This article is a little dated at 1998. For a good up to date book on the subject, I recommend: Origins Of The British by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
BTW, before you finish reading this book, you'll want to have yor DNA analysed.
Posted on 08/28/2007 9:02:50 PM PDT by blam
Peoples of Britain
By Dr Simon James
Did the Celts exist? Simon James asks just who were the Britons - and did the Celts ever really exist? Uncover the fascinating ethnic and cultural history of the peoples of Briton, and assess the impact of the many invaders of Britain's shores.
Introduction
The story of early Britain has traditionally been told in terms of waves of invaders displacing or annihilating their predecessors. Archaeology suggests that this picture is fundamentally wrong. For over 10,000 years people have been moving into - and out of - Britain, sometimes in substantial numbers, yet there has always been a basic continuity of population.
'Before Roman times, 'Britain' was just a geographical entity and had no political meaning and no single cultural identity.' The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited.
Substantial genetic continuity of population does not preclude profound shifts in culture and identity. It is actually quite common to observe important cultural change, including adoption of wholly new identities, with little or no biological change to a population. Millions of people since Roman times have thought of themselves as 'British', for example, yet this identity was only created in 1707 with the Union of England, Wales and Scotland.
Before Roman times 'Britain' was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no single cultural identity. Arguably this remained generally true until the 17th century, when James I of England sought to establish a pan-British monarchy.
Throughout recorded history the island has consisted of multiple cultural groups and identities. Many of these groupings looked outwards, across the seas, for their closest connections - they did not necessarily connect naturally with their fellow islanders, many of whom were harder to reach than maritime neighbours in Ireland or continental Europe.
It therefore makes no sense to look at Britain in isolation; we have to consider it with Ireland as part of the wider 'Atlantic Archipelago', nearer to continental Europe and, like Scandinavia, part of the North Sea world.
The first 'Britons' were an ethnically mixed group From the arrival of the first modern humans - who were hunter-gatherers, following the retreating ice of the Ice Age northwards - to the beginning of recorded history is a period of about 100 centuries, or 400 generations. This is a vast time span, and we know very little about what went on through those years; it is hard even to fully answer the question, 'Who were the early peoples of Britain?', because they have left no accounts of themselves.
'Throughout prehistory there were myriad small-scale societies and many petty 'tribal' identities...' We can, however, say that biologically they were part of the Caucasoid population of Europe. The regional physical stereotypes familiar to us today, a pattern widely thought to result from the post-Roman Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions - red-headed people in Scotland, small, dark-haired folk in Wales and lanky blondes in southern England - already existed in Roman times. Insofar as they represent reality, they perhaps attest the post-Ice Age peopling of Britain, or the first farmers of 6,000 years ago.
From an early stage, the constraints and opportunities of the varied environments of the islands of Britain encouraged a great regional diversity of culture. Throughout prehistory there were myriad small-scale societies, and many petty 'tribal' identities, typically lasting perhaps no more than a few generations before splitting, merging or becoming obliterated. These groups were in contact and conflict with their neighbours, and sometimes with more distant groups - the appearance of exotic imported objects attest exchanges, alliance and kinship links, and wars.
The defeated Iron Age tribes of Britain At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get our first eye-witness accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman authors, not least Julius Caesar who invaded in 55 and 54 BC. These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii, Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had any sense of collective identity any more than the islanders of AD 1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.
'Calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.'
However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.
However, language does not determine ethnicity (that would make the modern islanders 'Germans', since they mostly speak English, classified as a Germanic tongue). And anyway, no one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the archipelago - they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues, when our evidence begins. Certainly, there is no reason to link the coming of 'Celtic' language with any great 'Celtic invasions' from Europe during the Iron Age, because there is no hard evidence to suggest there were any.
Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned. Of course, there are important cultural similarities and connections between Britain, Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate contacts and undoubtedly the movement of some people, but the same could be said for many other periods of history.
