World Families Forums - Worth of Oppenheimer, Sykes et. al? / Origins of British people

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2014, 04:29:52 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)
| | |-+  Worth of Oppenheimer, Sykes et. al? / Origins of British people
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Worth of Oppenheimer, Sykes et. al? / Origins of British people  (Read 6765 times)
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« on: July 29, 2012, 02:29:37 PM »

On British nationalist websites and forums the works of Sykes and Oppenheimer's books on the origins of British people are cited to prove that British people are infact "indigenous" and haven't been affected my historical migrations by e.g Celts and anglo-Saxons, as many/most people believe.

The main theory of these two men is that most British people are descendants of hunter gatherers that expanded from North Iberia after the last ice age. Both considered historical migrations to have affected little of the British blood pool, although apparently Sykes was more open to this.

For example, in Arthur Kemp's "Four flags" booklet which he wrote for the BNP, he argues that the british are   infact (one of) the oldest indigenous peoples in the world, with "nearly 80 percent" are descendants of Paleolithic Iberians. He goes on to claim that the aforementioned migrations to Britain contributed only 5 percent each to the British gene pool.

I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.

So...Do their books still hold any weight on the question of British origins, and if not, why? Thanks in advance for your responses.

Note: The reason this thread is in the R1b section is approx 70 percent of British men belong to that hg, and it was something discussed a lot in the two books, so the origins of the British rests a lot on the origins of R1b.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 03:56:28 PM »

On British nationalist websites and forums the works of Sykes and Oppenheimer's books on the origins of British people are cited to prove that British people are infact "indigenous" and haven't been affected my historical migrations by e.g Celts and anglo-Saxons, as many/most people believe.

The main theory of these two men is that most British people are descendants of hunter gatherers that expanded from North Iberia after the last ice age. Both considered historical migrations to have affected little of the British blood pool, although apparently Sykes was more open to this.

For example, in Arthur Kemp's "Four flags" booklet which he wrote for the BNP, he argues that the british are   infact (one of) the oldest indigenous peoples in the world, with "nearly 80 percent" are descendants of Paleolithic Iberians. He goes on to claim that the aforementioned migrations to Britain contributed only 5 percent each to the British gene pool.

I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.

So...Do their books still hold any weight on the question of British origins, and if not, why? Thanks in advance for your responses.

Note: The reason this thread is in the R1b section is approx 70 percent of British men belong to that hg, and it was something discussed a lot in the two books, so the origins of the British rests a lot on the origins of R1b.

I think sykes and oppenheimer have alot to answer for!
Logged

LDJ
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2012, 09:50:18 PM »

On British nationalist websites and forums the works of Sykes and Oppenheimer's books on the origins of British people are cited to prove that British people are infact "indigenous" and haven't been affected my historical migrations by e.g Celts and anglo-Saxons, as many/most people believe.

The main theory of these two men is that most British people are descendants of hunter gatherers that expanded from North Iberia after the last ice age. Both considered historical migrations to have affected little of the British blood pool, although apparently Sykes was more open to this.

For example, in Arthur Kemp's "Four flags" booklet which he wrote for the BNP, he argues that the british are   infact (one of) the oldest indigenous peoples in the world, with "nearly 80 percent" are descendants of Paleolithic Iberians. He goes on to claim that the aforementioned migrations to Britain contributed only 5 percent each to the British gene pool.

I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.

So...Do their books still hold any weight on the question of British origins, and if not, why? Thanks in advance for your responses.

Note: The reason this thread is in the R1b section is approx 70 percent of British men belong to that hg, and it was something discussed a lot in the two books, so the origins of the British rests a lot on the origins of R1b.

Unfortunately, it appears both men are not staying "up-to-date" with the latest trends in DNA and are quickly making money off of outdated material and false assertions. Credibility is everything and I just can't see it or their concern for it.

Arch
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2012, 05:41:03 AM »



I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.


He wouldn't change his mind,regardless whoever told him because he's a fascist! person  
Whether he is "fascist" or not, let's not resort to ad hominems.


It is hardly resorting to ad hominems in calling a person who is writing for the BNP,a fascist!

I agree, these people are from the sewer, acknowledging them, even to refute there ideas, only builds their egos.
Please, this debate should be about Sykes and Oppenheimer, not what problems you have with Kemp politically and/or as a person. I only talked about Kemp as a example of British nationalists using (and abusing?) their works for their own ends.

Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Online Online

Posts: 678


« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2012, 05:56:10 AM »



I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.


He wouldn't change his mind,regardless whoever told him because he's a fascist! person  
Whether he is "fascist" or not, let's not resort to ad hominems.


It is hardly resorting to ad hominems in calling a person who is writing for the BNP,a fascist!

I agree, these people are from the sewer, acknowledging them, even to refute there ideas, only builds their egos.
Please, this debate should be about Sykes and Oppenheimer, not what problems you have with Kemp politically and/or as a person. I only talked about Kemp as a example of British nationalists using (and abusing?) their works for their own ends.



OK but I agree with Arch Y. though I have reason to be thankful to Sykes as one of the people in his Blood of the Isles study was a Stedman which helped us confirm a haplotype in our project.
Logged

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

avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2012, 06:32:51 AM »

On British nationalist websites and forums the works of Sykes and Oppenheimer's books on the origins of British people are cited to prove that British people are infact "indigenous" and haven't been affected my historical migrations by e.g Celts and anglo-Saxons, as many/most people believe.

The main theory of these two men is that most British people are descendants of hunter gatherers that expanded from North Iberia after the last ice age. Both considered historical migrations to have affected little of the British blood pool, although apparently Sykes was more open to this.

For example, in Arthur Kemp's "Four flags" booklet which he wrote for the BNP, he argues that the british are   infact (one of) the oldest indigenous peoples in the world, with "nearly 80 percent" are descendants of Paleolithic Iberians. He goes on to claim that the aforementioned migrations to Britain contributed only 5 percent each to the British gene pool.

I contacted Mr. Kemp alerting him to some of the recent research on y-chromosomal and mtDNA genetics, which seem to have refuted what Sykes and Oppenheimer wrote. In response he said that he would only rectify the book if a definite refutation is released.

So...Do their books still hold any weight on the question of British origins, and if not, why? Thanks in advance for your responses.

Note: The reason this thread is in the R1b section is approx 70 percent of British men belong to that hg, and it was something discussed a lot in the two books, so the origins of the British rests a lot on the origins of R1b.

Unfortunately, it appears both men are not staying "up-to-date" with the latest trends in DNA and are quickly making money off of outdated material and false assertions. Credibility is everything and I just can't see it or their concern for it.

Arch

My understanding, based on a limited knowledge of genetics/dna, and from reading blogs such as Dienekes and genealogy-dna is that  the main criticism of Oppenheimer was in the method he used to calculate the age of y-dna haplogroups/clusters. Basically, he put R1b much older than many amateur genetic genealogists now consider it to be. From this Oppenheimer concluded that there was considerable genetic continuity in Britain from its Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to the modern population.

It now seems as though European hunter-gatherers did not survive in large numbers and that a major population replacement took place by farmers from the Neolithic onwards.

The key to all this is of course ancient DNA. In Britain the only example we currently have is Cheddar Man and his mtDna suggested genetic continuity. Brian Sykes obviously became over reliant on this one sample for his arguments.

Personally, I remain unconvinced either way. Genetic genealogy is a young science that is constantly changing so I think there is a way to go before we get a conclusive answer.


Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2012, 06:45:37 AM »

I had to delete several messages in this thread because of their controversial political nature or the fact that they quoted the controversial political posts. Sorry to those whose posts merely quoted the objectionable stuff.

Please refrain from political controversy, especially of the kind that involves name calling.

Thanks!
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2012, 07:03:41 AM »

Rich, please ask Kkk to declare who he is, and after delete my post.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 07:04:46 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2012, 07:11:45 AM »

Rich, please ask Kkk to declare who he is, and after delete my post.

You mean Mkk?

Screen names exist for privacy reasons. I could ask him, but he doesn't have to answer.
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2012, 07:15:38 AM »

Ask if his haplogroup is J2a?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 07:15:53 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2012, 07:18:57 AM »

Ask if his haplogroup is J2a?

Er . . . okay. But whether or not to answer is up to him.

@Mkk, are you by chance J2a?
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2012, 07:46:18 AM »

Message Removed.

Please stop these personal comments!

Terry
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 04:15:07 PM by Terry Barton » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2012, 07:55:38 AM »

That's all personal stuff and really not my business. Although I am pretty open here about my own background (probably to my own detriment), not everyone has to be.

