To what extent are the English Anglo-Saxon?

Andrew Constantine · 03-07-2008, 08:20 AM

The evidence for the pre Anglo-Saxon inhabiatants in 'England' being driven to the extreme West (Wales and Cornwall) and the North is overwhelming. It comes from the study of English (how few words there are that are not of Anglo-Saxon or later origin), the place names of England, written accounts in Anglo-Saxon histories and a mass of archaelogical evidence.

The 'DNA evidence' quoted in this debate seems to me generally to be incorrectly understood.

I contend that the English people are therefore mainly of Anglo-Saxon stock: they are a Germanic people.

I make this post firstly as I am hoping to see a really good debate on this facinating and important issue. But also as a number of English members of this forum seem unsure about who the Englsih are and where they came from.

BonnieDundee · 03-07-2008, 08:24 AM

All genetic studies except one of the earliest, most limited and most flawed suggests that most of the English are descended from people who have been here since the stone age. The archaeological evidence strongly supports this.

Andrew Constantine · 03-07-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

All genetic studies except one of the earliest, most limited and most flawed suggests that most of the English are descended from people who have been here since the stone age. The archaeological evidence strongly supports this.

Hi BonnieDundee

Please can you give out some references to these genetic and archaelogical studies so that they can be read.

Regards

Andrew

Waterloo · 03-07-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

All genetic studies except one of the earliest, most limited and most flawed suggests that most of the English are descended from people who have been here since the stone age. The archaeological evidence strongly supports this.

Aye, that's true, there was the Chedder Gorge DNA profile I seem to remember.

The current historiography seems to argue that it was only the elit leadership that changed, the masses were married/concubined into...

Andrew Constantine · 03-07-2008, 01:08 PM

From The Times July 19, 2006 England's apartheid roots

The Anglo-Saxons triumphed by a policy of segregation by Mark Henderson

THE Anglo-Saxons, who invaded Britain from the 5th century AD, used a system of “medieval apartheid” to drive the indigenous population to extinction, according to new genetic research.

Scientists have discovered that genes from a small population of Anglo-Saxon immigrants supplanted almost completely those of the native Britons, most probably by using institutionalised discrimination to outbreed them.

When the Anglo-Saxons reached Britain from what is now Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, between the 5th and 7th centuries, they were outnumbered by indigenous Celts. The Anglo-Saxon invaders numbered between 10,000-200,000, compared with an estimated 2 million natives. Within just 15 generations, however, Anglo-Saxon genes had so multiplied that they accounted for more than half the male DNA in the population of what is now England. In the modern population the DNA is even more heavily Germanic in origin.

A new study led by Mark Thomas, of University College London, has shown that this remarkable spread of Anglo-Saxon genes probably was accomplished by a form of institutionalised racism, not dissimilar from the apartheid system of 20th-century South Africa.

A computer simulation that tested several scenarios found that the best fit for the spread of Anglo-Saxon genes was one in which the dominant but outnumbered ethnic group was banned from intermarrying with their British subjects and serfs. Dr Thomas said: “The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years. An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. This is exactly what we see today — a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language.”

[AJC note: the above article was printed in a heavyweight journal and supports the answer that the English are mainly Anglo-Saxon in origin....]

Internationalist · 03-07-2008, 01:41 PM

I find the history itself fascinating but I don't see how the genetic make-up of the English population is important to us today.

Ea of Dune · 03-07-2008, 02:14 PM

Andrew> This is a subject (Anglo-Saxon history) which is a bit of a hobby of mine, here is my take on the above..

I think the whole genetic studies are a bit of a misleading subject for a start. The idea of the Celts being some homogenous tribe is of course wrong. If you have a copy of the conquest of Gaul handy (written by Julius Caesar) you'll notice that the Romans documented that the Belgae tribe lived on both sides of the English channel.
I believe the Belgae may well have been of Germanic stock but probably where a mix of Celtic cultural customs and Germanic peoples (which in some cases are similar anyway, and of course in overlapping areas you would see some kind of merger of cultures, modern Belgium is a mix of Felmmish and French culture for example).
I believe the Belgae are described in Roman documents of having been a federation of tribes from both east and West of the Rhine.

So this leads us to the question, were the ancient Britons one single "ethnic" group, in my opinion no they weren't. This may well explain the less Brythonic sounding names in places such as Hampshire where the Belgae where supposed to have been seated.

However to say that a complete lack of Romano-Celtic names exist in the East is wrong. Dover I believe comes from Dubris, in Norfolk alone we have Brancaster, Caister-on-Sea, Ickneid way and Caister-by-Norwich. All of these obviously have Romano-Briton roots.

But there is most definantly a lack of names compared to Cornwall for example. My opinion on the reason for there being less names in East Anglia is several fold. Some names did survive which implies that the Angles at least knew of the Roman settlements and that the Romano-British settlement continued for some time after their arrival.