The things we have labelled 'Celtic' icons - such as hill-forts and art, weapons and jewellery - were more about aristocratic, political, military and religious connections than common ethnicity. (Compare the later cases of medieval Catholic Christianity or European Renaissance culture, or indeed the Hellenistic Greek Mediterranean and the Roman world - all show similar patterns of cultural sharing and emulation among the powerful, across ethnic boundaries.)
Almost everyone in Britannia was legally and culturally 'Roman' The Roman conquest, which started in AD 43, illustrates the profound cultural and political impact that small numbers of people can have in some circumstances, for the Romans did not colonise the islands of Britain to any significant degree. To a population of around three million, their army, administration and carpet-baggers added only a few per cent.
'The future Scotland remained beyond Roman government, although the nearby presence of the empire had major effects.'
The province's towns and villas were overwhelmingly built by indigenous people - again the wealthy - adopting the new international culture of power. Greco-Roman civilisation displaced the 'Celtic' culture of Iron Age Europe. These islanders actually became Romans, both culturally and legally (the Roman citizenship was more a political status than an ethnic identity). By AD 300, almost everyone in 'Britannia' was Roman, legally and culturally, even though of indigenous descent and still mostly speaking 'Celtic' dialects. Roman rule saw profound cultural change, but emphatically without any mass migration.
However, Rome only ever conquered half the island. The future Scotland remained beyond Roman government, although the nearby presence of the empire had major effects. The kingdom of the Picts appeared during the third century AD, the first of a series of statelets which, during the last years and collapse of Roman power, developed through the merging of the 'tribes' of earlier times.
Were the 'Celts' displaced or absorbed by the invaders? In western and northern Britain, around the western seas, the end of Roman power saw the reassertion of ancient patterns, ie continuity of linguistic and cultural trends reaching back to before the Iron Age. Yet in the long term, the continuous development of a shifting mosaic of societies gradually tended (as elsewhere in Europe) towards larger states. Thus, for example, the far north-western, Irish-ruled kingdom of Dalriada merged in the ninth century with the Pictish kingdom to form Scotland.
'It was once believed that the Romano-British were slaughtered or driven west by hordes of invading Anglo-Saxons, part of the great westward movement of 'barbarians' overwhelming the western empire.'
The western-most parts of the old province, where Roman ways had not displaced traditional culture, also partook of these trends, creating small kingdoms which would develop, under pressure from the Saxons, into the Welsh and Cornish regions.
The fate of the rest of the Roman province was very different: after imperial power collapsed c.410 AD Romanised civilisation swiftly vanished. By the sixth century, most of Britannia was taken over by 'Germanic' kingdoms. There was apparently complete discontinuity between Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England; it was once believed that the Romano-British were slaughtered or driven west by hordes of invading Anglo-Saxons, part of the great westward movement of 'barbarians' overwhelming the western empire. However, there was no such simple displacement of 'Celts' by 'Germans'.
Britain has always absorbed invaders and been home to multiple peoples How many settlers actually crossed the North Sea to Britain is disputed, although it is clear that they eventually mixed with substantial surviving indigenous populations which, in many areas, apparently formed the majority.
As with the adoption of 'Celtic' cultural traits in the Iron Age, and then Greco-Roman civilisation, so the development of Anglo-Saxon England marks the adoption of a new politically ascendant culture; that of the 'Germanic barbarians'.
'Contrary to the traditional idea that Britain originally possessed a 'Celtic' uniformity which first Roman, then Saxon and other invaders disrupted, in reality Britain has always been home to multiple peoples...'
Perhaps the switch was more profound than the preceding cases, since the proportion of incomers was probably higher than in Iron Age or Roman times, and, crucially, Romano-British power structures and culture seem to have undergone catastrophic collapse - through isolation from Rome and the support of the imperial armies - some time before there was a substantial presence of 'Anglo-Saxons'.
