NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting wee survey carried out by Oxford University which shows that genetically the UK occupied primarily by descendents of Spanish Celts, outnumbering Anglo-Saxons by a ratio of about three to one.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

I always knew the Anglo-Saxon myth was an over-simplification which had more to do with our Islander mentality than any real genetic heritage, but this is somewhat surprising.


EDIT: No mention of the perrenial NS favourite British ancestors - the Beaker people.

Finally, someone explains why we have morris dancing.

Celts were primarily spanish? I thought they were more germanic?

Finally, someone explains why we have morris dancing.

Theoretically I quite like the idea of Morris Dancing. Practically would be an entirely different matter.

Yeah, I know that its mainly a tradition created out of whole cloth in the last few hundred years, but it has created a strangely distinctive sub-genre of folk music.

Any explanation for your sword dancing though?

Celts were primarily spanish? I thought they were more germanic?

They settled all over Europe, from Spain to the Black Sea.

They settled all over Europe, from Spain to the Black Sea.
I know that. They even took over part of Turkey, they sacked Rome at some point too. (well before the roman empire got anywhere)

I meant that I thought they were germanic in origin, not spanish.

Celts were primarily spanish? I thought they were more germanic?

More a case of the particular Celts who contributed the most to the gene pool of the British Isles having been previously located in the Iberian peninsular. I think the Celts were a pan-European group.

More a case of the particular Celts who contributed the most to the gene pool of the British Isles having been previously located in the Iberian peninsular. I think the Celts were a pan-European group.
Well, but they were also located in France and Germany and Turkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Origins_and_geographical_distribution

wiki seems to show them starting out in France and going further out from there.

oh dear :rolleyes: more misguided genetic surveys (or more likely, news articles about said surveys) confusing culture/linguistics with genetics. I'm assuming by "spanish" they mean "iberian", referring to the links between the Neolithic British peoples and the Iberian peoples. But it's got nothing to do with the Celts. Although Celtic culture did spread to both Spain and Britain during the Bronze Age, the links go back before that, to Old Neolithic Europe, when the ancestor of Proto-Celtic culture was barely in Europe yet. Saying we're the literal descendents of Celts is just as ridiculous as saying we're the literal descendents of Anglo-Saxons. Both were invasive cultures.

the UK occupied primarily by descendents of Spanish Celts, outnumbering Anglo-Saxons by a ratio of about three to one.


Didn't quite understand the Oisin/Sigurd/Woden etc... why doesn't the author use more conventional ethnical names? Also puzzled me the bit about Y chromosomes: I thought that female mytocondrial nucleidic acid was more accurate in tracking populations.

Oh, and btw, no Roman heritage at all? With 5 centuries of Roman domination of Britannia, I'd guess there'd be some Roman genes around.

Any explanation for your sword dancing though?

Brown ale most likely.

Didn't quite understand the Oisin/Sigurd/Woden etc... why doesn't the author use more conventional ethnical names? Also puzzled me the bit about Y chromosomes: I thought that female mytocondrial nucleidic acid was more accurate in tracking populations.

Oh, and btw, no Roman heritage at all? With 5 centuries of Roman domination of Britannia, I'd guess there'd be some Roman genes around.

The Roman Empire wasn't very Roman. The majority of the Roman army would likely have been made up of people of non-Roman, or even non-Italian ancestry... especially at that time. Also considering that Britannia was a bit out of the way, it's likely that the Empire only sent its dregs out that far. Like if you saw that terrible recent film about King Arthur, it followed a Roman outfit made up of soldiers from present-day Ukraine (all with thick cockney accents of course).

And as for Celts, don't quote me on this, but I heard they originated in North Africa? Around Mauretania or somewhere?

But it's got nothing to do with the Celts. Although Celtic culture did spread to both Spain and Britain during the Bronze Age, the links go back before that, to Old Neolithic Europe, when the ancestor of Proto-Celtic culture was barely in Europe yet. Saying we're the literal descendents of Celts is just as ridiculous as saying we're the literal descendents of Anglo-Saxons. Both were invasive cultures.

