Celtic vs Saxon DNA

Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by brian, Jun 30, 2003.

  1. brian

    brian Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's an interesting article -

    taken from:
    http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/25-6-19103-23-43-29.html

    DNA suggests the Celts held their ground

    Scientists shatter Anglo-Saxon myth, writes STEPHEN STEWART

    THE first analysis of DNA passed from father to son across the UK has shattered the Anglocentric view of early British history, it emerged yesterday.

    For decades, historians have believed that successive waves of invaders, such as the Anglo-Saxons, drove out the indigenous population of the British Isles, labelled Celts, pushing them to the fringes of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

    However, work by a team of scientists on the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son, has shown the native tribes left their genetic stamp throughout the UK and not only in the "Celtic fringe".

    The evidence suggests that Anglo-Saxons tend to dominate British history merely because they kept better written records than their indigenous counterparts.

    A large number of native people remained in England and central Ireland and were never entirely replaced by the invaders, often surviving in high proportions throughout the British Isles, according to the research by Professor David Goldstein, Dr Jim Wilson, and a team of experts at University College London.

    The study was based on comparing Y chromosomes from Britain with the invaders' Y chromosomes, represented by descendants of Danes, Vikings (in Norway) and Anglo-Saxons (in Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany).

    Dr Jim Wilson, a population geneticist from Orkney who is now based at University College London, said: "The recent paper was based on a study that I carried out on Orkney to tell if the inhabitants were descended from Vikings.

    "It found the genetic profile was halfway between Norway and Ireland, suggesting that the Vikings did have a significant effect on the population.

    "In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.

    "The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and genetics go together.

    "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."

    Dr Wilson and his colleagues established that Y chromosomes of Britain's indigenous populations were almost identical to those of the Basques, who live on the French-Spanish border and speak a language unrelated to the Indo-European tongues that swept into Europe 8000 years ago.

    "We tended to avoid the term 'Celts' as there is some debate about it. For example, the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from the Basques, who are the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Europe," he said.

    "The Basques were in Europe before farming and before the development of Indo-European languages such as those spoken by the people labelled Celts."

    The indigenous population, genetically very close to the Basques, must also be drawn from the original Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe.

    They are possibly the first modern inhabitants of Britain, who settled the islands about 10,000 years ago.

    As well as the Vikings' genetic trail in Orkney, a centre of Viking activity from 800-1200, many men in York and east England carry Danish Y chromosomes but there was little sign of Anglo-Saxon heritage in south England, once believed to have been heavily colonised.


    Cultural evolution

    The notion there is a specific history of the Celts, as opposed to the individual histories of the Irish, Welsh and Scots, is a recent phenomenon.

    Between the fall of the Roman Empire and circa 1700, "Celtic" was used only to describe the ancient Gauls of France and related continental peoples.

    The conventional view has been that Celts shared certain cultural traits such as related languages; they were also all non-literate and non-urban.

    The alternative view is that great differences occurred between so-called Celtic cultures. For example, Druidic cults may have been confined to the British Isles and much of Gaul, and were possibly unknown among most of the continental tribes called Celts in the Iron Age.

    -June 25th
     
  2. WHKeith

    WHKeith New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, Brian! Thanks! I'd never heard that about the Basques! Wonderful!

    Too bad the article doesn;t also address the Picts who, by popular belief, inhabited Brotain before the Celts got there, and were forced out to the fringes of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Some see stories of the "wee people" living underground and being afraid of iron as a memory of the Picts who still lived out in the wilder areas after the Celts took over. Webster's Unabridged has no idea where the word "pixie" comes from. Might it come from "picts?"

    Of course, the big problem is identifying the Celts. As far as I can determine, the Celts were not even known as a distinct people until around BCE 700 or so. Therefor, contrary to New Age Fluffy-Bunny wisdom, the Celts (and Druids) did NOT build Stonehenge or the other megalithic ruins scattered across Europe (and even here in New England!)

