenames, history, logic and traditional narratives. Genes are pretty nigh on useless here.

I find it funny when I see one study claiming England to be virtually all pre-Anglo-Saxon and the next one claiming the exact opposite - I mean, they're studying the same genetic material, aren't they? :p

I guess it's about what you're looking at, Y-chromosomes, mtDNA or something else.

[Barreldriver]

Exactly. Now let's get back to real things like placenames, history, logic and traditional narratives. Genes are pretty nigh on useless here.

REALLY??!? I speak at least two. What did you have in mind?

I imagine that the conclusions would be rather too far reaching for many's tastes...

I hate it when they give irresponsible names like this...
M222 existed before Niall, surely?

It's the clade supposedly associated with him and his descendants. A good portion of people of British Isle's ancestry are a match for this line, a similar spiel for Wiliam the Conqueror and his many descendants (no genetic studies that I'm aware of at this point, but many pedigree's go back to this man), and M222 is a relatively recent mutation in light of genetics, the actual R1b is very very ancient, but the subclades not so much, some coming about as early as the Bronze Age.


R1b M222:

"R1b1b2a1a2f2

This subclade is defined by the presence of the marker M222. It is particularly associated with the Irish and Scots. In this case, the relatively high frequency of this specific subclade among the population of certain counties in northwestern Ireland may be due to positive social selection, as it is believed to have been the Y-chromosome haplogroup of the kings of the Uí Néill clan of ancient Ireland."

[Jarl]

REALLY??!? I speak at least two. What did you have in mind?

Well... by common sense I have always felt that, for instance Northern accents were by Celtic due to their similarity in pronounciation to Welsh or Scottish, like the way they pronounce "r"? Perhaps Im wrong here.


However, I got few sources here. I read Cumbrian dialect has some Celtic features, as well as dialects of West Midlands and South-West England:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=0A13FAFA742A1F0BC311E16 632C9B654.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=5881724

Also here - "English and Celtic in contact" states that there evidence for Celtic (Brythonic) influence in Northern dialects:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dx-qL0anXSYC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=celtic+influence+on+Northern+dialect&source=bl&ots=VJKPLImovh&sig=VotfJYvyaHruvgF5U2DjrjvpAPs&hl=en&ei=Nb5wSujNJJGgmAO1lum3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

[Creeping Death]

The article states that more than 50% of England's gene pool is of Germanic origin, where do you think that rest comes from?
The article states:

the small band of Anglo-Saxons—who had come from what is now Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands—quickly dominated the country, leaving a legacy of Germanic genes and the English language, both of which still dominate Britain today.
So since that time you have had Norwegians, Franco-Normans, French Hugenots, an invasion of Spanish Jews in the time of Cromwell, Slavic immigration during the Victorian era and dont forget the Roman era of occupation and settlement prior to that. And I wont include the unfortunate mass of African and Asian invaders as I am sure the article was not including them.

The artilcle ends:

Just 300 years of Anglo-Saxon dominance was enough to almost obliterate native Britons' gene pool and culture, he concludes.

"In England today there is no ancient British identity left except for a few place- and river names," Härke said.
I have never been able to see any Celtic influence within the British, that is I hasten to add in my comparison with the Highland Scots and Irish. I really believe the English should celebrate being 100% Germanic, just saves on the confusing identities.

[Treffie]

the small band of Anglo-Saxons—who had come from what is now Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands—quickly dominated the country, leaving a legacy of Germanic genes and the English language, both of which still dominate Britain today

The use of the word dominate is exaggerated (obviously)


So since that time you have had Norwegians, Franco-Normans, French Hugenots, an invasion of Spanish Jews in the time of Cromwell, Slavic immigration during the Victorian era and dont forget the Roman era of occupation and settlement prior to that. And I wont include the unfortunate mass of African and Asian invaders as I am sure the article was not including them.

So what are the Normans? A Germanic/Viking group that settled in northern France, a tradionally Roman-Celtic area. Have you considered that this Viking group ever mixed with them?

The Huguenots most probably were made up of Celtic stock also.


The artilcle ends:

I have never been able to see any Celtic influence within the British, that is I hasten to add in my comparison with the Highland Scots and Irish. I really believe the English should celebrate being 100% Germanic, just saves on the confusing identities.

No Celtic influence with the British? Us British are the last bastion of the Celts. Iesu mawr!

[Beorn]

So since that time you have had Norwegians, Franco-Normans, French Hugenots, an invasion of Spanish Jews in the time of Cromwell, Slavic immigration during the Victorian era and dont forget the Roman era of occupation and settlement prior to that. And I wont include the unfortunate mass of African and Asian invaders as I am sure the article was not including them.

Ireland: Norwegians AKA Vikings - Check. (Germanic)
Flemish - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Anglo-Saxons - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Scottish - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Normans - Check. (Germanic)
Slavs - Check. (Slavic)
Picts - Check. (Celts?)
Bretons - Check. (Celts)
Africans and Asians - Check.

I'm starting to wonder just how "Celtic" you and your fellow Dagda worshippers are over there in Ireland.
With the influx of Africans and Asians, I now realise why it is you are so obsessed by the Mongolian blue spot. You have one.

[Barreldriver]

Ireland: Norwegians AKA Vikings - Check. (Germanic)
Flemish - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Anglo-Saxons - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Scottish - Check. (Celto-Germanic)
Normans - Check. (Germanic)
Slavs - Check. (Slavic)
Picts - Check. (Celts?)
Bretons - Check. (Celts)
Africans and Asians - Check.

I'm starting to wonder just how "Celtic" you and your fellow Dagda worshippers are over there in Ireland.
With the influx of Africans and Asians, I now realise why it is you are so obsessed by the Mongolian blue spot. You have one.

The lack of the "Irish" element in Ireland was evident even during the days of the De Danann. lol

The old myths frequently mentioned "sea raiders from the north", and many "Irish" heroes may have non-Irish roots lol.

Norwegian's a biggy, (I can't remember if this Norwegian feller made an appearance during the tale of the Childhood of Cuchulainn or more towards the Cattle Raid time period, I'll have to double check, a Norwegian was mentioned in one of the tales before I got to the actual tale of the Cattle Raid of Cooley, I remember the tale saying he climbed over a fortress wall, was shot in the eye and fell off to his death.).

Then in the tales of the Fianna, Norsemen were a frequent enemy of Fionn mac Cumhaill and his men, and frequently these Norsemen were said to have had settlements in peripheral areas around Ireland and in Ireland.

Let's not get started on Dublin lol. That's the most obvious one.

Then lets get to Cuchulainn the man himself, original name Sétanta, awfully similar to the name Setantii, a tribe from Lancashire if I remember Oswiu's words correctly?

The Setantii (also Segantii or Sistuntii) were a pre-Roman British tribe who apparently lived in the western and southern littoral of Lancashire in England. It is likely the tribe were a sept or sub-tribe of the Brigantes, who, at the time of the Roman invasion, dominated much of what is now northern England.[1]

If the Setantii are Brigantes, then boom Cuchulainn has some cousins in Yorkshire, not just Lancashire. :D The Brigantes being a prominent group in York along with the Parisii.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Then the Normans came along and wiped out all the Anglo-Saxons. Now, enter the Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Muslims, Hindus ...


And South Africans who in 2040 will introduce the PANApartheid state.:)

[Creeping Death]

No Celtic influence with the British? Us British are the last bastion of the Celts. Iesu mawr!
With the exclusion of the Irish, Scots and Manx people it would be the Welsh:

English and Welsh are races apart (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2076470.stm)
Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons. The research supports the idea that Celtic Britain underwent a form of ethnic cleansing by Anglo-Saxons invaders following the Roman withdrawal in the fifth century.

Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English. It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side.


And the upheaval can be traced to this day through genetic differences between the English and the Welsh. Academics at University College in London comparing a sample of men from the UK with those from an area of the Netherlands where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated found the English subjects had genes that were almost identical.

But there were clear differences between the genetic make-up of Welsh people studied. The research team studied the Y-chromosome, which is passed almost unchanged from father to son, and looked for certain genetic markers. Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds

They chose seven market towns mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 and studied 313 male volunteers whose paternal grandfather had also lived in the area. They then compared this with samples from Norway and with Friesland, now a northern province of the Netherlands. The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different. The researchers concluded the most likely explanation for this was a large-scale Anglo-Saxon invasion, which devastated the Celtic population of England, but did not reach Wales.


Dr Mark Thomas, of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at UCL, said their findings suggested that a migration occurred within the last 2,500 years.
Genetic links. It reinforced the idea that the Welsh were the true indigenous Britons. In April last year, research for a BBC programme on the Vikings revealed strong genetic links between the Welsh and Irish Celts and the Basques of northern Spain and south France. It suggested a possible link between the Celts and Basques, dating back tens of thousands of years.

The UCL research into the more recent Anglo-Saxon period suggested a migration on a huge scale. "It appears England is made up of an ethnic cleansing event from people coming across from the continent after the Romans left," he said. Celtic Britons Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain. Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite.

