English and Irish might be related

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

The differences between the Irish and the English/protestant Irish are thankfully mostly resolved, and to be fair, even the staunchest Irish republicans state that they have no quarrel with the ordinary English people.

 

No there not resolved at all. If they were Orangemen would not march through Catholic neighborhoods!!!!!!!!

[Andrew Dalby]

Well, DC's post is just another in the series of reminders that DNA similarities does not necessarily equal linguistic similarities. I would never rely on solely one versus the other, but a combination of both.

 

I was under the impression that the Angles and Saxons pushed several Britons into Wales; is that theory still viable?

 

I heartily agree with sentence 1. As for sentence 2: yes, surely, although the evidence is weak and the numbers cannot be known. It's what happens, in the 21st century as in the 5th: if there's trouble from the east, some refugees will flee west. We happen to know that some fled SOUTHWEST to Brittany, because that's recorded in Breton saints' lives (edit -- and it is confirmed linguistically); we happen to know that a lot were killed, because that's in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in Welsh sources; we must think it likely that some others fled westwards into Wales, where kingdoms remained into medieval times speaking their own language; and, certainly, some blended (or were forcibly blended, or subjugated) with the new people of lowland England, where the newcomers' language prevailed.

 

The DNA testers seem to want to reach too-neat conclusions. What DNA testing might eventually show, I suppose, is what proportion of the Celtic population of lowland England had one fate rather than another. Wouldn't it be good if that became possible? But it would surely require larger-scale sampling.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Northern Neil]

The differences between the Irish and the English/protestant Irish are thankfully mostly resolved, and to be fair, even the staunchest Irish republicans state that they have no quarrel with the ordinary English people.

 

No there not resolved at all. If they were Orangemen would not march through Catholic neighborhoods!!!!!!!!

In a democratic country, anyone should be allowed to march anywhere - and no one group should claim a neighbourhood as its own, exclusive to others. The attitudes of the marchers are irritating and infantile, but then lots of people in society do infantile and irritating things. If the RC community starts to regard these marches as silly and quaint, rather than responding in the way the orange order want them too, they will eventually cease to have a function.

 

Not resolved at all? Are you sure about that? I did say 'mostly'. Obviously, hard line attitudes persist in some quarters and probably will for decades. But what about the Good Friday agreement, the cessation of the armed struggle, power sharing, the acceptance from Sinn Feinn that the British military presence no longer has a colonial function, the formation of the Northern Ireland Police Service? In the Republic, there is no longer a widespread dislike of British people, no resentment based on historical events. In Britain Irish people are regarded very positively, as opposed to a generation ago when they were seen as bumpkins to be satirised. Most British people believe that Ireland should be united, whereas a generation or two ago that was not the case. I believe that the situation is immensely improved on what we had in the early nineties and beyond. A few thousand bigots on both sides should not wipe out attitudes of millions.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Western]

I read somewhere that recent British migration patterns may be a reason why there is so much contradiction in DNA studies of Anglo-Saxon DNA in comparison with so called "Native" Celtic Britons.

 

From the 17th to the early 20th century English migration to North America, Australia etc was heavily from parts of England where the Anglo-Saxon element in the English population was likely to be strongest, ie the rich southern counties and midlands. As these people left for the new colonies the industrial revolution also brought an influx of poorer people from rural northern and western England to the new industrial cities and towns in search jobs. It's possible that the new influx of people to London, and other big towns brought more Celtic DNA with them as those with more Anglo-Saxon DNA left. Ironically many people with English ancestors who live in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc may have more Anglo-Saxon DNA than those living in England which has become more Celtic.

[Andrew Dalby]

I read somewhere that recent British migration patterns may be a reason why there is so much contradiction in DNA studies of Anglo-Saxon DNA in comparison with so called "Native" Celtic Britons.

 

From the 17th to the early 20th century English migration to North America, Australia etc was heavily from parts of England where the Anglo-Saxon element in the English population was likely to be strongest, ie the rich southern counties and midlands. As these people left for the new colonies the industrial revolution also brought an influx of poorer people from rural northern and western England to the new industrial cities and towns in search jobs. It's possible that the new influx of people to London, and other big towns brought more Celtic DNA with them as those with more Anglo-Saxon DNA left. Ironically many people with English ancestors who live in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc may have more Anglo-Saxon DNA than those living in England which has become more Celtic.