    There's been speculation on this side of the pond of pre-Celt or proto-Celt populations, but little agreement on how to distinguish them. Damn, the Romans did too good a job on them, and since only the Romans kept written records . . .
     
  3. Dave the Web

    Dave the Web New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had heard something of this great masscare by the Saxons. I am glad to hear it is an exaggeration as it did not sound plausible either. I have read of how even the terrifying Vikings were eventually assimilated into the British way of life.
    Are the Britons really related to the Basque people?
    I find it interesting to see mention of pre-Celtic peoples. If it was not the Celts who built Stonehenge then who did?
     
  4. fire-nymph

    fire-nymph New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely it was implausable to assume that an ~entire~ country's population moved to the far reaches anyway? I dont really see how this is a huge revelation...
     
  5. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Rising above DNA

    That's all very interesting.

    But would you all here sympathize with my aspiration for a mankind that transcends DNA and takes a man's action and word as the sole determinant of his distinction and worth..

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards all!

    "If it was not the Celts who built Stonehenge then who did?"

    Perhaps the Phoenicians?...
     
  7. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Actually, I'm sure this is a theory that has been holding precedence - that of a mass de-population of the British Isles by Saxon rapacity. That's why the new study is so important in countering it.

    As for who built Stone-Henge - quite possibly, the very people the Celts pushed out of Britain. :)
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards all!

    I also heard somewhere that "Saxon" transliterates to Isaac's sons, an alliteration to the ten tribes.
     
  9. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Celts came from S.W. Germany...

    The OP says:

    I looked up 'Celts' in my Petit Larousse, and this is what I read:

    Celts -- one of the ancient peoples speaking Celtic originally found in S.W. Germany in 1500 BCE, who spread through France to N. Spain and the British Isles (700 BCE); they also went eastward all the way to Asia Minor (300 BCE); they were conquered and absorbed by the Romans and the barbarians until only enclaves remained in Brittany and in the west of the British Isles.

    I always thought that the Celts were the early Irish and Roman Catholicism started in the British Isles among the Celts first or the Irish, hence the Celtic Church?

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  10. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually, your thoughts may be correct. There seems to be two opinions on who the Celts are (they still exist as a people). They are not Anglo, nor Saxon, however, they do have alot in common with the middle eastern people (music patterns, ritual patterns, and some say language patterns wise). The phonics are similar, to certain ancient eastern dialects but not at all close to the germanic linguistics.

    Heh, the Irish "temper" can be placed right along side a "Chaldeon" temperment, and the two from an outsider, would be synonomous...

    Celtic stubbornness of old would fit right in with the current attitude of the middle east today...don't you think?

    Prior to the movement of Islam, the Arab world was quite different, with women very much in power.

    The Celts had women in power up to and through the 650s AD (ACE), that is until the Roman Catholic Church finally put the kabosh on the whole thing. For some reason the "Dark Ages" seemed to kill the power of women (perhaps animal rule was the order of the day, and the male animal come out on top).

    I can tell you for fact that as of 560 AD (ACE), some of the greatest teachers left in the world were FEMALE ABBESSES (priests of non roman Catholic Christian origin), teaching British Island prodgeny, as well as such figures as Charlemagne, about the ways of life, and literature, so they could return to their kingdoms to rule with some semblence of wisdom. the Codices left behind by these warrior priest(esses) are still around today for validation.

    Hell, there was a point wherein the Vatican sent a groups of Bishops and "soldiers", to convince the Irish Catholic monks to side with the church of Rome (circa 630 AD). Upon meeting the Abbots and Abbesses, the church officials declared that all women of the cloth were to be stripped (in more ways than one), of their robes, and the attending "soldiers" were there to see to the order being fullfilled. That was the roman clergies' grave mistake.

    For underneath every Irish priests' robes was a mail of armor, and a broad sword twice the size of anything the Italians had. Half the Irish Priests were...women.