And - right, left, or center - politics are off limits here.
Logged

Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2012, 10:21:15 AM »

Maliclavelli,

What does my political affiliation, ancesterey or haplogroup have to do with the subject of this thread? Please, let's get back on topic to Oppenheimer and Sykes.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 10:32:38 AM by Mkk » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2012, 11:20:57 AM »

So...Do their books still hold any weight on the question of British origins, and if not, why?

I quote Professor Mark Jobling (Leicester University) in his lecture at the conference  Ancient Britons, Wales, and Europe: New research in Genetics, Archaeology and Linguistics (National Museum of Wales Cardiff 4 June 2011)

Quote
Archaeologists by contrast like to write books. They are used to books. They like books such as Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British (2006). They read Oppenheimer and even quote him. They seem to believe this book. Geneticists don't believe it. His dating is wrong. His clusters are wrong.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 11:21:27 AM by Jean M » Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2012, 11:59:13 AM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?
Logged

I-L126
H3
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2012, 12:03:00 PM »

Oppenheimer's book is worthless.  He basically gets everything wrong.  Sykes is not so bad because he didnt claim too much and stayed rather vague.  He did however get a lot wrong too.  I have both books but they are now useless.
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2012, 12:11:56 PM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?

I wouldn't be surprised. If I recall correctly, Oppenheimer believed that English was spoken in pre-Roman Britain.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 12:12:32 PM by avalon » Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2012, 12:12:30 PM »

Oppenheimer's book is worthless.  He basically gets everything wrong.  Sykes is not so bad because he didnt claim too much and stayed rather vague.  He did however get a lot wrong too.  I have both books but they are now useless.

Regarding the Irish tv show "Blood of the Irish", was that just a re-hash of the main ideas of both books?
Logged

I-L126
H3
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2012, 12:19:54 PM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?
I don't know what Oppenheimer wrote on hg I in origins of the British but in Celtic from the West he apparently now believes hg I was Celtic (!) and is still sticking to his belief the majority of Brits are Paleolithic.

Quote
Regarding the Irish tv show "Blood of the Irish", was that just a re-hash of the main ideas of both books?
Yeah. Oppenheimer's work has, uh, contaminated other TV documentaries, such as How God made the English where there was a interview with him.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2012, 12:22:32 PM »

I'd imagine writing a book concerning DNA is fraught with problems. The situation with monthly magazines is that the Xmas edition is often compiled towards the end of summer, & that can cause journalists endless embarrassment.
Because DNA is a rapidly-moving science, I'd guess that authors would be extremely fretful lest a new test was about to scupper their new work's assertions.
I occasionally re-read Henri Hubert's incredible work, then have to check recent studies to see how they compare. I would think the pressure put on Oppenheimer & others was similar to the newspaper industry.  I can imagine publisher's wouldn't be too impressed with phrases like "R-P312  MIGHT have been present in the year X, but I really need more need more hard data to state that with confidence." They are probably looking for something 'sexy'  to push book sales with.
As has been pointed out, there's probably a fair degree of professional rivalry between the various scientific branches. I dare say that an archaeologist wouldn't particularly enjoy stating that a site dated from 200 AD, only for a DNA expert to later state that the human  remains were   from 1,000 years earlier.
I find the internet is also problematic: I sometimes start absorbing info about Y-DNA  on a website, then realise it's from 2004. Find a more recent site & you realise the earlier work was flawed.
Being charitable, I suppose all we can do is applaud Oppenheimer & others for being brave enough to dip their toe, thereby generating public awareness.
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 01:00:13 PM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2012, 12:24:25 PM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?
I don't know what Oppenheimer wrote on hg I in origins of the British but in Celtic from the West he apparently now believes hg I was Celtic (!) and is still sticking to his belief the majority of Brits are Paleolithic.

Quote
Regarding the Irish tv show "Blood of the Irish", was that just a re-hash of the main ideas of both books?
Yeah. Oppenheimer's work has, uh, contaminated other TV documentaries, such as How God made the English where there was a interview with him.

Thanks.

Barry Cunliffe has a book coming out in October where he uses more recent DNA findings. Should be interesting.
Logged

I-L126
H3
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2012, 12:32:32 PM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?
I don't know what Oppenheimer wrote on hg I in origins of the British but in Celtic from the West he apparently now believes hg I was Celtic (!) and is still sticking to his belief the majority of Brits are Paleolithic.

Quote
Regarding the Irish tv show "Blood of the Irish", was that just a re-hash of the main ideas of both books?
Yeah. Oppenheimer's work has, uh, contaminated other TV documentaries, such as How God made the English where there was a interview with him.