In contrast to Gaul, where the Franks merged with an intact Gallo-Roman society to create Latin-based French culture, the new Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain, although melded from indigenous and immigrant populations, represented no such cultural continuity; they drew their cultural inspiration, and their dominant language, almost entirely from across the North Sea. Mixed natives and immigrants became the English.
Contrary to the traditional idea that Britain originally possessed a 'Celtic' uniformity, which first Roman, then Saxon and other invaders disrupted, in reality Britain has always been home to multiple peoples. While its population has shown strong biological continuity over millennia, the identities the islanders have chosen to adopt have undergone some remarkable changes. Many of these have been due to contacts and conflicts across the seas, not least as the result of episodic, but often very modest, arrivals of newcomers.
Bookmarked for later read. Thanks for another interesting thread, blam.
This article is a little dated at 1998. For a good up to date book on the subject, I recommend: Origins Of The British by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
BTW, before you finish reading this book, you'll want to have yor DNA analysed.
My surname is considered quite English, and has been regarded as a “place” name, associated with the hill forts mentioned in the article, that are scattered across England and Wales. But, I’ve found that there actually are ancient, Irish beginnings, with the name arising from one of the territorial “warrior kings” of Ireland, named O’Tuathail, killed and buried at Glendalough, County Wicklow, in the ninth century. The name first showed up in England in the Templar Inquisition of 1185. Then, the surname turns back up in Ireland during the Cromwell era, and a fair number remain there to this day. I’ve yet to have my DNA done, to see what the genetics say about all this, though.
You’re likely an R1b like myself and 90% of the Irish.
so most Britons are hispanic immigrants too? People won’t like that!
Thanks Blam. Well, it was only five pages, plus a page of further reading links, plus this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_print.html
The direct male-line ancestors of the main related groups in our study ("GROUP 1" and "GROUP 2") were western Europeans, probably English of Celtic origin (Anglo-Celts).
So far, there is no genetic evidence that any of the participants have Native American ancestors in their direct male line. Note: this does not eliminate the possibility of Native American ancestors in another line, just not the direct male line.
Y-DNA HAPLOGROUPS
Genetic scientists have collected DNA samples from all over the world in order to study how human populations migrated out of Africa and into Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas. Based on these studies, the scientists have categorized Y-DNA into large families called "haplogroups." It is possible to predict the Y-DNA haplogroup from the results of a 12-marker or 25-marker Y-DNA test, although a separate test, called a "SNP" (single nucleotide polymorphism) test, is sometimes needed for confirmation. The three most common haplogroups in the British Isles are R1b1, I, and R1a. A fourth haplogroup, E3b, occasionally shows up in Britain although it is more common in southern Europe.
Terminology: In early genetic studies (prior to 2003), Haplgroups R1b1, I, and R1a were called as Hg1, Hg2, and Hg3, respectively. Until recently, R1b1 was known as R1b. And just to complicate matters, some popular books on genetic anthropology ignore or gloss over the scientific terminology. Bryan Sykes, author of the best-sellers "Seven Daughters of Eve" and "Saxons, Vikings, and Celts," uses his own, idiosyncratic naming system -- for example, he calls haplogroup R1b "the clan of Oisin," for no particular reason.
Haplogroup R1b1 (the Western Europeans)
Most of the participants in the Cheek DNA study, including everyone in the main related groups (what we're calling "GROUP 1" and "GROUP 2"), fall into Haplogroup R1b1 (formerly known as R1b), which is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup in western Europe. Two participants from GROUP 1 have confirmed this result with an SNP test. The frequency of R1b1 is highest along the Atlantic coast of Europe (up to 90% of Welsh, Irish, and Basque populations, for example), and declines as you move east. Haplogroup R1b1 probably originated in a group of people who "wintered" in what is now Spain during the last Ice Age and then moved north when the glaciers retreated 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
A subset of the R1b1 haplogroup known as the "Atlantic Modal Haplotype" (AMH) consists of 6 genetic markers that have been found at high frequencies on the European Atlantic coast, such as Wales, Ireland, the Orkney Islands, the Dutch province of Friesland, and the Basque country in northern Spain. In the British Isles, the AMH is associated with the Celts, including English people with Celtic ancestry ("Anglo-Celts"), as well as the Welsh and Irish.