    Needless to say, Rome had to re-think its position.

    for further information on this "preposterous concept", please read the book titled, "How the Irish saved the world". Besides that, if you still believe it to be a hoax...let me introduce you to my mother, and sisters...

    hell, I'd like you to meet my wife!

    Dynamite definitely comes in tiny packages... "ok, ok hun I'm done...just let go of my ear...ahh!"

    v/r

    Q
     
  11. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Before antibiotics and surgery

    Thanks, Quah, for your informative and enjoyable contributions to the thread.

    You write:

    My attention is drawn to the 'broad sword twice the size of anything the Italians had'.

    Do you have any idea what were the practices in treating wounds like having one's abdomen cut open with entrails spilling out, during those days before the arrival of antibiotics and surgery?

    I once asked a doctor who does heart bypass surgery, he told me in jest that they just buried all such wounded soldiers. I guess he never took a good course in history of medicine, focusing on wounds from arrows, spears, swords, and other piercing, cutting, and slicing weapons.

    Those guys really had guts, going into battle knowing what's in store for them. What about today's soldiers? U.S. military personnel I believe can count on the latest medical attention to get them back to shape -- or they can count on a quick painless death, at least quick. Or can they?

    Either people going into battle in the past and to the present have guts or they are plain stupid or crazy -- which accounts for their guts.

    If for no other consideration the horror of wounds from military equipment and materiel should be more than enough to make people sane, to work for the abolition of war or war as an instrument to settle disputes between states.

    I guess mankind for being an intelligent species is actually crazy. But leaders of nations who send them to war are not crazy but diabolically perverse. How long are we going to bear with all such diabolically perverse leaders? Guess we are crazy or cowards to allow such leaders to continue to bring wars on mankind.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  12. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    The Celts, so far as history treats them, were from central Europe and migrated out, spreading out into Western and Northern Europe, and also southwards into Turkey - capturing Rome in the process, the only people in the history of the Roman Republic to sack that city.

    I'm not too sure of the actual cultural identity that that Celtic peoples took in the Near East - I think the term "Galatians" was often applied (Galatia being a part of Asia Minor).

    So there would likely be some form of potential cross-referncing between the peoples of Ireland the Near East - but it's not Mesopotamian in origin (certainly not directly, and almost certainly not Chaldean by any account).

    The Saxons themselves generally reference a swathe of tribes, from Holland to deep within Germany, who migrated across the English Channel to become assimiliated into the British Isles - as once the Celts has done before them.

    More from our modest section on Celtic beliefs here:

    http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/celtic/
     
  13. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    What about black races...?

    History of migrations and invasions and absoprtion is all about white folks. The hordes of Genghis Khan and his progenies I think those guys are yellow. No? they also made huge incursions into Western Europe.

    What about those black folks in dark Africa? They never did any migrations, invasions, and absorptions of white folks in Europe and in the Near East?

    Let me see now..., yes. Maybe not actively but passively: the big number of black folks who were captured and forcefully brought to the New World, specially the land now called the U.S.A., they are participants of a mass migration, invasion of sorts, and absorption of white folks in America. Even Thomas Jefferson joined in this movement, leaving some progenies of mixed blood, mixed with his own.

    Praise the Lord!

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Re: What about black races...?

    Sus,

    Didn't Hanabal give the Romans a fifteen year run for their money? I even think the idea of "tanks" eventually came from his use of elephants on the battle field.

    v/r

    Q
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    As far as DNA is concerned, I find that though I am a 4th generation American, I still carry rather distinct physical traits of my celtic ancestors. My sons do so even in more pronounced fashion. Aside from cultural carry overs and hand downs, there is the ruddy complexion, the aqua, green or blue green eyes, the reddish body and facial hair, the particular body design of certain peoples in general. Now, I know that as people marry into other "tribes" (ethnics different from one's origins), changes gradually take place, or in some cases dominant genes show up immediately. My sister, for example married a true german, and their children display traits from both. Me I fell for an Irish colleen, and what we got could walk the hills of the emerald Isle without being singled out as different (until they open their mouths and speak).


