This is the 'migration map' for the R1b haplogroup. (Cost me $107.50 bucks,lol)
Posted on 09/28/2007 7:42:35 AM PDT by blam
Myths of British ancestry
October 2006
Stephen Oppenheimer
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. 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
The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?
Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.
Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words "Celtic" or "Anglo-Saxon." What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.
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, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect-magazine.co.uk ...
So we Irish can blame the Vikings for our drinking? No wonder they behaved so badly.
Yes. I used National Geographic: The Genographic Project
LOL! Good one, and so true.
You may get suprised like me. My mtDNA(female) is 'V'. A Sa'ami (Laplander)...we had no idea. I checked my dads mother and she is a 'U5a1a'...Scottish-Finnish and related to 9,000 year old Cheddar Man.
No. I didn't mean that. Very few of the British have 'Viking Blood.'
Which test would you recommend, Oppenheims’s or NG? Oppy has a lot of products and it’s hard to tell what to order. Any suggestions? My grandparents are from Ireland and probably Scotland. There’s some German in there, too.
Bryan Sykes, in his latest book (see post #16), says he can't find any DNA in the British Isles that could represent any 'Black Irish' or Picts.
This is true with virtually all invasions --especially with the European influx into the Americas over the past 500 years. We get the appearance of conquest and replacement, while the substance is assimilation.
Great post!
A French teacher in Canada, drew up English words and a French counterpart. Though not exact of course, there was a connection. The word "fume" or like that was applied to smoking. Fumes (cough cough) and so on.
There are even a tiny percentage of surviving Scandinavian names. The surname Bourne also used as a word. As you know, and I take the liberty of using your post, to add something, English evolved from old German and old French. Some latin thrown in.
Yes the French ruled and how. William the Conqueror was a bit of a "bastard". LOL
Actually the Oppenheimer clan testing http://www.ethnoancestry.com/oppenheimer.html is part of Ethnoancestry at http://www.ethnoancestry.com/index.htm
They are the folks with numerous tests. Oppy is just one of them.
>>It is rare to find the raw guttural, monosyllabic, Germanic words in modern English. He who rules get to set the what language is spoken.<<
Rare?!
“[T]he General Service List (GSL), listing the 2000 most frequent (and therefore most basic) English words, is made up by 50.98 percent of words of Germanic origin.” - The Origins of Euphemisms and Swear Words in the English Language, by Judith Huber
There are just too "surprising" results from these type of historical/genetic investigations for me to put much credence in these type of results. If it were occasionally a surprising result, it would be one thing. But there seem to be just too many counter-intuitive results for me to credit them. Britain is largely of *Basque* ancestry? At least it wasn't Finnish, Korean, or Mayan, I guess, but it still doesn't strike me as likely.
I saw a documentary on this that had an interesting take. It said that we often have two words in English for the same thing, one German, and one French, but that the French variant usually is subtly different, adding a richness of detail to the language that many other languages lack. For example, well to take yours, smoke and fume. Smoke means one thing, fume basically means the same but has completely different connotations.
I have both of Oppenheimer’s books and find them very enjoyable. Also Syke’s book.
I think when they say ‘Basque’ all they mean is that the British ancestors came out of the ‘Ice Age refuge’ in northwestern Spain, where they had lived for millenia when the British Isles were covered in ice. The area that is *now* Basque.
And Oppenheimer has theorized that English was always there in the British Isles, that it was an indigenous language from the time when Britain and the continent were joined.
That the eastern side of England always spoke some form of English, and the north and northwestern parts were always ‘Celtic’ of some sort.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
much to see in Prospect
I chose the NG because it was so broad based and extensive...I've read recently that they've already done 160,000 samples worldwide and presumably my data (I gave permission) will appear in future publications about their results. I believe NG only offers an analysis of 12 sites ($107.50) and I'm already wishing I had done more sites (deeper ancestry) which other organizations are offering but, they cost more.
A true story. Genealogy is my hobby, my passion. My boss used to think I was nuts. Even worst, just stupid for wasting my time. He was a self-made man and his grandfather had dumped his father into an orphanage; ancestry meant nothing. He has an unusual name and a then-unknown cousin reached him via internet. We got a history in the mail of his great-great grandfather who was the original settler to this country. I just about died laughing when I read it. Take out the dates and countries, and this colorful character sounded exactly like my boss. Actually, it was uncanny. He saw the humor, enjoyed the story, learned why his grandather had to give up custody of his father (he had TB) and never ribbed me again. Ancestry DOES count—even for the self-made.
This is the 'migration map' for the R1b haplogroup. (Cost me $107.50 bucks,lol)
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.