In 61AD Bouddica lead her revolt against the Romans, the whole tribe literally went to war, and from what we know the warriors took their families with them. After the crushing defeat finally metted out on the Iceni I think the following situation arose.
Many of the survivors may have died of their injuries. Some where taken as slaves, many more had to retreat back to the Iceni heartlands.
The throughly crushed tribe would probably be suffering from famine and a lack of males to peform their traditionally tribal duties (hunting, farming etc.) I can image this lead to a massive population reduction.
Many of the Iceni may well have fled into the marsh land of the Fens, or others relocated nearer the ports in order to find work.

Archaeological records of Caister-by-Norwich for example show that originally the planned settlement was far larger, but for some reason the settlement shrunk, this to me implies a contraction of the population.

So did the Angles when they slowly took over East Anglia actually find very little resistance, I think so. There is certainly the possibility that the interior of Norfolk for example was sparsely populated.

We know the earliest recorded artifact in Old English from this area is dated to around 400 AD, some 339 years after the defeat of the Iceni.
Although the Iceni had time to obviously rebuild their numbers in this time, they don't seem to have done. I think this is because the defeat they suffered literally left hardly any of the tribe left and the remaining tribal members where absorbed into the Romano-British culture.

If the garissons where pulled back to Rome, or later where lead into Brittany this may explain the lack of population and the ease with which the Angles could have taken the East.

Also as a quick point, if the Celts of the South East where of Germanic stock surely they would have been absorbed into the Germanic stock of the Jutes and Frisians and Saxons and would thus be undistinguishable?

I think the point made about the links to Neolithic man is also interesting, especially the Cheddar Gorge man.

Ea of dune

Andrew Constantine · 03-07-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

I find the history itself fascinating but I don't see how the genetic make-up of the English population is important to us today.

I think it is relevant for three reasons:

1. It is used to defend mass immigration as the British political classes position England as a land of immigrants/mongrels. It was of course no such thing until the 1950s.

2. It is used to advance the case for a British identity - and to deny English ethnicity.

3. It is used to attack and undermine the inconvenient facts that England was a historic national state with amazing ethnic homogenity.

So you can see the political motivation in the attitudes towards England shown by the corrupt British political class.

Internationalist · 03-07-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Constantine

I think it is relevant for three reasons:

1. It is used to defend mass immigration as the British political classes position England as a land of immigrants/mongrels. It was of course no such thing until the 1950s.

2. It is used to advance the case for a British identity - and to deny English ethnicity.

3. It is used to attack and undermine the inconvenient facts that England was a historic national state with amazing ethnic homogenity.

So you can see the political motivation in the attitudes towards England shown by the corrupt British political class.

Thanks Andrew. In that case:

1. I don't support an anti-immigration policy so it is not particularly relevant to me on this point.

2. I am not bothered whether people have a British or English identity, or both. I don't much care for identity politics other than to oppose extreme nationalism.

3. Historical facts are what they are and should not be manipulated by anyone. If they are being so manipulated, I will at least agree with you on this one.

So good luck in your historical studies but I think it would be a matter of regret to base your political platform on genetic factors.

Andrew Constantine · 03-07-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

I think it would be a matter of regret to base your political platform on genetic factors.

Unionist

In my introductary post to this thread, I gave the following reason for the post:

"I make this post firstly as I am hoping to see a really good debate on this facinating and important issue. But also as a number of English members of this forum seem unsure about who the English are and where they came from."

No rational person (I assume) would wish to base a political platform on genetic factors. So why introduce such a wayward observation?

03-07-2008, 08:20 AM	#1 (permalink)
Andrew Constantine Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 959 Party: Free England Party	To what extent are the English Anglo-Saxon? The evidence for the pre Anglo-Saxon inhabiatants in 'England' being driven to the extreme West (Wales and Cornwall) and the North is overwhelming. It comes from the study of English (how few words there are that are not of Anglo-Saxon or later origin), the place names of England, written accounts in Anglo-Saxon histories and a mass of archaelogical evidence. The 'DNA evidence' quoted in this debate seems to me generally to be incorrectly understood. I contend that the English people are therefore mainly of Anglo-Saxon stock: they are a Germanic people. I make this post firstly as I am hoping to see a really good debate on this facinating and important issue. But also as a number of English members of this forum seem unsure about who the Englsih are and where they came from. __________________ Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith. Free England Party - Independence for England http://www.freeengland.com Signatory to The English Claim of Right http://englishclaimofright.com The Steadfast Trust http://steadfasttrust.org.uk

03-07-2008, 08:24 AM	#2 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,809	All genetic studies except one of the earliest, most limited and most flawed suggests that most of the English are descended from people who have been here since the stone age. The archaeological evidence strongly supports this. __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