    I think in time though that a new "ethnic" group will emerge in America, as people continue to intermarry. I see the beginnings of this new race in people like my nephew, who's mother is Irish and Welch, and who's father is African and Latino. This "Kid", is 6' 3", 200 lbs, solid muscle, built like a swimmer, with hazel (golden green/brown eyes), golden brown skin, narrow faced with a square jaw, and aquiline lips, nose and cheek bones. He could be a model. Calling him pretty boy, however can lead to lighting off a temper from hell, and a good scrapple (if that was what one was looking for). And he's only 16. When he settles down (depending upon who he chooses for a mate), the resulting prodgeny will probably have looks and physiques even more pronounced and different (unique).

    It's going to interesting to watch the next couple of generations in America.

    v/r

    Q
     
  16. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think I mentioned elsewhere that I firmly believe that the genetic strength of our species depends on all our ethnic gene pools intermixing. :)

    As for the temper - ay-yah-yah - that's the Iberian blood. :)
     
  17. MatTheCat

    MatTheCat New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about this as a theory regarding the Saxon Vs Celt issue. When the Angles and Saxons came to Britain, Only the ruling elite of Celtic Britons fled when their forces were overpowered by the sheer weight of numbers of the Anglo-Saxon migrants. I think that historical records kept by educated/literate Celts of the time such as the monk Gilda's, which allude to a wholesale genocide commited on the Britons by the Saxons are heavily biased and based on a microscopic 'self-centred' experience of the Anglo-Saxon invasion/migration. Like any invading force, the Saxons would have made it their aim to displace the existing power structures, i.e. the ruling Briton families could either submit to Saxon rule (not likely) or fight or flee the land. There are also records that have been kept that show that Celtic and Germanic noble families intermarried with one another even during times of conflict just as noble families from rival countries at war with one another have intermarried in more recent history. But as for the common people constituting the mass of the Celtic genepool, the Saxons may have even been doing them a favour by whacking their old slave masters, and besides, there is an important technological factor which meant that both these peoples distinct in culture and custom from one another could have lived peacefully side by side without any huge reason for conflict after the Anglo-Saxons had established themselves as Masters of the area. Due to the Celtic agricultural technology, they were only capable of farming land with a relatively thin soil, i.e. they only farmed land on the top of hills. Whilst the Saxons had deep horse drawn ploughs which meant they could farm the more fertile 'thicker' soils of Lowland areas. The Anglo-Saxons lived and worked the Lowlands whilst the Celts lived and worked the Highlands. The fact that for a long time the Saxons would have viewed the Celts as second rate people is merely a social symptom that goes hand in hand with one culture invading and dominating another. But my point is, the most part of the Celtic genepool remained very much intact in the country.......as of course genetic research has shown!
     
  18. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Thanks for that, MatTheCat - and I especially liked the point about the intermarriage - there have apparently been close relations between Britain and Northern Europe throughout pre-recorded history.

    And when we do get into literary history - ie, the Roman invasion period, we encounter complaints that Britain was serving as a base to help the Germanic tribes the Romans were fighting.

    Also I live in East Yorkshire, which was settled by the Parisi before Roman occupation - and, by their achaeological remains, were far more culturally connected with northern Europe than the rest of Britain even.
     
  19. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Two good references to back Mat are "How the Irish Saved the World" and "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley.

    v/r

    Q
     
  20. castleman

    castleman Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have created a web page which gives a very good description of Anglo Saxon history! I have decided to write this because this isn't taught in schools and most adults lack any of this influential knowledge! I have written this in very easy to understand language and any one who reads this will undoubtedly become very knowledgeable on this subject. The Saxons
    influenced England so much so that even today it is recognisable! My web page can be found on facebook and a link may be sent to you from my email:
     

Share This Page