But the latest research by the UCL team, "using genetics as a history book", appears to support the original view of a large-scale invasion of England.
It suggests that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to the Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea. Dr Thomas added: "Our findings completely overturn the modern view of the origins of the English."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j617mImHVvk

Just accept it the English are Germanic, this Celto-Germanic label is invented it is no more accurate than Celto-Slavic.

[Creeping Death]

And South Africans who in 2040 will introduce the PANApartheid state.:)
So where will the Tri-Nations be held;)

[Beorn]

*YAWN*

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/89/Unsuccessful.jpg

[Creeping Death]

*YAWN*

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/89/Unsuccessful.jpg

Interfering with my posts, treating me unfairly in regards to other posters when moderating, carrying on other forums debates to here, and now this 'Troll' slur because I express an opinion you dislike, I hope you are not attempting to initiate a campaign of harassment against me, Wat.

[Æmeric]

I think you would be happer at Stirpes (forum.stirpes.net) Foley. You and Mynydd seem to be of one mind on the issue.

[Creeping Death]

I think you would be happer at Stirpes (forum.stirpes.net) Foley. You and Mynydd seem to be of one mind on the issue.
Considering Jago is an expert on the subject you had better learn from what he writes, simply put the English are running away from their German roots, I put it down to 60+ years of Semitic indoctrination via the US control of the media. Anything Germanic is seen as evil, ugly and racist and that is what the Jews have accomplished with the English.

[Æmeric]

Moornydd is not an expert, he is just a windbag.:rolleyes2:

[Loki]

Posts that were made to this thread this morning on the old server, and were subsequently lost, can still be viewed here:

http://69.197.6.4/~theapric/forum/showthread.php?t=6530&page=3

:thumb001:

Save or re-post please (if you want), as the source link above may not be available for long.

[Beorn]

Interfering with my posts, treating me unfairly in regards to other posters when moderating, carrying on other forums debates to here, and now this 'Troll' slur because I express an opinion you dislike, I hope you are not attempting to initiate a campaign of harassment against me, Wat.

It's been explained to you so many times, Brian, that I simply have accepted you are of limited intelligence and can't understand what people say to you.

You think the above...fine!


Considering Jago is an expert on the subject you had better learn from what he writes, simply put the English are running away from their German roots, I put it down to 60+ years of Semitic indoctrination via the US control of the media. Anything Germanic is seen as evil, ugly and racist and that is what the Jews have accomplished with the English.

You're just a simple minded bigot who simply detests the idea that your beloved Celts can also be claimed by the English.

You quote Yago when the man himself has quite clearly stated on numerous occasions that he considers the West of England to be strongly infused with "Celtic" blood, and the rest of England to have varying degrees to go along with the Anglo-Saxon and Vikings.

And for the love of God will you understand the simple notion that the English are not descended from the Germans. Germans are descended from Germans. Them being German, of course.

[Poltergeist]

I think you would be happer at Stirpes (forum.stirpes.net) Foley. You and Mynydd seem to be of one mind on the issue.


Moornydd is not an expert, he is just a windbag.:rolleyes2:

The Moor running that pitiful message board is an "expert" in the mythomaniacal "Celtic" victimological pseudo-history.

[Beorn]

Now come on people, Yago is not a moor. He may have his pitfalls in the eyes of others on this board, but he is as European as you or I.

[Treffie]

With the exclusion of the Irish, Scots and Manx people it would be the Welsh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j617mImHVvk

Just accept it the English are Germanic, this Celto-Germanic label is invented it is no more accurate than Celto-Slavic.

Sorry to break it to you Brian, but this is old hat. Genetic evidence has moved on since then.

You really shouldn't argue about things that you know nothing about, you're starting to look really silly with your anti-English bias.

How about Devon? It's considered one of the most Celtic areas of England, please read this below Brian, it'll provide you with some well earned knowledge. I doubt that it'll sink in with you though.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6536

As for Yago, much as I like him, he does have a certain set of opinions that seem to be unmoveable however much one tries to educate him. I know that he's sympathetic to the Celtic cause, but he's also anti-English.

The presence of R1b in Europe (England is to the left of the map, Brian)

http://i39.tinypic.com/2qluxvl.png

[Goidelic]

Lots of Irish have English ancestry via 12h-18th century invasions this still makes that person Irish, and lots of English have Irish ancestry - that still makes that person English, via the Potato famine during mid-19th century immigration. British Isles nations are ethnically very similar despite a little more Germanic influence in England, these people moved around for ages all over the British Isles and they all influenced each other one way or another.

Not only did the Celts have an impact on Ireland - but also Huguenots, German Palatines, Vikings, Saxons, Scandinavian Danes (Baltic type Danes), Welsh, English, Romans, Scots/Ulster-Scots, Druids, Gallo-Romance tribes which were assimilated into the Irish gene pool both Protestant and Catholic marriages occurred in the past, but more rarely, still a native ethnic Gaelic Irish Catholic with a Huguenot, German Palatine, and/or English, Welsh ancestor 300 or more years ago still makes that person ethnically Irish and part of Irish national identity and society. The Irish are not a pure "ethnic group" anyways and have always had Germanic influences, the British Isles is a mixed bag in itself. I've always admired all of the British Isles - England, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, Shetland (Britain).

I don't know why there is so much anti-English hatred? I've always loved English British Isles culture and music. How much different are the English and Irish ethnically, compared to the English and Dutch? There are minor Baltic influences in the British Isles, including Ireland, anyways from ancient Scandinavian invasions that show up every once in a while in the population, not a surprise. The Celtic fringes have these old Baltic type influences from old Scandinavian-Celtic assimilation.

In fact there are indigenous Irish who can only trace all Irish ancestry back as far as possible who are genetically/ethnically more Germanic than some English who come from mainly isolated Celtic lineages - this is because of dominant throwback Scandinavian Dane, Viking, Norse influence, yet these people are still what they are, Irish and the other one English. Just because some Irish are more Germanic than others, doesn't make them less "Irish" I find that ridiculous, even the most "Celtic" of Irish have Germanic influences they're just hidden further back influences in their lineages. Even most Irish Catholics have a little ancient English ancestry.

"The Danes invaded Ireland in AD 853 and were followed by Danish settlers who gradually assimilated with the local population and adopted Christianity."

"In 1590 a colony of Huguenots was established in the ancient village of Swords near Dublin and they became noted for their knowledge and skill in the manufacture of linen. In 1666 there were numerous Huguenots from France,of wealth and importance living in or near Dublin. "

"By the 16th century English rule was confined to a small area around Dublin known as the English Pale. [Pale=the area in Ireland where English law and the royal administration were respected; the extent of the Pale varied: in the mid-14th century it comprised Dublin, Louth, Meath, Trim, Kilkenny, and Kildare, but subsequently it progressively shrank until the Tudors reasserted the English presence in the 16th century]"

"In September 1709, almost 3000 Palatines were relocated to rural Ireland, the Palatines consider themselves Irish and the conclusion is evident that they have been assimilated thoroughly."

"From c. 830 Viking raids became more intense in Ireland"

"Evidence of a Roman trading post has been found near Dublin. However, it was not until the fourth and fifth centuries AD that there is evidence of prolonged Roman influences in Ireland. Roman coins and other implements have been found in Ireland."

"Some Welsh were able to escape before the "Viking" invasion to Scotland, Europe, and Ireland."

"The Handbook to the Ulster Question states how the English politicians were quite perturbed how the Scots were ready enough to intermarry with the Irish."

[Creeping Death]

Sorry to break it to you Brian, but this is old hat. Genetic evidence has moved on since then.
Still relevant, you just do not want to accept it because it does not fall into your own set of beliefs.

you're starting to look really silly with your anti-English bias.
Your just displaying the multiculturalist damage of British indoctrination, rather than accept yourself as an Englishman who is Germanic. You see yourself as British and are incorporating or absorbing surrounding nations people into your genepool. In your mind the Scots and Welsh are British so they are in your genepool to create something unique. Oh and I am actually PRO English Im anti British, something I see as destructive for all thse who live on that island.

How about Devon? It's considered one of the most Celtic areas of England, please read this below Brian, it'll provide you with some well earned knowledge. I doubt that it'll sink in with you though.
Do the people of Devon see themselves as Anglo Saxon?
They, like the Cornish, see themselves as Celtic and not Anglo-Saxon or English (http://users.senet.com.au/~dewnans/), so if they are not apart of you, then you cannot include them within your genepool. Obviously I cannot rule out Celtic infusion as that would be ridiculous however,If the Celtic % is say 5% then I am of the opinion the Modern Englishmen is Germanic by a vast majority.
http://users.senet.com.au/~dewnans/devoncross3.jpg

As for Yago, much as I like him, he does have a certain set of opinions that seem to be unmoveable however much one tries to educate him. I know that he's sympathetic to the Celtic cause, but he's also anti-English.
Thats yours and others opinions, I hold him in high esteem, very intelligent his knowledge of history is second to none, I cant argue with that he must be given that recognition.