03-07-2008, 01:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Andrew Constantine Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 959 Party: Free England Party	To what extent are the English Anglo-Saxan in origin? From The Times July 19, 2006 England's apartheid roots The Anglo-Saxons triumphed by a policy of segregation by Mark Henderson THE Anglo-Saxons, who invaded Britain from the 5th century AD, used a system of “medieval apartheid” to drive the indigenous population to extinction, according to new genetic research. Scientists have discovered that genes from a small population of Anglo-Saxon immigrants supplanted almost completely those of the native Britons, most probably by using institutionalised discrimination to outbreed them. When the Anglo-Saxons reached Britain from what is now Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, between the 5th and 7th centuries, they were outnumbered by indigenous Celts. The Anglo-Saxon invaders numbered between 10,000-200,000, compared with an estimated 2 million natives. Within just 15 generations, however, Anglo-Saxon genes had so multiplied that they accounted for more than half the male DNA in the population of what is now England. In the modern population the DNA is even more heavily Germanic in origin. A new study led by Mark Thomas, of University College London, has shown that this remarkable spread of Anglo-Saxon genes probably was accomplished by a form of institutionalised racism, not dissimilar from the apartheid system of 20th-century South Africa. A computer simulation that tested several scenarios found that the best fit for the spread of Anglo-Saxon genes was one in which the dominant but outnumbered ethnic group was banned from intermarrying with their British subjects and serfs. Dr Thomas said: “The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years. An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage. We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised. This is exactly what we see today — a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language.” [AJC note: the above article was printed in a heavyweight journal and supports the answer that the English are mainly Anglo-Saxon in origin....] __________________ Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith. Free England Party - Independence for England http://www.freeengland.com Signatory to The English Claim of Right http://englishclaimofright.com The Steadfast Trust http://steadfasttrust.org.uk

03-07-2008, 02:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ea of Dune Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hell Posts: 1,049	Celts and Saxons Andrew> This is a subject (Anglo-Saxon history) which is a bit of a hobby of mine, here is my take on the above.. I think the whole genetic studies are a bit of a misleading subject for a start. The idea of the Celts being some homogenous tribe is of course wrong. If you have a copy of the conquest of Gaul handy (written by Julius Caesar) you'll notice that the Romans documented that the Belgae tribe lived on both sides of the English channel. I believe the Belgae may well have been of Germanic stock but probably where a mix of Celtic cultural customs and Germanic peoples (which in some cases are similar anyway, and of course in overlapping areas you would see some kind of merger of cultures, modern Belgium is a mix of Felmmish and French culture for example). I believe the Belgae are described in Roman documents of having been a federation of tribes from both east and West of the Rhine. So this leads us to the question, were the ancient Britons one single "ethnic" group, in my opinion no they weren't. This may well explain the less Brythonic sounding names in places such as Hampshire where the Belgae where supposed to have been seated. However to say that a complete lack of Romano-Celtic names exist in the East is wrong. Dover I believe comes from Dubris, in Norfolk alone we have Brancaster, Caister-on-Sea, Ickneid way and Caister-by-Norwich. All of these obviously have Romano-Briton roots. But there is most definantly a lack of names compared to Cornwall for example. My opinion on the reason for there being less names in East Anglia is several fold. Some names did survive which implies that the Angles at least knew of the Roman settlements and that the Romano-British settlement continued for some time after their arrival. In 61AD Bouddica lead her revolt against the Romans, the whole tribe literally went to war, and from what we know the warriors took their families with them. After the crushing defeat finally metted out on the Iceni I think the following situation arose. Many of the survivors may have died of their injuries. Some where taken as slaves, many more had to retreat back to the Iceni heartlands. The throughly crushed tribe would probably be suffering from famine and a lack of males to peform their traditionally tribal duties (hunting, farming etc.) I can image this lead to a massive population reduction. Many of the Iceni may well have fled into the marsh land of the Fens, or others relocated nearer the ports in order to find work. Archaeological records of Caister-by-Norwich for example show that originally the planned settlement was far larger, but for some reason the settlement shrunk, this to me implies a contraction of the population. So did the Angles when they slowly took over East Anglia actually find very little resistance, I think so. There is certainly the possibility that the interior of Norfolk for example was sparsely populated. We know the earliest recorded artifact in Old English from this area is dated to around 400 AD, some 339 years after the defeat of the Iceni. Although the Iceni had time to obviously rebuild their numbers in this time, they don't seem to have done. I think this is because the defeat they suffered literally left hardly any of the tribe left and the remaining tribal members where absorbed into the Romano-British culture. If the garissons where pulled back to Rome, or later where lead into Brittany this may explain the lack of population and the ease with which the Angles could have taken the East. Also as a quick point, if the Celts of the South East where of Germanic stock surely they would have been absorbed into the Germanic stock of the Jutes and Frisians and Saxons and would thus be undistinguishable? I think the point made about the links to Neolithic man is also interesting, especially the Cheddar Gorge man. Ea of dune

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-07-2008, 01:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,115	I find the history itself fascinating but I don't see how the genetic make-up of the English population is important to us today.