We're nearly all Celts under the skin IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT Thu 21 Sep 2006
A MAJOR genetic study of the population of Britain appears to have put an end to the idea of the "Celtic fringe" of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
Instead, a research team at Oxford University has found the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 7,000 years ago.
Even in England, about 64 per cent of people are descended from these Celts, outnumbering the descendants of Anglo- Saxons by about three to one.
The proportion of Celts is only slightly higher in Scotland, at 73 per cent. Wales is the most Celtic part of mainland Britain, with 83 per cent.
Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in Spain provides a scientific basis for part of the ancient Scots' origin myth.
The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes".
Professor Bryan Sykes, a human geneticist at Oxford, said the myth may have been a "residue" in people's memories of the real journey, but added that the majority of people in England were the descendants of the same people who sailed across the Bay of Biscay.
Prof Sykes divided the population into several groups or clans: Oisin for the Celts; Wodan for Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings; Sigurd for Norse Vikings; Eshu for people who share genetic links with people such as the Berbers of North Africa; and Re for a farming people who spread to Europe from the Middle East.
The study linked the male Y-chromosome to the birthplace of paternal grandfathers to try to establish a historic distribution pattern. Prof Sykes, a member of the Oisin clan, said the Celts had remained predominant in Britain despite waves of further migration.
"The overlay of Vikings, Saxons and so on is 20 per cent at most. That's even in those parts of England that are nearest to the Continent," he said.
"The only exception is Orkney and Shetland, where roughly 40 per cent are of Viking ancestry."
In Scotland, the majority of people are not actually Scots, but Picts. Even in Argyll, the stronghold of the Irish Scots, two-thirds of members of the Oisin clan are Pictish Celts.
However, according to the study, the Picts, like the Scots, originally came from Spain.
"If one thinks that the English are genetically different from the Scots, Irish and Welsh, that's entirely wrong," he said.
"In the 19th century, the idea of Anglo-Saxon superiority was very widespread. At the moment, there is a resurgence of Celtic identity, which had been trampled on. It's very vibrant and obvious at the moment.
"Basically the cornerstone of Celtic identity is that they are not English. However, to try to base that, as some do, on an idea that is not far beneath the surface that Celtic countries are somehow descended from a race of Celts, which the English are not, is not right. We are all descended from the same people.
"It should dispel any idea of trying to base what is a cultural identity on a genetic difference, because there really isn't one."
I see it is not just Bryan Sykes that is at it again, Stephen Oppenheimer has a new book too. Prospect magazine has an article my him that presumably outlines the nature of the book.
Well said Stefan It would be interesting to know from where these academics obtained the Picts who took part in the study. It appears also that "academia" is still hell bent on pigeon-holing the early [Proto] Picts in the same bin as the Celts. All this proves to me is that they are still no nearer a solution and that they continue to get their k***kers in a twist. There is no mention of interpreters among the Scotii when they settled in Dalriada. How come then that the Picts spoke a different language? Wasn't it St. Aidan's biographer who said that when Machar ventured into the heartland of the Picts in order to convert their king he had to take an interpreter along with him?
How big was this survey in any case? I just find it a bit sweeping to say that "the majority of Britons" are this or that without anyone actually having checked the majority of Britons!
It might be a bit like the statistics on the latest face cream - 80% of women said they felt an improvement in their wrinkles (in the small print - "124 women surveyed").
The logical outcome of this debate is the Balkans! Should it really matter? Mind you when I lived in Scotland it would have been helpful as an 'Englishman' to be able to say I'm probably a Celt, as they slagged me off for my accent and birthplace.
Originally posted by Jenni: How big was this survey in any case?
I would like to know that too. Google didn't come up with much. I thought I had seen it before, but it was a different survey by someone else (Mark Thomas?).
Originally posted by Jenni: How big was this survey in any case?
I would like to know that too. Google didn't come up with much. I thought I had seen it before, but it was a different survey by someone else (Mark Thomas?).
It's logical to think the people who had been hunting and gathering in what is now the British Isles, should up sticks and go down to the Costas when ice appeared over the horizon. Wouldn't you ?
Originally posted by mlh: It's logical to think the people who had been hunting and gathering in what is now the British Isles, should up sticks and go down to the Costas when ice appeared over the horizon. Wouldn't you ?
Well, they are infinitely better than Starbucks, I suppose.
Now, now Steff. Mandy's making a serious point there. It's not that we are all Spanish. It's just that the Brits were having a bit of a break down there during the last Ice Age. You know it makes sense.
Of course if you go back far enough we're all African. And for those would like fancy graphics with that, I give you The Genographic Project.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenni: How big was this survey in any case? I just find it a bit sweeping to say that "the majority of Britons" are this or that without anyone actually having checked the majority of Britons! QUOTE]
I was also wondering that. The big question that's bugging me is that when the researchers from Oxford went to Glasgow to test their DNA, how did they know which woman was a Pict and which woman was a Scot ? It's easy to tell the difference in Cumbernauld, as they have different hairstyles.
Good point. In Wales several similar surveys have tended to take the vast majority of the samples from north western and south western Wales. The idea was to avoid the more Anglicised areas. By doing so, of course, they picked the areas that were influenced by Irish settlement.
There was certainly strong Irish settlement into Dyfed and the Lleyn peninsula in post-Roman times, but they didn't change the language from Welsh to Irish so it probably wasn't en masse immigration. Also, if we go off Oppenheimer and Sykes' research, then the Welsh and Irish are genetically indistinguishable anyway.
I'm reading both Oppenheimer and Sykes at the moment. Their statistical sampling techniques are good science and once their findings are confirmed by other researchers I'm sure they will cause us to re-think everything we know about the Celts (they were a tiny metal trading community, possibly like the Arabs in North Africa), the English (they were here before the Anglo-Saxons) and about who arrived when and speaking what. I'll certainly feel better supporting Spain when England get ignominiously dumped out of the European Championships next year.