The presence of R1b in Europe (England is to the left of the map, Brian)
That does not say anything at all really:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-
Haplogroup R1b Distribution

Estimating Scandinavian and Gaelic Ancestry in the Male Settlers of Iceland (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1287529)

Ireland 92% and Iceland 40% ,wouldnt Ireland and Iceland have according to this study the near exact genepool.

[Beorn]

How much different are the English and Irish ethnically, compared to the English and Dutch?

Not that much really.

I've not met many Dutch people, but the ones I have have seemed a sore thumb in England and stuck out quite predominately (literally, as they are quite tall), whereas an Irishman would walk by you without you knowing.

It's only through someone opening their mouth that you lock on to where they come from.

[Treffie]

Still relevant, you just do not want to accept it because it does not fall into your own set of beliefs.

My own set of beliefs? I look at the facts Brian.


Your just displaying the multiculturalist damage of British indoctrination, rather than accept yourself as an Englishman who is Germanic. You see yourself as British and are incorporating or absorbing surrounding nations people into your genepool. In your mind the Scots and Welsh are British so they are in your genepool to create something unique. Oh and I am actually PRO English Im anti British, something I see as destructive for all thse who live on that island.

Yes, ok, keep thinking that Brian.


Do the people of Devon see themselves as Anglo Saxon?
They, like the Cornish, see themselves as Celtic and not Anglo-Saxon or English (http://users.senet.com.au/~dewnans/), so if they are not apart of you, then you cannot include them within your genepool. Obviously I cannot rule out Celtic infusion as that would be ridiculous however,If the Celtic % is say 5% then I am of the opinion the Modern Englishmen is Germanic by a vast majority.

Devonians are probably just as Celtic as the Welsh, they've lost their language, that's all.


That does not say anything at all really:

Erm, yes it does Brian, please read the legend above the map.

:icon_yell:

[Beorn]

Brian Foley: (http://69.197.6.4/%7Etheapric/forum/showpost.php?p=75980&postcount=21) Quote the video "The English are basically German", no Celtic genes, proven,

That study by Mark Thomas was interesting and I interpreted it as this.

He took the DNA of the residents of a Welsh town, English towns and A Dutch town and found remarkable differences between the lot, with the English being generally further apart from the Welsh and more alike to the Dutch.

So basically Mark Thomas said this:

Wales=1 England=2 Dutch=2

When Mark should have said:

Welsh town=1 English towns=2 3 4 5 and 6 Dutch towns=7

So, the English towns closer to the Welsh towns were similar but not distinctly similar to the further placed English towns, and not the Dutch town.


The English are just embarrassed of their Germanic roots, they want to hijack the Celtic revival.

Not embarrassed at all, Brian. The English are simply collecting all the parts of their puzzle, whether it be Germanic or Celtic.


Devonians are probably just as Celtic as the Welsh, they've lost their language, that's all.

That's the crux of the argument with most pseudo-Celtic worshippers. They see the claims through cultural and linguistic terms that can be verified and ignore the others like DNA which push the boat out further into what is unacceptable to their bigotry.

Linguistically I see myself as Germanic. But if all that is required to make one Germanic is to speak a Germanic tongue and not a Celtic or Slavic tongue, then at least 95% of Ireland is Germanic(?). Not to mention large swathes of Wales and Scotland.

Is there a Germanic cultural unity? I certainly don't have enough in common with the man from the Netherlands or Germany to say there is, and as such who is and who isn't the Germanic person? Is there a barometer to consult in who is Germanic?

It's Fortis that got me thinking about all of this actually, and the more you think about it the more you begin to realise that erroneous terms like Germanic and Celtic and Slavic are simply that.

Quite a revelation to some, but my general belief is that the close cultural affinity shared between the West Country isn't somewhere else in England but actually in Wales and Cornwall.

[Treffie]

Linguistically I see myself as Germanic. But if all that is required to make one Germanic is to speak a Germanic tongue and not a Celtic or Slavic tongue, then at least 95% of Ireland is Germanic(?). Not to mention large swathes of Wales and Scotland.

Is there a Germanic cultural unity? I certainly don't have enough in common with the man from the Netherlands or Germany to say there is, and as such who is and who isn't the Germanic person? Is there a barometer to consult in who is Germanic?


There are cultural, linguistic and genetic affiliations to pigeon-hole people into categories, but for me, the most important are the cultural/genetic ones. As for myself, I just accept that I have a Germanic side without having to be a tyrant about it.


Posted by Wat
So basically Mark Thomas said this:

Wales=1 England=2 Dutch=2

When Mark should have said:

Welsh town=1 English towns=2 3 4 5 and 6 Dutch towns=7

So, the English towns closer to the Welsh towns were similar but not distinctly similar to the further placed English towns, and not the Dutch town.

Not only that, but the testing involved towns which were once under Danelaw and as a result had a large influx of Germanics. If he had tested towns along the south coast of England or Cumbria, the results would have almost been very different.

Note to Brian: I don't know if you noticed, but the news article stated that the Anglo-Saxons killed or displaced approximately 50% of the native population and not the entire amount.

[Beorn]

It's no coincidence that his last name is a dime-a-dozen in Wales either ;):D

[Treffie]

It's no coincidence that his last name is a dime-a-dozen in Wales either ;):D

Oh yes, I didn't notice that:)

[Creeping Death]

Lots of Irish have English ancestry via 12h-18th century invasions this still makes that person Irish, and lots of English have Irish ancestry
To be Frank I even wonder just how much Celtic the Irish really are myself, are the Irish mostly the original Paleolithic stock that inhabited the area before the arrival of the Celts? It seems to me that if the Irish living on the West Coast in Connaught have Europes oldest genes, then are they just linguistic Celts and genetically an older Paleolithic population. If you have ever been to the West coast of Ireland and seen those people, they look nothing like what you find elsewhere.

Devonians are probably just as Celtic as the Welsh, they've lost their language, that's all.
Yes but do they see themselves as Anglo-Saxon?

Erm, yes it does Brian, please read the legend above the map.
Not much :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.svg/764px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_
Highest frequencies People of Atlantic Europe: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA))(Basque 92%, Irish 90%, Welsh 86%, Northern Portuguese 81%, Spanish 78%, Scottish 77%, English 75%, , Belgians 70%, Dutch 65%, Southern Portuguese 60%, Italian 55%, Bashkirs 48%, German 45%, etc.)
Haplogroup R1b Distribution
Basque and the Irish and see the map compare Iceland with Ireland, strange when Iceland is 60-40 in Celtic and Scadinavian makeup. Im not entirely convinced of these supposed Genetics.

Note to Brian: I don't know if you noticed, but the news article stated that the Anglo-Saxons killed or displaced approximately 50% of the native population and not the entire amount.
How many fled to Wales? (why I have no idea;))

That study by Mark Thomas was interesting and I interpreted it as this.
Or are you shooting an arrow into a target and painting a Bullseye around it?

[Brännvin]

Where did this map above come from, Brian Foley?

Looks totally odd based on recent studies of Haplogroup, more of 40% of Rb1 in Sweden and Norway, where this come from exactly? Do you have the study linking for the sampling or only this map?

_________


Indeed, the Haplogroup I1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1a_%28Y-DNA%29) rules here;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/I1_europe.jpg/300px-I1_europe.jpg


__________



The Rb1 for what matter never rose from 25% to 20% in Norway and Sweden, check the map below with the legend distribution.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2qluxvl.png


Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml)

[Æmeric]

Now come on people, Yago is not a moor. He may have his pitfalls in the eyes of others on this board, but he is as European as you or I.

Yago is as European as I!:lightbul:

I understand you have an active account there & you want to stay in good standing as far as that goes. And you have a thing for 'tanned' females like Penelope Cruz.;) The rest of my thoughts on this matter are fit only for the privacy of a rep comment.

[Creeping Death]

Where did this map above come from, Brian Foley? Same place as your map, wikipedia, and dont ask me to explain, Im just posting that map to bolster my case with genetics, it doesnt add up.

The rest of my thoughts on this matter are fit only for the privacy of a rep comment.
Like your own Cree background Mr Suspect Colonial.

[Loyalist]

Mynydd/Yago is about as European as Zinedine Zidane.


Like your own Cree background Mr Suspect Colonial.

My ancestors owned your ancestors.

[Barreldriver]

Like your own Cree background Mr Suspect Colonial.

Do you consider yourself a valuable member to this community? I ask because all I see from you is endless bantering and useless insults.

[Brännvin]

Same place as your map, wikipedia, and dont ask me to explain, Im just posting that map to bolster my case with genetics, it doesnt add up.


Nothing personal but the map looks totally wrong on the distribution of Haplogroups for Sweden and Norway, though I got my source from here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) where the link from the study is presented by the author.