If you look at the dates the survey presents, you'll see that their use of the term 'Celts' is an idiosyncratic term - they use it describe people from 7,000 years ago. This is obviously long before what is commonly described as 'Celtic' civilisation.

The Roman Empire wasn't very Roman. The majority of the Roman army would likely have been made up of people of non-Roman, or even non-Italian ancestry... especially at that time. Also considering that Britannia was a bit out of the way, it's likely that the Empire only sent its dregs out that far. Like if you saw that terrible recent film about King Arthur, it followed a Roman outfit made up of soldiers from present-day Ukraine (all with thick cockney accents of course).

And as for Celts, don't quote me on this, but I heard they originated in North Africa? Around Mauretania or somewhere?

Explain all the Italian restaurants on the Tyneside then.

Explain all the Italian restaurants on the Tyneside then.

They are a direct result of its Mediterranean climate.

They are a direct result of its Mediterranean climate.

You laugh. But it was consistently in the high sixties for most of august.

Nevertheless, Brits (as well as Irish) correlate with North Europeans rather than South Europeans on genetic level...(and in drinking habits.)



Under a variety of conditions and tests, there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups: most individual participants with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek) have >85% membership in the “southern” population; and most northern, western, eastern, and central Europeans have >90% in the “northern” population group. Ashkenazi Jewish as well as Sephardic Jewish origin also showed >85% membership in the “southern” population, consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups.
....



Overall, the analysis of sequence variation allowed the authors to distinguish individuals with northern European ancestry (Swedish, English, Irish, German, and Ukrainian) from individuals with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek).

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143

You laugh. But it was consitently in the high sixties for most of august.

Ahhh, that explains the Toon propensity for taking off their shirts at matches then.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/images/050620_sportsfans.jpg

:D

How odd. I've always wanted to go live in Spain, preferably in the Northern regions like Catalunya, Valencia or Aragon. Must be my mitachondria wanting to return home.

You laugh. But it was consistently in the high sixties for most of august.

Kelvin?

If you look at the dates the survey presents, you'll see that their use of the term 'Celts' is an idiosyncratic term - they use it describe people from 7,000 years ago. This is obviously long before what is commonly described as 'Celtic' civilisation.

exactly, it's nonsense. It ignores the original linguistic basis for the identification of the Celtic peoples, the fact that Welsh, Irish, Gaulish, Celtiberian and so on are all closely related and diverged relatively recently, certainly no earlier than the Bronze Age as evident by the related words for bronze working. Wheras 7,000 years ago the Proto-Celtic language was at most a dialect of the Proto-Indo-European language which was spoken nowhere near either Britain or Spain. Celtic culture just didn't exist at that time.

exactly, it's nonsense.

Yes, however, the point remains that the idea of the UK (or even England) as being comprised mainly of Anglo-Saxon stock is a myth. We are a load of mongrels, and that should be where our pride, if pride we need, should lie.

EDIT: No mention of the perrenial NS favourite British ancestors - the Beaker people.
What?! You mean to say you lot aren't descended from this guy:
http://www.cozmo.dk/comics/beaker.gif
That's a shame. Cause it did explain a helluva lot.

Yes, however, the point remains that the idea of the UK (or even England) as being comprised mainly of Anglo-Saxon stock is a myth. We are a load of mongrels, and that should be where our pride, if pride we need, should lie.

I don't think I've heard of anyone in the mainstream claiming that the English are all pure Anglo-Saxons since the early 20th century. The far more common misconception nowadays is that because we're genetically all very similar, the cultural differences don't matter at all. It's disguised British nationalist sentiment (that is, nationalism opposed to the break up of Britain/the UK), that assumes a racial world view on the part of the independence movements - that the only thing that matters to them is genetics.

Ahhh, that explains the Toon propensity for taking off their shirts at matches then.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/images/050620_sportsfans.jpg

:D
Nah, that's just because...well...would you want to be seen wearing a Newcastle United shirt? :p

Nah, that's just because...well...would you want to be seen wearing a Newcastle United shirt? :p

Beats Sunderland.

Beats Sunderland.

"I don't just want to beat them; I want to humiliate them." - Refused Party Program, manager of Newcastle United Football Club in Football Manager 2007.