World Families Forums - Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 02:12:59 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Doctoral Paper Looks at the Impact of Celtic on English: No "Wipe-Out"  (Read 5756 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2011, 01:34:47 AM »

Some people do consider the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, etc. and then the Viking raiders together, but genetically we can't.  We can't find much U198 in Scandinavia, so this is evidence we can't lump these groups together.
U106 has a significant presence in Denmark and Sweden, where both the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from. In essence, many of these invaders were the same people, albeit each speaking their own form of Germanic.
No, I don't think we can say that, at least genetically. We don't really know.  U198 is just a point of why we can't consider the Low Countries, the Jutland Peninsula and the Scandinavian Peninsula as one, genetically speaking, but there are other examples too.  We've already seen where we can only find one or two U198 folks in Scandinavia. The mix of haplogroups varies across these areas.

You can probably suppose that these peoples were Germanic speaking, but not that they were genetically the same.

There is an obvious consistency of U106 from Denmark through the Low Countries though. I do not see why a large number of Danes can not be genetically related to populations residing in Southern Jutland and the Netherlands. U106 has been there for a long time.  The populations are related at least on the YDNA side (only accounting for U106, not P312 or other haplogroups).

U198 is much less common subclade of U106, yes. But in Great Britain, its highest frequency is in Southern England. Coupled with its presence in the Netherlands and Germany (I believe it is also in Northern Poland...odd), I do not think it is hard to associate it with Migration Age movements.


Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2011, 02:31:47 PM »

One thing that is remarkable about the major Germanic movements in late and post-Roman times is how little it extended the Germanic language frontier in the long term.  Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time.  Germanic only very slightly extended in AD times into area like Bavaria etc.  It was really a very minor shift.   In most areas the Germanic elite who conquered so much of Europe did not permanently establish their language on the local populations.  So, England is a bit of an exception in being a substantial new area for Germanic in the AD period.  
Well, I'm not sure how far this concept applies?

We see in later times that the lingua franca, English, extended to the Irish, Scottish and then to much of North America, Australia and New Zealand.... even to an important role in India.

I don't see why the English language, which originated in England (I think., not Germany/Frisia) dictates a heavy Germanic take-over genetically speaking.

On another point, if "Most of the areas where German took root west of the Rhine had already been settled by Germans in Caesar's time" then U106 could have been west of the Rhine earlier than Caesar and therefore easily in England earlier.

I do think the language development/expansion, the differentiation of genes from east to west Britain, etc., are all evidence of a heavy Anglo-Saxon impact on England.  However, I don't see much evidence of a "wipe-out" to zero or close to zero for prior inhabitants. I also don't see much evidence that subclades like U106 didn't have a significant presence prior to the 410 AD.

Maybe England was 10-15% R-U106 prior to the Anglo-Saxon period. I don't see any strong evidence that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying there is proof of this but I don't really think the arguments to the opposite are that strong. I don't really care, but I'm wary of predispositions of looking for genetics to match history.  The genes may throw us for a loop in that they may be right, so I think the book remains open. Just an opinion.

The problem is that if U106 did get into England - or Great Britain, period - on a considerable scale before the Germanic migrations, I am inclined to think we should find it further inland. And why not Ireland as well? The frequencies of U106 in England are too much of a match to Migration Age movements.

I am not saying all of it is indicative of Germanic ancestry, but one can accurately generalize that U106 in Essex is most likely Saxon in origin. U106* in Kerry, Ireland is probably something else.

I have an open mind on whether a significant chunk of U106 in Britain is Germanic.  For me that possibility hinges on where U106 was on the continent in the Iron, Bronze and even Neolithic ages.  I dont see any evidence of very strong archaeological contact in prehistory to the east of Holland.  So if it ended up in England in prehistory in significant numbers it would have had to have been established in Holland and north Belgium by then.  There was quite a lot of contact between those areas and south-east England in the Bronze Age, including the Copper Age.  I would think that matching would be the best clue as to how old U106 is in England.  if there is a lack of continental matches with English U106 individuals in the 1500 or even 2000 year span then you would have to get suspicious that it is older.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2011, 05:53:38 PM »

I have an open mind on whether a significant chunk of U106 in Britain is Germanic.  For me that possibility hinges on where U106 was on the continent in the Iron, Bronze and even Neolithic ages.  I dont see any evidence of very strong archaeological contact in prehistory to the east of Holland.  So if it ended up in England in prehistory in significant numbers it would have had to have been established in Holland and north Belgium by then. 
Of course we don't know U106(S21)'s frequencies beyond the extant population. Here is a frequency map.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26700-New-map-of-R1b-S21-%28U106%29

There does appear to be stopping big drop off just west and south of Belgium. Just looking at it generally, U106 seems to be North Sea-centric but stretches back into down into Central Europe all the way to the Adriatic Sea.
 