Information below from the your same source also, which looks odd in relation to the map, however correct;


It is found in Basques: 92%,[33] Catalans: 80%,[33], Belgians 70%,[34], France(Strasbourg), 67.6%, France (Lyon), 66.7%,[35], Portuguese: 60%,[36], Spanish: 58%,[37], Italians (continental Italy): 40%,[38], Germans: 39%, [39], Norwegians: 25.9%,[40] Sicilians: 24.5%,[41] Maltese: 21.9%,[42] Swedes: 20%,[40] Sardinians: 19%.[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29#Distribution

[Creeping Death]

My ancestors owned your ancestors.
You must be confusing me someone else Im not native American, my ancestors are full blooded white.
Do you consider yourself a valuable member to this community? I ask because all I see from you is endless bantering and useless insults.Jesus Christ, these North Americans know it alls think they have the last word everytime, hey you tell your half breed fucking friend above to stop insulting respected people within the European Nationalist Community as Moors.

[Creeping Death]

Nothing personal but the map looks totally wrong on the distribution of Haplogroups for Sweden and Norway, though I got my source from here (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) where the link from the study is presented by the author.I studied both Arawn's and your maps so I did a search on the 'Haplogroup R1b', it just got more confusing. I dont rely on DNA or genetics as a determining factor in European identity, I go by history of movement and decide from there onwards. In my understanding I have divided Germans up into 3 groups that is Northern = Scandinavian Western = German, Dutch and English Central = Austrian, Swiss and scattered German communities in Hungary, Czech and Romania. Then you have the West Atlantic Celts in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany etc. Basically I group both not as Celto-Germanic but North Western European, if that makes any sense.

[Treffie]

To be Frank

So you're part Germanic yourself? :)


I even wonder just how much Celtic the Irish really are myself, are the Irish mostly the original Paleolithic stock that inhabited the area before the arrival of the Celts? It seems to me that if the Irish living on the West Coast in Connaught have Europes oldest genes, then are they just linguistic Celts and genetically an older Paleolithic population. If you have ever been to the West coast of Ireland and seen those people, they look nothing like what you find elsewhere.

The last time I travelled up from Clare to Donegal I noticed that there were types similar to other Paleo-Atlantids found in Wales, and some parts of west England.


Yes but do they see themselves as Anglo-Saxon?

Why don't you ask them, or better still ask Wat Tyler as his family descends from very near that area?;)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

So where will the Tri-Nations be held;)

Now you got me Brian.
I thought it has started with NewZealand vs SA and to day the second test between the 2.
I am not really a rugby fan,but from the 3 games I saw against you guys some weeks ago Eng/Irish team should have won at least twice

[Treffie]

You must be confusing me someone else Im not native American, my ancestors are full blooded white.Jesus Christ, these North Americans know it alls think they have the last word everytime, hey you tell your half breed fucking friend above to stop insulting respected people within the European Nationalist Community as Moors.

Maybe you should take a note out of their book, they're certainly more knowledgeable than you are. :D

[Loyalist]

You must be confusing me someone else Im not native American, my ancestors are full blooded white.

No, back in Ulster; your family was likely forced to plow my family's fields all day for little or no money.

Just keeping the maturity level consistent.

[Poltergeist]

Mynydd/Yago is about as European as Zinedine Zidane.

Come on, no need to insult the great football player by comparing him with that Moorish weed running the joke of a forum Stirpes. I mean, there are Moors and Moors, some are more respectable, others are the lowest of the low. Yago/Mynydd belongs to the latter category. In fact, Zidane is maybe more of a European, because he has European manners, unlike the other specimen you referred to.;)

[Beorn]

Or are you shooting an arrow into a target and painting a Bullseye around it?

I should just laugh seeing as it is you which seems to be drawing the assumptions around what you wish to be true, but as it happens that was one interpretation of the results I got from Mark Thomas' results.

Another interpretation I got from his results was simply that of course the Welsh would be dissimilar to the English towns and Dutch town, because the Welsh never relented their domination in the towns throughout history, whilst the Anglo-Saxons headed straight for the towns and cities of their new found land and this would account for the results.

But then, Brian, you have to take into account all the other surveys that were done after this one which found extremely different results.

Why do you not consider those results? Arrow, target, circle perhaps? ;)


Why don't you ask them, or better still ask Wat Tyler as his family descends from very near that area?;)

The people of Devon are much like every other county of England. They identify very proudly with their local ties and local prides and consider themselves as English as English can be.

The difference being is a small minority who actually gave a monkey's campaigned for Devon to be considered as Celtic and not Anglo-Saxon.

Anglo-Saxon? Celts? Vikings even? What are they? Nothing. All figments of our distant past which all contributed towards what we are today.

As is the case with folk like Brian, it seems only people with agendas to oppress other nations ethnic identity rights and at worse, bigots who simply can't stand being lumped as the same as the English, deny the English their identities.

[Brännvin]

I studied both Arawn's and your maps so I did a search on the 'Haplogroup R1b', it just got more confusing. I dont rely on DNA or genetics as a determining factor in European identity, I go by history of movement and decide from there onwards. In my understanding I have divided Germans up into 3 groups that is Northern = Scandinavian Western = German, Dutch and English Central = Austrian, Swiss and scattered German communities in Hungary, Czech and Romania. Then you have the West Atlantic Celts in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany etc. Basically I group both not as Celto-Germanic but North Western European, if that makes any sense.

It may change the order though, because there are more I1 and R1a than R1b in Norway and Sweden, while R1b is very dominant on the British Isles.

Genetics is an important factor on now days, why it also explains population history especially when relating to Haplogroups frequencies.

Yes, in an ethno-cultural sense, Scandinavians are Northern Germanic linguistically as genetically, and what differentiates Swedes and Norwegians from Continental or Western Germanic people are the dominant frequency of Haplogroup I1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1a_%28Y-DNA%29) and also the high frequency of R1a, the Rb1 is not the dominant haplogroup here as are in British Islands, Western Germany or Netherlands it is only the third most important haplogroup in both Sweden and Norway. It interesting to note how Denmark is a case apart where the Rb1 is dominant in Jutland, but not dominant in the islands where you found the dominance of I1, looking for a intermediate distribution.

The map posted by me and Arawn come from this source where the studies related to sampling are attached;

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

[Barreldriver]

hey you tell your half breed fucking friend above tostop insulting respected people within the European Nationalist Community

Why? You're no different. Link to me a series of productive conversations on your part and I'd be happy to eat my words.

[Creeping Death]

So you're part Germanic yourself? :)
Of course, I have German/Scadinavian genes my Mother and Father both hail from Kilkenny and I know as far back as my Great Grandparents that Kilkenny is their home county, huge Viking and Norman influence. Im proud of my Germanic/Scandinavian genepool.

The last time I travelled up from Clare to Donegal I noticed that there were types similar to other Paleo-Atlantids found in Wales, and some parts of west England.
No you are wrong, I know that, nothing similar to the swarthy Welsh, they are Pale skinned light hair with a prevalence of Red hair, very identical to Highland Scottish, Gaels I imagine. I am very familar with the West Coast of Ireland.

Why don't you ask them, or better still ask Wat Tyler as his family descends from very near that area?;)
No sorry mate, he claims to be West Country but he refers to Cider as awful,you believe that! I think he is an imposter.

Maybe you should take a note out of their book, they're certainly more knowledgeable than you are. :D
Seriously I think these 'Old Yankee Wasp Colonial Stock' are Arseholes, I lived in Conneticutt for 7 months in 1986, Christ all there talk of their family history, most are all dark skinned, thats where I was told most have Native ancestry with a lot having Negro blood.

But then, Brian, you have to take into account all the other surveys that were done after this one which found extremely different results.
I posted a study 'Ancient Britain Had Apartheid-Like Society' then to counter it you posted a source which said "that Germanic invaders may not have ruled Britain by apartheid", the operative words was 'may not'.

Why do you not consider those results? Arrow, target, circle perhaps? ;)
I have considered those results and have forwarded some of my observations as to which I find suspect or contradictory.

As is the case with folk like Brian, it seems only people with agendas to oppress other nations ethnic identity rights and at worse, bigots who simply can't stand being lumped as the same as the English, deny the English their identities.
I believe you are creating your own identity as to what you fancy, all I see here is an attempt to runaway from your own shadow. No different from those non-Irish living in occupied Ulster claiming to be of the ancient Gaelic kingdom of Dalriada, when we all know they are of Anglo Saxon heritage.

Yes, in an ethno-cultural sense, Scandinavians are Northern Germanic linguistically as genetically, and what differentiates Swedes and Norwegians from Continental or Western Germanic people are the dominant frequency of Haplogroup I1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1a_%28Y-DNA%29) and also the high frequency of R1a, the Rb1 is not the dominant haplogroup here as are in British Islands, Western Germany or Netherlands it is only the third most important haplogroup in both Sweden and Norway. It interesting to note how Denmark is a case apart where the Rb1 is dominant in Jutland, but not dominant in the islands where you found the dominance of I1, looking for a intermediate distribution.
Scandinavian genepool is a field I am really interested in, I am trying to make head and tail of these DNA groupings, but I just cannot put together any coherent genetic trail I can understand. Take for instance the example of Iceland I gave earlier, that study gave Icelandic Women as Being 60% Irish Celtic and 40% Scandinavian and Men as 40% Irish Celtic and 60% Scandinavian. So going by these maps you and arawn provided how do you explain the R1b gap between Ireland (90%) and Iceland (40%)? It doesnt make sense.

