|
Post by buddyrydell on May 15, 2005 1:55:09 GMT -5
The purported Germanic descent of the English people through the alleged swamping of the Celtic Britons by the Anglo-Saxons in what is now England has been questioned by many scholars, some of whom are English themselves. I personally think that the English have a very significant Celtic component to their ancestry, at least more than they are commonly thought. Have there been genetic studies to show which populations the English are most closely linked to? Would the populations be the modern Danes/N. Germans (from where the Anglo-Saxons originally came) or their more Celtic neighbors, the Irish, Scots, and Welsh?
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 15, 2005 2:04:33 GMT -5
I think it depends on the region of England. Some of them are surely more Anglo-Saxon than others. I doubt the people of Cornwall are as Anglo-Saxon as the people of Wessex or Kent, for example.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on May 15, 2005 2:11:56 GMT -5
I think it depends on the region of England. Some of them are surely more Anglo-Saxon than others. I doubt the people of Cornwall are as Anglo-Saxon as the people of Wessex or Kent, for example. Thanks Mike, yes I know that eastern England has more people with the Germanic features, though I'm curious as to whether the general pattern throughout England, even in those eastern regions like Wessex and Kent, is more Celtic or Anglo-Saxon. I'm thinking perhaps much of the population of eastern England is of predominantly Anglo-Saxon descent, whereas the Englishmen who live in Cornwall or near Wales are largely descended from Anglicized Britons.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 15, 2005 12:10:53 GMT -5
I thinks its B.S or grossly over inflated & exaggerated. The Roman occupation of Briton lasted for a much longer and prosperous time span and rule than any Germanic invasion ever did.The Italian men where well known for being Rome's greatest gift to the world, as the old saying goes. Where our men went they took local women and mated.Their was Large Roman settlements and colonization with soldiers and their local women with offspring. But Supposedly their was no mixture...Thats just utter nonsense. England is lying and covering up the facts,or geneticists need a shot in the head to wake up.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on May 18, 2005 17:44:50 GMT -5
Does anyone else have any theories on this subject?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 18, 2005 18:26:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on May 20, 2005 8:56:57 GMT -5
Does anyone else have any theories on this subject? In a sense the English are wholly Anglo-Saxon. The concept of an "Anglo-Saxon" people and of Englishness were created in England some time between the collapse of Roman power in Britain and the writings of the Venerable Bede in the 8th century. On the other hand, how much of the genetic make up of the modern English population derives from NW Germany is at present unknown. It is easy to peg any variation in genetic marker frequency found between the Welsh and the Eastern English as being the result of recent historically attested "invasions," that is the Anglo-Saxon and Viking incomings. However, this approach is very simplistic and very dubius. This is because we have no idea how much difference in genetic markers existed between the populations of what is now England and Wales before even the Romans arrived. The only way of testing this is the characterisation of DNA from ancient remains. At present the level of preservation of such DNA and reproducible methods of extracting and sequencing this DNA seem to be wanting. Personally I feel that the greater part of the genetic make up of the English people derives from the Pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain. There is no reason why an Iceni tribesman (East coast of England) of the first century AD should have been genetically identical to a contemporary Demetian (South-west Wales), even though their language and culture were at the time similar. As far as genetic marker frequencies derived from modern populations are indicative of relatedness, the modern English seem to be broadly similar to those found on the other side of the English Channel and the North Sea. The Danish and North-west German frequencies seem in no degree closer to the English than the North French and Belgian ones are. As one might expect the English show marker frequencies intermediate between those found in the parts of the continent of Europe closest to Britain and those found in the Welsh and Irish populations.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on May 20, 2005 10:40:22 GMT -5
The Anglo-Saxon identity of the English people received an Immense 'Boost' during the 19th century. Most European countries during this period, re-discovered the 'middle ages and reinvented them in the arts as well as in official History. For example in France, with the return of the Bourbon monarchy, the middle ages supplanted in the official imaginery the 'Classical world' sponsored by the Napoleonic Empire.
In England The'Anglo-Saxons' established England's roots as a kingdom, discarding the 'Keltic' or 'British' view Especially during Queen Victoria's reign (1837-1901) A much fantasized Anglo-Saxon myth became evident in the arts (Such as the pseudo Medieval aspect of state architecture: The palace of Westminster)
Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert was a German, while British foreign policies tended towards Germany and a balance in Europe.
The late period of Victoria's reign saw the re-flourish of British and Keltic myths such as the'Arturian saga' and 'Queen Boudicca'. During this period Britain started to have tensions with the European and Colonial pretensions of the newly formed German Empire, during this period it is speculated that the Queen after her husband death, had some sort of relationship with her Scottish and kilted squire, Robert Brown
With WWI and especially WWII, The British Royal family was forced to camouflage their Germanic roots ( the family name 'Battenberg' changed into the more aquaintable 'Mountbatten'), and the Anglo-Saxons turned into mere pillagers.