Quote from: alan trowel hands
There was quite a lot of contact between those areas and south-east England in the Bronze Age, including the Copper Age.  I would think that matching would be the best clue as to how old U106 is in England.  if there is a lack of continental matches with English U106 individuals in the 1500 or even 2000 year span then you would have to get suspicious that it is older.
I agree with this point which is what has caused me to raise the issue. There are some clusters that cross the channel..... however U106 in England has a ton of unclustered people.  This also manifests itself in the STR diversity.

England's U106 does not look young and according to Busby's scale of things you'd have to say it was just part of the Busby blob of indiscernible STR diversity for R1b.

Hence, I place a hard challenge to conventional thought on U106. If it all is of roughly of the same age, then probably significant amounts of U106 got to England about the same time P312 got there.  U106 subclade L48 or some of its pieces may have come later, just like L21 may have come later than early P312.
Possibly were there Beaker explorers and colonizers, but biggest waves took a while to get over?

I've never thought about North America R1b settlement like this, but there may have been a 150 years, perhaps predominantly Iberian R1b (and other Hgs), before Isles people came in earnest.  100-200 years later yet from the mid-1700's to the late 1800's, were they swamped by immigrants from home or near home - the Scots-Irish and the Irish?  This all may have been warp speed compared to prehistoric times.

Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2011, 07:10:27 PM »

Mike-It was Oppenheimer who tried the idea of looking for exact matches (at the admittedly small markers numbers he used) between the English and NW continentals.  I know his methodology and dating methods seem discredited but I wonder if his conclusions are of any use.  He noted only small numbers of matches with the traditional Anglo-Saxon homeland and (if I am recalling this correctly) a lack of exact matches with the Low Countries.  I think what he was hinting at was that there was possible a large ancient link with the Low Countries earlier than the period where such matches could be expected but there was still a remnant of a small group of later exact matches from Schleswig Holstein and Saxony. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2011, 07:15:17 PM »

I would like to see an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons in the Low Countries. I think the apparent north-south U106 gradient and south-north U152 gradient are indicative that Flemings are largely U106 and Walloons U152. If that is truly the case, then it tends to support the idea that U106 is associated with Germanic speakers in the Low Countries and U152 with the non-Germanic, supposedly Gallo-Roman Walloons.

That seems to me to be a big clue that, unless southeastern Britain was Germanic-speaking long before the Anglo-Saxons (as Oppenheimer proposed), there probably wasn't all that much U106 there.

I know y-dna and language have only a tenuous relationship, but, in this case, if U106 had a large Celtic component right across the Channel from England, shouldn't more Walloons be U106+? Shouldn't Celtic Gaul (France) have more U106?

Frankly, I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. U152 and L21, yes, but not U106.
Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2011, 09:49:05 PM »

I would like to see an actual study of Flemings versus Walloons in the Low Countries. I think the apparent north-south U106 gradient and south-north U152 gradient are indicative that Flemings are largely U106 and Walloons U152. If that is truly the case, then it tends to support the idea that U106 is associated with Germanic speakers in the Low Countries and U152 with the non-Germanic, supposedly Gallo-Roman Walloons.

That seems to me to be a big clue that, unless southeastern Britain was Germanic-speaking long before the Anglo-Saxons (as Oppenheimer proposed), there probably wasn't all that much U106 there.

I know y-dna and language have only a tenuous relationship, but, in this case, if U106 had a large Celtic component right across the Channel from England, shouldn't more Walloons be U106+? Shouldn't Celtic Gaul (France) have more U106?

Frankly, I don't see much to connect U106 with the Celts. U152 and L21, yes, but not U106.

Speaking of Flemish and Walloons, I believe U198 in Belgium is only found among the Flemish as well. U106 is too localized in England to make me think it got there before and during the arrival of L21.

But if it did get there prior, shouldn't we see the same frequencies of U106 - comparable to L21 - across England, Wales, and the Scottish Highlands? We do not see that. In fact, L21 can be found anywhere in Britain.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2011, 03:26:59 PM »

http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/celtic-influence-on-english-greater-than-previously-thought.html

Maybe someone mentioned this before, but I found it interesting.

"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."


I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 04:12:32 PM by Bren123 » Logged

LDJ
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2011, 06:49:04 PM »

I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2011, 07:18:15 PM »


I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

You're in danger of being thought a troll.