[Beorn]

I posted a study 'Ancient Britain Had Apartheid-Like Society' then to counter it you posted a source which said "that Germanic invaders may not have ruled Britain by apartheid", the operative words was 'may not'.

LOL! Your argument is now centring around the words used in a headline?

Priceless.


I believe you are creating your own identity as to what you fancy, all I see here is an attempt to runaway from your own shadow.
Thanks for the shitty summation of me, but stick to being a wanker. It suits you better. :thumb001:

[Treffie]

No you are wrong, I know that, nothing similar to the swarthy Welsh, they are Pale skinned light hair with a prevalence of Red hair, very identical to Highland Scottish, Gaels I imagine. I am very familar with the West Coast of Ireland.


Not all Welsh are swarthy, in fact few are, but there are a lot of dark haired people. As for the pale skin and red hair, have you met Thrymheim? She's predominantly of Welsh extraction.

[Æmeric]

Seriously I think these 'Old Yankee Wasp Colonial Stock' are Arseholes, I lived in Conneticutt for 7 months in 1986, Christ all there talk of their family history, most are all dark skinned, thats where I was told most have Native ancestry with a lot having Negro blood.


Where have I heard this bullshit before?:icon_ask: :rolleyes:


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2356&stc=1&d=1249165509

So Foley, how would you classify this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_McGee) fine example of a full European, 100% Irishman?:D

[Brännvin]

Take for instance the example of Iceland I gave earlier, that study gave Icelandic Women as Being 60% Irish Celtic and 40% Scandinavian and Men as 40% Irish Celtic and 60% Scandinavian. So going by these maps you and arawn provided how do you explain the R1b gap between Ireland (90%) and Iceland (40%)? It doesnt make sense.

Why would not make sense for god sake? Iceland has a different founding population history in comparation Ireland and Scandinavia as you pointed out above on the percentage of settlers, you already answered your question.

The majority of the original female inhabitants were from the coastal regions of Scotland and Ireland, areas that regularly suffered raids by vikings in the years around the settlement of Iceland 1100 years ago, and more than 60-80% of the male lineage has roots in Norway mainly from the city of Stavanger, however not all men who settled in Iceland 1100 years ago were Scandinavian Vikings either (some were slaves, allies or mercenaries from the British Isles).

Iceland's high proportion of haplogroup R1b (about 42%, against about 25% in Norway) is probably a sign that 10 to 15% of the R1b lineages originated in the British Isles. This still has to be confirmed by analysing the R1b subclades found in Iceland, check the study below for understanding;

The Impact of Divergence Time on the Nature of Population Structure: An Example from Iceland (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000505)

[Creeping Death]

LOL! Your argument is now centring around the words used in a headline?
Nah I just have no idea WTF you are babbling about.

Thanks for the shitty summation of me, but stick to being a wanker. It suits you better. :thumb001:
:thumb001:

Not all Welsh are swarthy, in fact few are, but there are a lot of dark haired people.
To be honest a lot of Welsh that I have met were fair haired, oddly enough, I always expect the Welsh to look like Tom Jones the singer.

As for the pale skin and red hair, have you met Thrymheim? She's predominantly of Welsh extraction.
I went to her page thinking I would see a photo of her, she must look hot;)

Why would not make sense for god sake?
Shouldnt Icelands Haplogroup R1b be somewhere 65-70% thats what I figure from the maps.

Besides I provided you a map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.svg/764px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.svg.png
Highest frequencies People of Atlantic Europe:(Basque 92%, Irish 90%, Welsh 86%, Northern Portuguese 81%, Spanish 78%, Scottish 77%, English 75%, , Belgians 70%, Dutch 65%, Southern Portuguese 60%, Italian 55%, Bashkirs 48%, German 45%, etc.)
Haplogroup R1b Distribution
You questioned its source I said it was the same wiki source as yours but you chose your own map.

[Beorn]

Nah I just have no idea WTF you are babbling about.

You have no idea. Full stop.


To be honest a lot of Welsh that I have met were fair haired, oddly enough, I always expect the Welsh to look like Tom Jones the singer.


You mean the Tom Jones? (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5267)

[Creeping Death]

So Foley, how would you classify this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_McGee) fine example of a full European, 100% Irishman?:
An interesting read on Scotch Irish and WASP activities.

http://underprivilegedjournalism.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/inbreeding1.jpg
Are there inbred families in the Ozarks/Appalachians like in Deliverance? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2621/are-there-inbred-families-in-the-ozarks-appalachians-like-in-em-deliverance)
I am wondering if it's true that there are, or were, inbred families or communities that live(d) in the Ozark Mountains. Was it just the movie Deliverance that led people to believe that?

Is southern Appalachia characterized by an unusually high incidence of (a) inbreeding and (b) mental retardation and genetic defects, and if so, has (a) led to (b)? For reasons to become apparent, we'll start not at the beginning or end of this question, but in the middle.
LOL

You have no idea. Full stop.
You been out in the Sun to long boy.

You mean the Tom Jones? (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5267)
Well, Harry Secombe then?

[Brännvin]

Shouldnt Icelands Haplogroup R1b be somewhere 65-70% thats what I figure from the maps.

Iceland;

Rb1 - 42%

I1 - 33%

R1a - 23%

Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml)

The map where the studies related to sampling are attached;

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf




You questioned its source I said it was the same wiki source as yours but you chose your own map.

That's a good laugh! So now do you want to change the genetic history of Iceland and Scandinavia to fit on your division of Europe? :D

[Creeping Death]

That's a good laugh! So now do you want to change the genetic history of Iceland and Scandinavia to fit on your division of Europe? :D
Change what???? I just find it strange how Iceland is 40%! and not higher.

[Treffie]

Change what???? I just find it strange how Iceland is 40%! and not higher.

Think about it. What was the founding population of Iceland? It was primarily of Norse stock - the Celtic population came later on.

[Creeping Death]

Think about it. What was the founding population of Iceland? It was primarily of Norse stock - the Celtic population came later on.
Not quite :

ICELAND (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/iceland.html#Chronology)
CHRONOLOGY

7th century Iceland discovered by Irish seafarers. 874 First Norse settler, Ing�lfr Arnarson, founded colony at Reykjavik. c. 900 Norse settlers came in larger numbers, mainly from Norway.
Obviously the Norwegians settled there in earnest, but I would expect Iceland to mimic the Faroese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands#Demographics) population, something I find odd.

[Treffie]

Not quite :



Read a little further.


. 874 First Norse settler, Ing�lfr Arnarson, founded colony at Reykjavik. c. 900 Norse settlers came in larger numbers, mainly from Norway

The article says that the Irish discovered it, but it was settled by the Norse. There's a difference.

[Creeping Death]

Read a little further.



The article says that the Irish discovered it, but it was settled by the Norse. There's a difference.
I did write "Obviously the Norwegians settled there in earnest,".

[Allenson]

Seriously I think these 'Old Yankee Wasp Colonial Stock' are Arseholes, I lived in Conneticutt for 7 months in 1986, Christ all there talk of their family history, most are all dark skinned, thats where I was told most have Native ancestry with a lot having Negro blood.

Truth be told, Brian, there are hardly any Old Stockers left in Connecticut. It's all Italian guidos now (and was by the 80s too). Take a gander at any Connecticut phonebook and you will see.

As for the last part of your statement here....: :rolleyes:

[Loki]

Since Wat Tyler was too lazy (:P), I located the original thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27719&postcount=1) I posted on this matter, and merged the threads. The original contains the full study in pdf document as attachment.

[Osweo]

Maps below will help give you a better picture of what I mean.

Timeline starts at 450AD through to 700AD
Yuck! Primitive understanding of the history in those maps, Tref! Where'd you get em from? THat 'David Nash Ford' character, who believes everything in the old genealogies?


Well... by common sense I have always felt that, for instance Northern accents were by Celtic due to their similarity in pronounciation to Welsh or Scottish, like the way they pronounce "r"? Perhaps Im wrong here.
Afraid so! :thumb001: The R can't really be linked with anything Welsh. It's probably not VERY old, either.

However, I got few sources here. I read Cumbrian dialect has some Celtic features, as well as dialects of West Midlands and South-West England:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=0A13FAFA742A1F0BC311E16 632C9B654.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=5881724
The findings there are possibly more indicative of large scale movement from Wales in Mediaeval times. Any phonebook can demonstrate that.

Also here - "English and Celtic in contact" states that there evidence for Celtic (Brythonic) influence in Northern dialects:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dx-qL0anXSYC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=celtic+influence+on+Northern+dialect&source=bl&ots=VJKPLImovh&sig=VotfJYvyaHruvgF5U2DjrjvpAPs&hl=en&ei=Nb5wSujNJJGgmAO1lum3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Rather inconclusive stuff. But thanks for sharing. :) I would be surprised if there was NO influence, but I'd hardly expect it to be very obvious, either. These sort of hints are the best things we can expect.