The almost racist view of that some Victorians had of the Irish as the primitive Kelts, has today (excluding a black period in the 1970s with the IRA bombings) changed into an almost affectionate and nostalgic folkloristic view of 'Emerald Island' or 'Island of Memories'.
In the last century much importance was given to the Viking expansion in Britain as well as the to its Roman Heritage, while today, the 'Archeological mania' is re-discovering the Bronze and Neolithic ages.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on May 20, 2005 11:10:48 GMT -5
I thinks its B.S or grossly over inflated & exaggerated. Roman genetic influence on the British is limited (unfortunately;)) It is more true instead to say that it was the rest of the Empire that heavily influenced (also culturally) the lower classes of the Urbis The actual 'Roman' romans, in Britain, mainly provided the upper officer and admin staff. And often intermarried with other Romans and kept links with home. Many Roman and Italic lower officers married British women, and many more had probably illegitimate offrpring. But is scarcely credible that they would have never numbered enough to influence Britain genetically, not to mention racially. Most of the soldiers stationed in Britain are believed to have been Hodge-Podge of nationalities and races ranging from 'Nubian' Sudanese Archers, to Sarmatian "Cavalry' to Dacian and Pannonian and Lebanese 'Legonaries', and Gaulish tradesmen. Most Soldiers during the late period were 'Anglo-Saxons' and 'Batavians'(Dutch) mercenaries. Many more were the Romanized 'Britons' themselves.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on May 20, 2005 11:52:21 GMT -5
That romantic view of the past can also be seen in beautiful 19th century English Pre-Raphaelite paintings.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on May 20, 2005 16:45:03 GMT -5
Examples:
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on May 20, 2005 22:38:45 GMT -5
Thank all of you for responding. The genetic analyses were also very informing, and I personally think that the fact that the English on average tend to be in between the Irish/Scots/Welsh and continental Europeans from across the North Sea/English Channel as far as gene frequencies go suggests a basically mixed Celtic/Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with some Viking, Norman-French, Roman, and other smaller contributions present as well.
I also find it very interesting that at various points in history it was simply more fashionable for England to identify with its Anglo-Saxon heritage whereas at other times the focal point for pride was the Celtic heritage. One can see this in the historical figures who have been regarded as early "ancestral heroes" so to speak, such as Boudicca for the Celtic side and Arminius, the early German commander who slaughtered three Roman legions at Teotuburg Forest in 9 A.D., for the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) side. By preventing the Romans from subduing the greater part of Germany, the English claim that it enabled their Anglo-Saxon ancestors to preserve their language and culture which would be carried to Britain when they left N. Germany to invade/settle Britain.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 20, 2005 23:53:07 GMT -5
Its all about Politics!
What you have to have to understand that after WW1 and especially after WW2 it was quite common to start looking down at Empires,and to start playing up the underdogs which stood for the new popular thing of the day, called "liberty".
When countries like Britain started building there Empires,they played up the ROMAN occupation,and claimed they where decendants of the mighty Romans ect.(even the Grmansi did the same as did the French and Russians)Now people like Boudicia who was nothing but a boodthirsty butcher herself, now gets looked upon as culture hero,or resistance fighter.
The fact remains that Roman occupation of Britain and Europe was one of Prosperity and great productively...
The celtic thing,as Platypus mentioned, was only became popular due to the new politics of the 18th & 19th century to play up the "Celtic" roots of all the British people which would include the Welsh,Cornish,Scotish and Irish.The Enlgish used it as propaganda to unite the lands under the United Kingdom banner.
When the Roman's pulled outve Britain,the Briton's literatly begged Rome to save them from the Germanic invaders and to come back and rule them as they once did.
Armininus- was a Roman trained Soldier and a Traitor,though he should be respected, as even the Romans praised him as a great soldier,it should be remembered that he was killed by other germans..
The Roman Germanicus reclaimed the lost legions standards,and brought major defeats to Arminius and the germanic tribes.
*80% of the root words in English come from latin.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 21, 2005 0:11:46 GMT -5
As usually our romophilia blinds you crimson. 80 percent of english roots are not latin, its little more then 50 percent but the 100 most commonly used words in english are all of germanic derivation. Your also not entirely correct on the effect of roman occupation on britain it certainly brought some more advanced culture and a great deal of commerce but overall the quality of life of the population seems to have decreased. Check out the link on heights in the anthro links section.
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on May 21, 2005 15:03:01 GMT -5
Approximately 80% of the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary has been lost and left no descendants in Modern English, more than 60% of Modern English words have an ultimately Latin root (usually via Old French).
To classify Modern English as a purely Germanic language is misleading and an intermediate classification of Romano-Germanic should be used if the reality of the position of Modern English is to be accurately reflected.
Old English was a purely West Germanic language but Modern English has been so radically altered that this should be recognised in how it is classified.
|
|