Thanks.

Barry Cunliffe has a book coming out in October where he uses more recent DNA findings. Should be interesting.
It's called Britain begins. Description from Amazon:

Quote
The last Ice Age, which came to an end about 12,000 years ago, swept the bands of hunter gatherers from the face of the land that was to become Britain and Ireland, but as the ice sheets retreated and the climate improved so human groups spread slowly northwards, re-colonizing the land that had been laid waste. From that time onwards Britain and Ireland have been continuously inhabited and the resident population has increased from a few hundreds to more than 60 million. Britain Begins is nothing less than the story of the origins of the British and the Irish peoples, from around 10,000BC to the eve of the Norman Conquest. Using the most up to date archaeological evidence together with new work on DNA and other scientific techniques which help us to trace the origins and movements of these early settlers, Barry Cunliffe offers a rich narrative account of the first islanders - who they were, where they came from, and how they interacted one with another. Underlying this narrative throughout is the story of the sea, which allowed the islanders and their continental neighbours to be in constant contact. The story told by the archaeological evidence, in later periods augmented by historical texts, satisfies our need to know who we are and where we come from. But before the development of the discipline of archaeology, people used what scraps there were, gleaned from Biblical and classical texts, to create a largely mythological origin for the British. Britain Begins also explores the development of these early myths, which show our ancestors attempting to understand their origins. And, as Cunliffe shows, today's archaeologists are driven by the same desire to understand the past - the only real difference is that we have vastly more evidence to work with.

From the wording of the description it seems Cunliffe subsribes to the Paleolithic hypothesis.


« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 12:36:29 PM by Mkk » Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2012, 12:54:54 PM »

Didn't Oppenheimer also get a lot of criticism from linguists?
Was it just his R1b & R1a stuff that was flawes, or was his I haplogroup stuff wrong?
I don't know what Oppenheimer wrote on hg I in origins of the British but in Celtic from the West he apparently now believes hg I was Celtic (!) and is still sticking to his belief the majority of Brits are Paleolithic.

Quote
Regarding the Irish tv show "Blood of the Irish", was that just a re-hash of the main ideas of both books?
Yeah. Oppenheimer's work has, uh, contaminated other TV documentaries, such as How God made the English where there was a interview with him.

Thanks.

Barry Cunliffe has a book coming out in October where he uses more recent DNA findings. Should be interesting.

I have great respect and admiration for Cunliffe, I certainly hope his new book is well informed on the subject of ancient DNA and not contaminated by Sykes or Oppenheimer.

Arch
Logged
glentane
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2012, 01:42:33 PM »

Quote from: Jobling
Archaeologists by contrast like to write books. They are used to books. They like books such as Stephen Oppenheimer, The Origins of the British (2006). They read Oppenheimer and even quote him. They seem to believe this book. Geneticists don't believe it. His dating is wrong. His clusters are wrong.
He must mix with a rather more exalted class of archaeologist than I do. The sort that write books, for instance.
I've yet to run across one of the less fragrant sort, who, if they've bothered to read it in the first place, usually when it first came out, didn't regard the archaeological content as anything less than risible, verging on fantasy-genre fiction, or WoW.
And you really don't want to know what they call Barry Cunliffe, either ..
He seems to have inherited some of the flak that Grahame Clark used to get for his hypothetical long-range deep-sea mesolithic fisherfolk, with especial vitriol being reserved for those who linked it with  the onset of "Atlantic Facade" megalithism as some sort of unitary Kulturkreis. Rather than a lack of suitable timber ...

But at least he gets off his big end and writes books, instead of grumbling in the boozer. Agree with Bob. God loves a tryer!

On the other hand, being simple souls, those few who even tried to understand it were mightily impressed by the sciency stuff. All that genetics. Must be right, 'e's a scientist an' that, innit? Bound to know what he's talking about .. them other scientists wouldn't let 'im talk rot, would they, hey?
"Paging Professor Jobling ..."

The hazards of countenancing the interdisciplinary carpetbagger, eh?
I can think of more than a few who've made a lucrative career in or out of archaeology by pretending expertise in the one, but only in the presence of practitioners of the other.
Usually something harmless and not too costly, like bones, or statistics, or petrology. And computers most of all, in the days when they were grey and ate 5.25" floppies, with the processor made of flint or something. Now that I.T. is a proper trade they've been outed, one by one :)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 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 0.11 seconds with 19 queries.