I really believe the English should celebrate being 100% Germanic, just saves on the confusing identities.
You're the only one who's confused. And typical IRA tactics advocated; falsification of history and self-delusion. No thanks, we've seen what it does to you lads.

Then lets get to Cuchulainn the man himself, original name Sétanta, awfully similar to the name Setantii, a tribe from Lancashire if I remember Oswiu's words correctly?
Yup! :thumb001:

If the Setantii are Brigantes, then boom Cuchulainn has some cousins in Yorkshire, not just Lancashire. :D The Brigantes being a prominent group in York along with the Parisii.
But don't forget, there were actual BRIGANTES living in southeastern Ireland anyway! According to Ptolemy - I'm sure you'll find infinite copies of his classic Geography on the net. Their name explains the later Leinster cult of St Brigid. :)

lots of English have Irish ancestry - that still makes that person English, via the Potato famine during mid-19th century immigration.
It was massive both before and after that. My own infusions came from several migrations, including 1798 and 1954. It's always happened. There are accounts of Irish in Manchester from the 1500s.

British Isles nations are ethnically very similar despite a little more Germanic influence in England, these people moved around for ages all over the British Isles and they all influenced each other one way or another.
Exactly. :thumbs up

"The Handbook to the Ulster Question states how the English politicians were quite perturbed how the Scots were ready enough to intermarry with the Irish."
Even the odd Cromwellian garrison did. I read in Beddoes' Races of Britain that a lot defected on the Aran Islands. Anyone heard about this from any other source?


Do the people of Devon see themselves as Anglo Saxon?
They, like the Cornish, see themselves as Celtic and not Anglo-Saxon or English (http://users.senet.com.au/~dewnans/),
I feel sorry for these deluded people. Should be good mates for Brian, though.

so if they are not apart of you, then you cannot include them within your genepool.
Christ, you're thick. Our neighbours are inevitable parts of our genepool, regardless of your petty categorisations.

[Barreldriver]

But don't forget, there were actual BRIGANTES living in southeastern Ireland anyway! According to Ptolemy - I'm sure you'll find infinite copies of his classic Geography on the net. Their name explains the later Leinster cult of St Brigid. :)



Epic lol. Even in classical antiquity the Irish were being pwned by the British. lol :D

[007]

Originally Posted by Jarl
Well... by common sense I have always felt that, for instance Northern accents were by Celtic due to their similarity in pronounciation to Welsh or Scottish, like the way they pronounce "r"? Perhaps Im wrong here.

You mean they're rhotic? The accents in all regions of England used to be rhotic. Dropping one's 'r's is a new wrinkle

[Creeping Death]

Truth be told, Brian, there are hardly any Old Stockers left in Connecticut. It's all Italian guidos now (and was by the 80s too). Take a gander at any Connecticut phonebook and you will see.
I lived in New Milford, thats about 20 miles I think from Danbury, I used to work near a place called Bantam Lake, all these old established families used to live there, even a Black family had been there since the late 1700's. Christ I remember one old guy rambling on about his family tree, real proud. Just as well I kept my mouth shut,as I was on the verge of giving one of my "Master Race Speech" when he told me they had Native ancestry.

As for the last part of your statement here....: :rolleyes:Hey;)
Christ, you're thick. Our neighbours are inevitable parts of our genepool, regardless of your petty categorisations.
Christ youll never meet anyone as pig ignorant, as for being so 'superior' you English do all the begging to stay among your neighbors. Your neighbours, the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish can't run away from your culture fast enough.

[Loyalist]

I lived in New Milford, thats about 20 miles I think from Danbury, I used to work near a place called Bantam Lake, all these old established families used to live there, even a Black family had been there since the late 1700's.

So what? The fact that Negroes of slave descent have been present since the appropriate era certainly does not mean there was any mixing. I've looked extensively into my Colonial lineage, some of which actually traces back to Connecticut, as well as that of others. In the process I've found plenty of slave-owners, but no slave-lovers.


Christ I remember one old guy rambling on about his family tree, real proud. Just as well I kept my mouth shut,as I was on the verge of giving one of my "Master Race Speech" when he told me they had Native ancestry.

Claiming Amerindian descent is often a feature of certain prominent "WASP"-type families. There were even Klansmen who count Pocahontas as an ancestor. You'll note that, when such claims are made, the Indian ancestry is always distant; they want some "romantic" connection to the land, but without being racially mixed. Winston Churchill, whose mother was an American of Colonial English and French Huguenot ancestry, was said to have an Amerindian ancestor, of course based on family lore. In about 90% of cases, these claims are false, and the result of either lying, erroneous research, or simply uncomfirmed legend. When it is true, it's almost never after the 17th or 18th century, and the genetic contribution is therefore so small that the individual still has fewer non-European genes than the average Portuguese or Sicilian.

By the way, Foley, I still find my Colonial lines preferable to a lineage like yours. My own ancestors, who effectively formed the ruling class of North America until about the last century, and before that traced their descent from the aristrocracy of England, permitted your low-class, unskilled, illiterate Irish Papist ancestors to flood in like rats and fill cheap labour roles throughout the English-speaking Colonies. Unlike yourself, I've never been part of any second-class society.

[Creeping Death]

So what? The fact that Negroes of slave descent have been present since the appropriate era certainly does not mean there was any mixing. I've looked extensively into my Colonial lineage, some of which actually traces back to Connecticut, as well as that of others. In the process I've found plenty of slave-owners, but no slave-lovers.
Sounds like a load of Bullshit to me.

In about 90% of cases, these claims are false, and the result of either lying, erroneous research, or simply uncomfirmed legend.

Or that 90% of the cases are true and you know I am correct and you are making up excuses for trace elements of coloured blood.

My own ancestors, who effectively formed the ruling class of North America until about the last century, and before that traced their descent from the aristrocracy of England,
Who formed an alliance with the Jews of America and multiculturalist Britain to undermine Western society by attacking Germany from behind in its war against Communism, allowing that multiculturalist ideology halfway into Europe, the other Western half of Europe being subjected to Judeo/WASP Negro inspired cultural filth courtesy of your suspect ancestry people.

permitted your low-class, unskilled, illiterate Irish Papist ancestors to flood in like rats and fill cheap labour roles throughout the English-speaking Colonies. Unlike yourself, I've never been part of any second-class society.
The end result for any nation subjected to an invasion by British multiculturalism.

[Loyalist]

Sounds like a load of Bullshit to me.

Sounds like a cop-out to me.


Or that 90% of the cases are true and you know I am correct and you are making up excuses for trace elements of coloured blood.

:rolleyes:


Who formed an alliance with the Jews of America and multiculturalist Britain to undermine Western society by attacking Germany from behind in its war against Communism, allowing that multiculturalist ideology halfway into Europe, the other Western half of Europe being subjected to Judeo/WASP Negro inspired cultural filth courtesy of your suspect ancestry people.

Who? The Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, and other undesirable European "ethnics" who presently form the backbone of the Democratic Party, as well as other liberal political entities throughout Colonial lands. The same multiculturalist mindset is also present in those Irish nationalists you idolize, who, while whining about the British presence in Ulster, are supporting the mass influx of Slavs, Africans, and Orientals into Ireland.


The end result for any nation subjected to an invasion by British multiculturalism.

In truth, North America enjoyed over three centuries of prosperity while the core population remained of British Isles or closely related European descent (Germans, Dutch, French, etc.). The big proponents of multiculturalism, and wider liberalism, were the Irish, Italians, and Jews I mentioned earlier, who, since their introduction in the late 19th century, have done everything in their power to undermine traditional society and introduce alien races into these lands. It seems the Irish, particularly those of the nationalist persuasion, are ironically big fans of multiculturalism and racial suicide.

[Æmeric]

I lived in New Milford, thats about 20 miles I think from Danbury, I used to work near a place called Bantam Lake, all these old established families used to live there, even a Black family had been there since the late 1700's. Christ I remember one old guy rambling on about his family tree, real proud. Just as well I kept my mouth shut,as I was on the verge of giving one of my "Master Race Speech" when he told me they had Native ancestry.
I think you're just biased because you had some bad experiences in Connecticut. What was the problem, did people keep mistaking you for Puerto Rican?:rolleyes:

Christ youll never meet anyone as pig ignorant, as for being so 'superior' you English do all the begging to stay among your neighbors. Your neighbours, the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish can't run away from your culture fast enough.
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:......

It's always the same old song with you. Odd you seem to have a Celtic fetish & reject your own culture.

[Creeping Death]

In truth, North America enjoyed over three centuriesIn truth the American Revolution was fought by the Native White American underclass led by Upperclass American Patriots who sought to rid themselves of the British multiculturalist parasite sucking their wealth. The Loyalist crowd, your people, fought against these patriots. After they lost most of you fled into Canada the others who stayed immediately set about undermining the US constitution developed by that genius Thomas Jefferson by adding 'amendments'. Thses same loyalist parasites enabled the Jews to enter enmasse and empowered them to work in conjunction with the Loyalist WASPs in fermenting a Civil War the start of the meddling within society.

[Creeping Death]

I think you're just biased because you had some bad experiences in Connecticut.
No I actually had great experiences with Americans, just I found the dinosaur first families as the others did a joke.