 

Never thought of that. As regards a gradual change in the makeup of the population of England it sounds quite convincing to me. On the other hand, when you speak of emigration to USA, Australia, etc., there has been a lot of emigration from Celtic regions of the British Isles too (remember the Irish famine, Scottish land clearances ...).

[docoflove1974]

The DNA testers seem to want to reach too-neat conclusions. What DNA testing might eventually show, I suppose, is what proportion of the Celtic population of lowland England had one fate rather than another. Wouldn't it be good if that became possible? But it would surely require larger-scale sampling.

 

That's my opinion, too. When one looks at the history of Spain, one can think of 2 possible/probable counter-examples:

 

--The Gothic tribes who conquered the Ibero-Roman citizens, intermarried with the 'native' population, so I'm sure that genetically many Spaniards (esp. in the north) have quite a bit of Germanic blood. Linguistically, it has been shown through several documents (Men

[Western]

Never thought of that. As regards a gradual change in the makeup of the population of England it sounds quite convincing to me. On the other hand, when you speak of emigration to USA, Australia, etc., there has been a lot of emigration from Celtic regions of the British Isles too (remember the Irish famine, Scottish land clearances ...).

 

I know that plenty of Irish, Scottish and Welsh also emigrated as well, I'm actually Irish myself, but I was refering to English migration only. I believe the results of certain DNA testing which showed a strong Celtic DNA presence among the modern English occured in southern England, particularly in counties of the South-East. Recent migration of people with more Celtic DNA to an area which logically would be strongly Anglo-Saxon, and migration from that area by people with more Anglo-Saxon DNA might explain this oddity.

 

In regards to the emergance of English as the language of post-Roman England, and alternative testing that shows significant differences between the DNA of the modern English and Welsh, or a preponderance of Anglo-Saxon DNA in areas of modern England. There is a theory that the Anglo-Saxons may have practised an ancient form of apartheid over the local British. For many generations the new English frowned upon, forbid, or did not legaly recognise intermarrying with the locals who had been reduced to the status of serf or peasant in the areas they controlled. As the English now controlled the best land and food producing areas and had all the power, they where able to outbreed the locals over a number of generations in the parts of Britain they occupied, which led to English quickly becoming the spoken language of England and a dominance of Anglo-Saxon DNA in certain parts of England.

[edgewaters]

I know that plenty of Irish, Scottish and Welsh also emigrated as well, I'm actually Irish myself, but I was refering to English migration only. I believe the results of certain DNA testing which showed a strong Celtic DNA presence among the modern English occured in southern England, particularly in counties of the South-East. Recent migration of people with more Celtic DNA to an area which logically would be strongly Anglo-Saxon, and migration from that area by people with more Anglo-Saxon DNA might explain this oddity.

 

There are markers present in the south-east, but I think you were confused with whatever you were reading because it's the south-west (Cornwall etc) that has the big increase in markers. There's a "line" in the West beyond which Saxon markers drop sharply and "Celtic" markers increase sharply. Nonetheless, native markers (Celtic, if you like - the Atlantic Modal haplogroup) are very high in all areas and the Germanic contribution is not ubiquitous - it is highest in York and Norfolk, apparently, reaching 60%.

Edited March 19, 2007 by edgewaters

[Western]

There are markers present in the south-east, but I think you were confused with whatever you were reading because it's the south-west (Cornwall etc) that has the big increase in markers. There's a "line" in the West beyond which Saxon markers drop sharply and "Celtic" markers increase sharply. Nonetheless, native markers (Celtic, if you like - the Atlantic Modal haplogroup) are very high in all areas and the Germanic contribution is not ubiquitous - it is highest in York and Norfolk, apparently, reaching 60%.

 

No I'm aware that there is a line in the south-west were Celtic DNA is more frequent, which would be obvious given its own strong Celtic history, being one of last parts of England to historically come under Anglo-Saxon influence, it's closeness to Wales, and it's relative remotness from the rest of England.

 

Some studies have given high Celtic DNA for areas in the south of England which you would think are likely to be stongly Anglo-Saxon. York may have been far enough away from the initial focus of Anglo-Saxon invasion/migration to allow for a stronger Celtic survival, but it was also controlled by the Danes who would have near indentical DNA to the Anglo-Saxons, so why is it so strongly Celtic? Maybe my initial argument is true for the fact that York was a major political/economic centre attracted a lot of poorer caste people with Celtic DNA in pre-Industrial revolution times. Norfolk is also a large town and in an area which would suggest that Anglo-Saxon DNA would be dominant. Who knows, DNA seems to be far from straight forward.