Over the past 10,000 years, the British Isles have been home to a wide variety of people. Prehistoric tribes, Celts, Germanic tribes such as the Angles and Saxons, Vikings from Scandinavia, and, most recently, the Normans from France (who were basically French-speaking Vikings), all settled in Britain, either peacefully or otherwise. Although historians have usually assumed that the "ancient Britons" (Celts and others) were wiped out by the Anglo-Saxon invasions, or were all pushed into Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall, recent genetic studies show that descendants of the original native population survived in many parts of England, especially in the southwest and along the southern coast.
In our study, the main related group, or "GROUP 1," matches the AMH on 5 out of 6 markers, and has a 2-step mutation on the remaining marker (a genetic distance of "2"). "GROUP 2" is also very close to the AMH, matching on 4 markers and having one-step mutations on 2 other markers (also a genetic distance of "2"). This is certainly consistent with the Cheeks being from southern England, where their surname seems to have originated. In fact, the Cheek/Chick surname was particularly common in the southwestern counties of Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, an area which has a long and colorful Celtic history.
Haplogroup I (the Vikings)
The second-most common haplogroup in England is Haplogroup I, sometimes called the "Viking haplogroup" because it is found in areas where the Vikings once lived, e.g., Scandinavia, the British Isles, and parts of central Europe. However, various subtypes of Haplogroup I are present in many other European countries. Haplogroup I probably goes back to a group of people who survived the last Ice Age in isolated pockets in south-central Europe and then moved north when the weather warmed.
Haplogroup R1a (the Eastern Europeans)
This haplogroup occurs throughout Europe, but its frequency declines as you move from east to west -- exactly the opposite of Haplogroup R1b. Haplogroup R1a is most common among the Slavic populations of eastern Europe, Russia, and the Ukraine. It is also found at high frequencies in central European countries such as Germany, as well as in western Asia, central Asia, and India. R1a is the third most common Y-DNA haplogroup in England, but it is found at significantly lower frequencies than either R1b1 or I. Haplogroup R1a was probably brought to England by Anglo-Saxons and Viking settlers.
Because of certain genetic similaries between R1a and R1b, it's believed that both lineages are descended from a common ancestral group of people who probably originated in the Middle East over 30,000 years ago. As these people slowly migrated into Europe and Asia, their populations diverged, with the ancestors of R1b traveling west and R1a's ancestors heading east. During the Ice Age the ancestors of R1b and R1a became isolated from each other at opposite ends of the European continent. The ancestors of R1b survived on the Iberian peninsula -- now Spain -- while the ancestors of R1a lived on the fertile steppes of what is now the Ukraine. Approximately 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, the ancestors of the R1a lineage began migrating westward into Europe. Their languages and to some extent, their cultures eventually came to dominate the European continent. Virtually all modern European languages -- everything from Greek to Irish -- are part of the Indo-European language family. A notable exception is the unique Basque language, believed to be the only surviving descendant of the lost languages spoken in western Europe before the arrival of the Indo-European tribes.
Haplogroup E3b (North Africans, Italians & Greeks)
The E3b haplogroup is common in Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Greece, and is also found at lower frequencies in northern and central Europe. The ancestors of the E3b haplogroup probably lived in the horn of Africa (present-day Somalia) during the last Ice Age and moved into Europe via the Middle East during the Neolithic migration around 9,000 years ago. Some believe that Roman settlers brought the E3b haplogroup to northern Europe, although it may have arrived far earlier, with Neolithic farmers, or later, with Medieval traders or other immigrants from the Mediterranean region. The frequency of E3b in England is between 0%-6% depending on the location. By contrast, E3b is present in about 25% of Silicians and Greeks, and 50%-80% of North Africans, especially in the ethnic group known as the Berbers.