What was the problem, did people keep mistaking you for Puerto Rican?:rolleyes:
Hmmm Puerto Rican, mixed race people, the WASP's have something in common with them.

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:......

It's always the same old song with you. Odd you seem to have a Celtic fetish & reject your own culture.

:thumbs up

[Brännvin]

Change what???? I just find it strange how Iceland is 40%! and not higher.

No, it is not strange. Indeed, 42% is quite high when compared to the percentage of 25% - 28% of Rb1 in Norway, this proves that one part of male lineage in the founding population of Iceland also took place in British Islands, as I mentioned in another post linking for the study.

[Barreldriver]

"Or that 90% of the cases are true and you know I am correct and you are making up excuses for trace elements of coloured blood. "


^Foley you cannot claim any % of the cases are true because I can guarantee that you will not find a single genetic study proving or disproving it.

[Osweo]

... your low-class, unskilled, illiterate Irish Papist ancestors to flood in like rats and fill cheap labour roles throughout the English-speaking Colonies. Unlike yourself, I've never been part of any second-class society.
Um, a lot of my ancestors were part of that lot, mate. Steady on, we didn't all end up Foleys. :mad: Such a background isn't a completely insurmountable obstacle in the quest to become a sensible and affable individual of taste and discernment, you know! :D
It is my personal musing that the rejection of theocratic brainwashing and superstition is a big part of it, and I will admit that many seem to have found it harder to shruf this nasty part of the heritage off. :(

British multiculturalism.
People who wanted an Ireland free of British influence in the greater part of the last century flirted with Marxism and other international 'civil rights' victim ideologies. They tried to dress up their nasty furtive criminal antics accordingly. Are we now witnessing the start of a phase wherein the present 'rebellion culture' is directed against the creations of the 1968 generation, and the IRA gang are trying to tack onto this new trend? Or are you a 'lone wolf', Foley?

[Loyalist]

Um, a lot of my ancestors were part of that lot, mate. Steady on, we didn't all end up Foleys. :mad: Such a background isn't a completely insurmountable obstacle in the quest to become a sensible and affable individual of taste and discernment, you know! :D
It is my personal musing that the rejection of theocratic brainwashing and superstition is a big part of it, and I will admit that many seem to have found it harder to shruf this nasty part of the heritage off. :(

There's a Papist Famine refugee a few generations back in my own family; looks like at least a few of us turned out alright. :thumbs up

[Creeping Death]

No, it is not strange. Indeed, 42% is quite high when compared to the percentage of 25% - 28% of Rb1 in Norway, this proves that one part of male lineage in the founding population of Iceland also took place in British Islands, as I mentioned in another post linking for the study.
Explain this one to me

Myths of British ancestry revisited (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/06/mythsofbritishancestryrevisited/)
Stephen Oppenheimer responds to readers' questions and comments on his October 2006 article on British ancestry
Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect’s blog

Stephen Oppenheimer’s article “Myths of British ancestry” in the October 2006 issue of Prospect attracted a huge online readership, and continues to generate comments and responses. Here, Oppenheimer replies to a number of them.

Q—Stephen Oppenheimer’s fascinating thesis helps to answer one of the most vexing questions of dark-age British history: why is there so little trace of Celtic culture in England and in the English language? The fact that so little remains of Celtic influence in England in terms of place names—outside Cornwall and Cumbria—and in the language points to a long process of cultural conquest by the 4th and 3rd centuries BC Belgic invaders, who were Germanic, as implied by Julius Caesar’s history of his British adventures. The cultural and linguistic origins of the English are thus pre-Roman. The Anglo-Saxon elite invasions of the 5th and 6th centuries AD reinforced, rather than created, a pre-existing difference between the proto-English and the culturally Celtic of the western fringes of the British Isles.


Mark Hudson

Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect’s blog

Stephen Oppenheimer’s article “Myths of British ancestry” in the October 2006 issue of Prospect attracted a huge online readership, and continues to generate comments and responses. Here, Oppenheimer replies to a number of them.

Q—Stephen Oppenheimer’s fascinating thesis helps to answer one of the most vexing questions of dark-age British history: why is there so little trace of Celtic culture in England and in the English language? The fact that so little remains of Celtic influence in England in terms of place names—outside Cornwall and Cumbria—and in the language points to a long process of cultural conquest by the 4th and 3rd centuries BC Belgic invaders, who were Germanic, as implied by Julius Caesar’s history of his British adventures. The cultural and linguistic origins of the English are thus pre-Roman. The Anglo-Saxon elite invasions of the 5th and 6th centuries AD reinforced, rather than created, a pre-existing difference between the proto-English and the culturally Celtic of the western fringes of the British Isles.

Mark Hudson

A—This letter draws attention to an aspect of the evidence that I understate in my book, namely the near-absence of Celtic influence in modern English place names. Whereas there are a couple of examples of near-complete “language shift” with absence of borrowing from a previous aboriginal vocabulary, indigenous place names are in general more resistant to extinction. This can be seen in America and Australia, which retain a considerable number of indigenous place names. These two examples are interesting, not only because massive replacement and genocide took place, but also because Australian and American English retain far more aboriginal vocabulary than native English retains Celtic. England itself retains pre-Indo-European place and river names, but few Celtic names, and the English language has literally only a handful of Celtic words.

The fact that England is such a “Celtic desert” is a problem for linguists who believe that Anglo-Saxon triumphed in what had been a totally Celtic-speaking region, even given the gory stories of massacre. This problem is because the Angles and Saxons apparently carried out a much better job of language extinction than in Australia and America, where genocide and massive replacement are so well documented. The “overkill” problem is acknowledged by English place name authority Richard Coates in a recent article “Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics,” where he concludes either that the genocide was complete or that there were few Britons actually living in England to interact with the invaders: “I argue that there is no reason to believe large-scale survival of an indigenous population could so radically fail to leave linguistic traces.”

Rather than pause to question scholarly assumptions that England had been 100 per cent Celtic-speaking until the 5th-century invasions, Coates prefers to use the linguistic evidence to challenge the genetic evidence: “These are the questions that need to be answered by those who propose a massive contribution of Britons to the “English” gene-pool.”

I guess I would see it the other way around. While there is no reason to expect that language change, resulting from invasion, should necessarily be massively reflected in the genetic picture, there is every expectation that complete genocide predicted by linguists should be—if it really happened.

Stephen Oppenheimer

Q—Oppenheimer’s article shows the futility of letting scientists loose on purely historical questions, which are better tackled by historians, archaeologists and linguists. There is no essential connection between where your ancestors came from in the Neolithic period and what language you speak or how you behave culturally. In any case, statistically all of us are descended from everyone: allowing 25 years per generation, in the 62 generations since 450AD, we have had 4.6 x 1016 direct ancestors, more people than have ever existed, and so we must be related to everyone on earth many times over.

Martin Nichols

A—From your first sentence it seems you must long for the good old days when historians, archaeologists and linguists could speculate on European invasions by Indo-Aryans, Kurgan horsemen and Celts, free of troublesome biological evidence. If you read my article and book, you will realise that your second sentence contains my starting point or null hypothesis: that connections between culture and genes are likely to be tenuous and that individual cases where this is claimed have to be tested appropriately.

Stephen Oppenheimer

Q—It is true that, “The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago.” This is the R lineage group and most European males have an R Y chromosome. But it is rather silly to say that, “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.” Angles, Saxons, Celts and Basques are not lineage groups. They are ethnic groups that developed within the last 2,000 or 3,000 years. Like most Europeans, they probably belonged to the R lineage. Most Germans, Poles, French, Spaniards and Russians also belong to the R lineage group. None of this negates the established history of the British Isles.

Has Oppenheimer read the research of Weale et al—”Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration” (2002)—which shows that the male populations in two central English towns were genetically very similar, whereas those of two north Welsh towns differed significantly both from each other and from the English towns? Using novel population genetic models that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, they concluded that this was best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into central England—but not into north Wales.

Douglas Forbes

A—I cannot claim responsibility for your second quotation, which is from the article’s standfirst. As you must realise, authors of magazine articles rarely have control over these. I cannot disagree with your complaint, but hopefully you read the whole article.

On your second point, it is misleading for you to talk about frequencies of the R male lineage in different European countries as if this constituted a uniform genetic background, since there are actually two main R groups, which split tens of thousands of years ago outside Europe and had completely different modes of spread and present distributions in Europe. R1b expanded from the Basque Ice Age refuge and predominates in extreme western Europe, being found at only 20 per cent or less in Russia and the Baltic states. R1a1, on the other hand, predominates in eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent in Scandinavia. I deal with the spread of both major R lineages at length in chapters 3 and 4 of my book The Origins of the British.

I have indeed read the research of Weale et al. I discuss it and similar papers at length in chapter 11 of my book, where I register my disagreement with their method of reconstruction from relative gene group frequencies, presenting instead my own phylo-geographic re-analysis of their data, based on fine detail of individual founding lineages.