Produce an argument. That is what this thread is for.

Simply calling something "garbage" is a poor substitute.

Besides that, this thread was well on its way to submerging when you dragged it to the surface again with your post.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:19:29 PM by rms2 » Logged

Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #59 on: December 10, 2011, 01:47:52 AM »

I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

yes The idea that britons would take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language is absurd also i think they're basing they're findings too much on genetics which is a red herring because the Anglo-Saxons weren't that different( genetically) to the Britons.
Logged

LDJ
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2011, 07:56:38 AM »

I was wondering when this garbage would surface again!

Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

yes The idea that britons would take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language is absurd also i think they're basing they're findings too much on genetics which is a red herring because the Anglo-Saxons weren't that different( genetically) to the Britons.

The fact is, the Britons did "take on a foreign language that is quite different from their language". They certainly weren't speaking Old English prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

Regarding genetics, at least in terms of y-dna, there are marked differences in the profile of the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons versus the Celtic regions of the British Isles and of Armorica (Brittany). R-L21 is much less frequent in the former than it is in the latter, where it absolutely predominates.

The y-haplogroups that are common in the old continental homelands of the Anglo-Saxons, e.g., R-U106 and I1, are more common in the south and east of England where the Anglo-Saxons settled than they are in the west and north. In other words, the y haplogroup clines in England match the historical record pretty well, with the Anglo-Saxon stuff, mainly R-U106 and I1, declining as one moves north and west, and the British stuff increasing in that direction. The British stuff, mainly R-L21, generally declines as one moves south and east in England.

There are some pretty good maps of the distributions of European y haplogroups here.

Check them out and you should see what I mean. Be sure to notice that the shading scales differ from map to map.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:12:11 PM by rms2 » Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2011, 04:06:03 PM »

It strikes me looking at the Eupedia maps that even south-east England is quite different from the traditional Anglo-Saxon homelands in terms of U152 and R1a as well as L21.  They are in no way duplicates of each other.  I dont think anyone in the right mind could literally claim that the south-east English dont at least carry a fair bit of Celtic blood.  They are definately not duplicates of Schleswig Holstein etc and that can be seen by more than just the L21-U106 ratio.  This tends to get side stepped by the wipeout theorists by comparing with Holland rather than north Germany/Denmark.  I know there were Saxons in the Low Country coastal area but there were lot of other peoples too in the latter area and it seems absurd to me to not just do the obvious thing and look at Scheswig-Holstein, north Germany etc.  That kind of seems a little bit like cooking the books.  There is far better evidence of England-Low Countries direct contact in the Bronze Age than there is with Scheswig etc so it   doesnt make sense to use Holland when you could use the area a little to the east where there is less of a problem of earlier contacts with England confusing the issue.  I simply believe that the comparison is not made between SE England and Schleswig Holstein etc because it would not provide wipeout evidence.  It seems to me that if you compared that area with SE England on the one hand and the Celtic fringe on the other, SE England would look intermediate.  Of course that also does not take into account one thing that is clear-the difference between the south-east of England and the west (even of England) was probably partially already there before the Anglo-Saxons.  The Belgae were probably just the tail end of a long period of contact between SE England and the Low Counties.  There were cultures in the Bronze Age like Hlversum which seem to strongly link the Low Countries and SE England in the Bronze Age. That culture was one of a few in the Low Countries which were almost like an eastern limit of the Atlantic zone in the Bronze Age or an intermediate zone between the Atlantic and Nordic Bronze Age and as such that almost prefigures the Belgic zone which also lay in a transition area between the Celts and Germans.  SE England could have been in a transitional zone like that for 2000 years.  
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 06:01:16 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #62 on: December 11, 2011, 04:32:17 PM »

That is, if the Netherlands was as U106-rich in the Bronze Age as it is now.

I don't think it was, but that's just my guess.

I do agree about the idea of SE England being intermediate between the old A-S homelands and western Britain, but that's because I think the evidence is pretty clear there was no wipe-out.

L21 survives pretty strongly in SE England, and I think the U152 there could be Belgic and also possibly even Roman. To some extent I'm coming around to Gioiello's way of thinking on U152, i.e., that it is a lot more Italic than we often consider.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 04:32:53 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #63 on: December 23, 2011, 03:05:31 PM »

On the russian DNA site it has a couple of links and one contains this Summary:
 
Mavro Mavro  - Historiography Of The Slavs


http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.semargl.me/library/europa/orbini/

Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.098 seconds with 19 queries.