So where did the Celts come from?
Historians long believed, based on linguistic and archeaological evidence, that the Celts are descended from a tribe of Indo-Europeans who settled in central Europe several thousand years ago. According to the traditional theory, the Celts began a period of expansion about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, and eventually conquered much of western Europe and the British Isles. What happened to the "native" western Europeans has been an enduring mystery. There are the Basques, of course. There are also stories about mysterious tribes still living in Britain at the time of the Romans. Julius Caesar, who led the Roman invasion of Britain in 55 B.C., wrote that the "interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say it is handed down by tradition that they were born on the island itself; the maritime portion by those who passed over from the country of the Belgae [Belgium] for purpose of plunder and making war. . . and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands." (De Bello Gallico, Book 5, sec.12.) The Belgae were a Celtic people who were skilled in metal-working and agriculture; the native Britons, according to Caeser, "do not sow corn [wheat], but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins." (Id., sec.14.)
Some time after the arrival of the Celts, the "native" Britons disappeared off the face of the earth. They left behind pottery, burial mounds, and some amazing archeaological relics like Stonehenge,* but little else -- or so it seemed. Genetic studies are now re-writing this history. Celtic people such as the Welsh and Irish speak Indo-European languages, yet their Y-DNA is similar to that of the Basques. In other words, the Welsh and Irish appear to be more closely related (by and large) to the non-Indo-European Basques than they are to Indo-European groups elsewhere in northern Europe, such as Germans and Scandinavians. Note, this does not mean that the Basques were direct ancestors of the Celts or visa versa. It simply suggests that the Basques and the Celts have a common origin dating back many thousands of years, before the arrival of Indo-European tribes. Only the Basques managed to keep their native (non-Indo-European) language alive to the present day. In the British Isles and elsewhere, the people lost their original languages, probably as a result of trade, military conquest, and intermarriage with Indo-Europeans. Eventually, and somewhat confusingly, both the people on the continent and the people in the British Isles became known as "Celtic," because of their common languages and other cultural features. These geographically separate groups of "Celts" may have had quite different historical origins. In other words, some aspects of "Celtic" culture, such as language and technology, may have spread to people living in other geographic areas because of cultural diffusion, not because of military invasion leading to total population replacement. (It is important to remember that biological descent is not the same as cultural inheritance or heritage!)
Ice Age Refuges - 18,000 Year Ago
Migrations From Ice Age Refuges - 12,000 Years Ago
There's that Spanish connection again, tying in with the legendary "Milesia." The tough thing with early surnames is that there is a strong element of "fashion" to it. How mine, purportedly originating with O'Tuathail, ended up three centuries later all Frenchified as "de Tottehille" has got to be due to the Norman influence. I'm sure many things English are a similar mish-mash.
There's that Spanish connection again, tying in with the legendary "Milesia." The tough thing with early surnames is that there is a strong element of "fashion" to it. How mine, purportedly originating with O'Tuathail, ended up three centuries later all Frenchified as "de Tottehille" has got to be due to the Norman influence. I'm sure many things English are a similar mish-mash.
There's that Spanish connection again, tying in with the legendary "Milesia." The tough thing with early surnames is that there is a strong element of "fashion" to it. How mine, purportedly originating with O'Tuathail, ended up three centuries later all Frenchified as "de Tottehille" has got to be due to the Norman influence. I'm sure many things English are a similar mish-mash.
There's that Spanish connection again, tying in with the legendary "Milesia." The tough thing with early surnames is that there is a strong element of "fashion" to it. How mine, purportedly originating with O'Tuathail, ended up three centuries later all Frenchified as "de Tottehille" has got to be due to the Norman influence. I'm sure many things English are a similar mish-mash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.