Stephen Oppenheimer

Q—Interestingly, Robert Graves, in his book The White Goddess, developed a theory about early settlement of these islands similar to Stephen Oppenheimer’s. Graves’s evidence is based on early literary sources, mythology, local tradition and the archaeology known at the time of writing. I gather that Graves is not popular among archaeologists. But if you are prepared to tease out strands of DNA from human body fluids, looking through The White Goddess should be no greater challenge.

Christine Peace

A—Thanks for this information. I have read several of Graves’s books, but not The White Goddess. I shall rectify. Incidentally, another European scholar, linguist Theo Venneman, has a reconstruction of post-Ice Age recolonisation of the British Isles, which gives a relative of the Basque language primacy of place as the first entrant. I outline his theory in the new paperback edition of my book The Origins of the British.

Stephen Oppenheimer

Q—Regarding your statement that 75-95 per cent of paternal genes in Britain are of Iberian origin, is this genetic material distinct and specific only among Basque-type peoples, or does some of it share features with other, non-Basque Europeans? If the latter is true, why is it omitted from your findings?

Timothy Burton

A—I do discuss the questions you raise, but in chapters 3 and 4 of my book The Origins of the British, not in the more condensed Prospect article. Part of the answer to your query is in my answer to Douglas Forbes above, but allow me to expand a little more here.

As you suggest, the re-expansion of paternal group R1b and maternal group H from the Basque Ice Age refuge spread up the coasts of all the countries facing the Atlantic, after the ice melted. The British Isles retained higher rates than the other countries, for several reasons related specifically to early movements directly from the Basque country rather than from general diffusion from western Europe. First, as a result of lower sea levels, the British Isles, in particular Ireland, were connected and at the furthest edge of the extended Ice Age European continent, and thus received the bulk of early coastal migration. Then, as sea levels rose, first Ireland then Britain became islands, relatively insulated from further migration from elsewhere in Europe, thus preserving their high rates of R1b and similarity to the initial settlements.

The means by which I could separate the R1b types in the British Isles from those on the other side of the channel is by the use of “Founder Analysis.” That is, looking at the detail of their gene types (so-called STR haplotypes). These revealed 21 founding clusters, which could only have arrived direct from the Basque country. Their descendant twigs are unique to the British Isles. Furthermore I was able to date the arrival of these individual clusters using their diversity.

Stephen Oppenheimer

Q—What about the genetic make-up of the Man Islanders? Did it suffer few modifications from its origins because of? geographical remoteness, or is it very different from the rest of the British Isles because of the impact of invasions (such as the Vikings) on a small population?

Alexandre Cogan

A—The simple answer is that your first suggestion is closer to the truth than your second. The Isle of Man received more Norwegian gene-flow than anywhere else in the British Isles, except for Shetland and Orkney, which received the most. This does not, however, account for more than 20-25% of the male Isle of Man gene pool. Fig 11.4b in my book gives a very approximate genetic distance map, illustrating this in more detail.

Stephen Oppenheimer
Seems everything is pure speculation.

[Creeping Death]

^Foley you cannot claim any % of the cases are true because I can guarantee that you will not find a single genetic study proving or disproving it.
And you cannot deny that Old Stock Families are free of coloured blood after 500 years of contact. Regardless of what those New England Yankees told me about the Southern Gentry, I liked the Reb's;)

[Allenson]

And you cannot deny that Old Stock Families are free of coloured blood after 500 years of contact. Regardless of what those New England Yankees told me about the Southern Gentry, I liked the Reb's;)

Sure, there are traces of non-European blood here and there. No one is denying it. I haven't found any in my woodpile but there may be a squaw in there somewhere, Kemosabe.

One thing to keep in mind though, whilst bashing Old Stock Americans is this fact: despite 400 years of contact with Amerinds & Negros, we are amazingly still pure Europid in our genotypes & phenotypes. Considering humanity's propensity for shagging anything that moves, particularly a bunch of Frontiersmen, westing by musket & sextant, who hadn't seen a pretty English gal for months, it's quite striking that we are not a buch of coffee-and-cream colored, flat-nosed & frizzy haired tri-racials.

So there. :thumbs up

[Barreldriver]

And you cannot deny that Old Stock Families are free of coloured blood after 500 years of contact. Regardless of what those New England Yankees told me about the Southern Gentry, I liked the Reb's;)

And you cannot deny that it is not the norm for every Old Stock case. Your statements suggest that such events are the norm for the majority of Old Stock cases, this simply cannot be proven, otherwise there would not be so many people able to trace their genealogies back to Europe and there would not be so many with European DNA and phenotypes.


Also, you fail to realize that the British Isle's also had contact with Negro slaves and such, the slave trades did not start in America bucko.

[Æmeric]

I lived in New Milford, thats about 20 miles I think from Danbury, I used to work near a place called Bantam Lake, all these old established families used to live there, even a Black family had been there since the late 1700's.

And that Black family hadn't disappeared into the greater White populace, giving the local Whites a cocoa tinge. Because of the colorline that existed with few exceptions as regards to White-Black relationships. Where there was miscegenation the resulting progeny was absorbed into the Black genepool. Which is why America, after 400-years of contact between Europeans & Africans, still has distinct White & Black communities.

On the other hand there were hundreds of thousands of African slaves brought into European areas such as Portugal & those parts of Spain bordering the Mediterrenean, such as Andalucia & Valencia. The inportation of African slaves started before Columbus set sail for the New World. Yet where are the descendents of those slaves? Why is there no distinct seperate Afro-Castilian or Afro-Lusitanian community in those parts of Spain or Portugal that received African slaves?

[Brännvin]

Explain this one to me

Seems everything is pure speculation.

And? :confused:

What does this have to do with Iceland?

My argument against you here it was the fact you have put Scandinavia and Iceland at the same level of Rb1 that exists in British Isles, when in fact it is false, you like it or not, the percentage of I1(mainly) and R1a found in Scandinavia and Iceland can not be compared to that found in the England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland where the Rb1 is shot the dominant haplotype.

The percentage speaks for itself;
Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml)

Get it!

[Creeping Death]

And? :confused:

What does this have to do with Iceland?

My argument against you here it was the fact you have put Scandinavia and Iceland at the same level of Rb1 that exists in British Isles, when in fact it is false, you like it or not, the percentage of I1(mainly) and R1a found in Scandinavia and Iceland can not be compared to that found in the England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland where the Rb1 is shot the dominant haplotype.

The percentage speaks for itself;
Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by region in percentage (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml)

Get it!
For the Love of Mike, we were discussing, Rb1, I asked you to read the Fucking article and explain it, but forget it, its tiresome communicating with you, your very dry.

[Beorn]

Surely you mean R1b? Or are you having a lapse from being a twat? :)

[Creeping Death]

Sure, there are traces of non-European blood here and there. No one is denying it. I haven't found any in my woodpile but there may be a squaw in there somewhere, Kemosabe.
Id think your ancestors were smart they paid the squaw wampum, not marry her.:thumb001:

Your statements suggest that such events are the norm for the majority of Old Stock cases, this simply cannot be proven, otherwise there would not be so many people able to trace their genealogies back to Europe and there would not be so many with European DNA and phenotypes.

Which is why America, after 400-years of contact between Europeans & Africans, still has distinct White & Black communities.
Its being proven right now.

The genes that build America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/15/usa.genetics)

Fine has a point. For centuries, America has been less a racial melting pot and more a stew, where different communities bump up against each other, but keep mostly to themselves. Yet, as millions of Americans take DNA tests, they are discovering a surprising truth: America's strict racial lines are, in fact, blurred. One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.

It is scary very scary.

[Allenson]

Its being proven right now. It is scary very scary.

I'm still pretty skeptical of these autosomnal tests. I mean, they often yield results containing percentages of "Native American" "East Asian" and "African" genes in Europeans themselves. This alone, makes me wonder about their accuracy.

Here's a Spanish guy who's results came out Chinese & Australian Aboriginal: :mmmm:

http://dna-forums.org/index.php?showtopic=7977

[Barreldriver]

I

Its being proven right now.

The genes that build America

Fine has a point. For centuries, America has been less a racial melting pot and more a stew, where different communities bump up against each other, but keep mostly to themselves. Yet, as millions of Americans take DNA tests, they are discovering a surprising truth: America's strict racial lines are, in fact, blurred. One-third of white Americans, according to some tests, will possess between two and 20 per cent African genes. The majority of black Americans have some European ancestors.

It is scary very scary.

Really? I'd like to see how they would test the entire population of the U.S. to get those figures, and this is the oldest story out there, it has been debunked hundreds of times on various fora.

[Gooding]

Really? I'd like to see how they would test the entire population of the U.S. to get those figures, and this is the oldest story out there, it has been debunked hundreds of times on various fora.

Why, though? The tests are obviously biased and the participants carefully selected. Anyway, due to the proximity of Europe to the continents of Africa and Asia...:rolleyes: Well, let's just say that our relative isolation also serves as a barrier to protect our own gene pool.;)

[007]

And you cannot deny that Old Stock Families are free of coloured blood after 500 years of contact.

You're Irish, aren't you?