Originally posted by Duncan A: There was certainly strong Irish settlement into Dyfed and the Lleyn peninsula in post-Roman times, but they didn't change the language from Welsh to Irish so it probably wasn't en masse immigration. Also, if we go off Oppenheimer and Sykes' research, then the Welsh and Irish are genetically indistinguishable anyway.
I don't think that there is very much to prove that Irish was not widely spoken in these areas, Even today there is still evidence of Irish place names. The epigraphical evidence for Irish far outweighs that for Welsh until the ninth century. Dyfed's Ogham inscriptions are Irish, not Brythonic. There are Irish dynasties in the royal houses of West Wales and of course a Crannog in the kingdom of Brycheiniog. I think the Irish influence on Wales in the post Roman period is vastly underestimated.
There is only a superficial influence from the Gael in the form of Welsh spoken in North West Wales. Being a man of Glamorgan I find the Welsh spoken to this day up in North Wales different, but not totally (Mae'n ddrwg da fi/gen i) illegible especially the 'colloquial language' of the street. Standardisation of Welsh owes more to the translation of the bible than to any natural convergence. The complete supplanting of language through invasion can only occur if accompanied by 'ethnic cleansing'. Even with the global media of the 21st century, minority language do not necessarily get replaced, but a form of bilingualism emerges. It has always surprised my that in the last 600 years the Welsh language has suffered periods of illegality, banning from administrative and legal processes, attempts to eradicate it from the education system, and other forms of discrimination, but remains as a daily spoken media of about 20% of the people of Wales. The Norman invasion of England resulted in French being the official language of England for hundreds of years, yet it did not supplant English as the peoples language. Which raises the question of what process occurred for the Brythonic language to be eradicated very quickly in England upon arrival of the Anglo-Saxons ?
There is only a superficial influence from the Gael in the form of Welsh spoken in North West Wales. Being a man of Glamorgan I find the Welsh spoken to this day up in North Wales different, but not totally (Mae'n ddrwg da fi/gen i) illegible especially the 'colloquial language' of the street.
I'm not really thinking in terms of a Gaelic influence on modern Welsh, rather a Gaelic speaking community in Wales in the Early Medieval period. Yes, there are many differences in the dialects of Northern and Southern Wales, but I do not believe that this has much to do with an Irish influence. When it comes to the Gwenhwyseg dialect, I think their is something to be said for the idea (based on Cyril Fox's Highland and Lowland zones) that it has more in common with the Brythonic dialects of the Cotswolds etc. than those of Gwynedd etc. I'm afraid I think the idea of modern day Welshmen not understanding each others Welsh is overstated. I have lived in Gwynedd, Gwent, Dyfed and Glamorgan and have used Welsh with natives of each area with little more trouble than a Cockney speaking English to a Geordie. I once sat between a Welsh speaker from Cwmafan and one from Harlech who spent an hour arguing about how they couldn't understand each others Welsh. In Welsh, of course, and I couldn't stop them communicating.
Brythonfa
quote:
Standardisation of Welsh owes more to the translation of the bible than to any natural convergence. The complete supplanting of language through invasion can only occur if accompanied by 'ethnic cleansing'.
I think standardisation of Modern Welsh also has to be down to the education system, S4C, Cymraeg Byw for learners and a lack of confidence in their own dialects by people in various Welsh communities. The supplanting of a language does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing though - or even cultural cleansing. In my own family, most of the Welsh died out through inter marriage and a strong belief that English was the language for economic and cultural advancement and that Welsh would only hold you back.
Brythonfa
quote:
Even with the global media of the 21st century, minority language do not necessarily get replaced, but a form of bilingualism emerges. It has always surprised my that in the last 600 years the Welsh language has suffered periods of illegality, banning from administrative and legal processes, attempts to eradicate it from the education system, and other forms of discrimination, but remains as a daily spoken media of about 20% of the people of Wales.
Yes, I think it worth remembering that the actual number of Welsh speakers only began to go into decline in the Edwardian era. The importance attached to the language is a large factor in its preservation. I have never known a people who discuss their language so much.
Brythonfa
quote:
The Norman invasion of England resulted in French being the official language of England for hundreds of years, yet it did not supplant English as the peoples language. Which raises the question of what process occurred for the Brythonic language to be eradicated very quickly in England upon arrival of the Anglo-Saxons ?
I'm not convinced that the vast majority of the peasantry in what is now England did suddenly start speaking English. The ruling elite may well have. Why do we suppose that the illiterate masses didn't just carry on as normal as long as they could communicate with traders tax men etc there was no need to speak English, any more than the Welsh of the Uplands of Wales needed to speak Norman French or English. That is, of course, if they were not speaking Latin instead / as well. Or, as we are now considering, a form of English!
Originally posted by Brythonfa: The Norman invasion of England resulted in French being the official language of England for hundreds of years, yet it did not supplant English as the peoples language. Which raises the question of what process occurred for the Brythonic language to be eradicated very quickly in England upon arrival of the Anglo-Saxons ?
The easy answer to that is that the Brythonic language wasn't spoken in eastern England at all. It's the major mystery of post-Roman Britain how several million people stopped speaking a Celtic language within the space of a few generations and started to speak an entirely new one. Archaeologists like Heinrich Harke still like to talk of ethnic cleansing but I just don't buy it. A few thousand Anglo-Saxon warriors wiping out an entire nation? The Danes didn't do it a couple of hundred years later and neither did the language change inside the Danelaw. Neither did the Anglo-saxons conquer Scotland and the Scots themselves speak English.
The new view that is starting to emerge in the archaeology of Winn Scutt, the genetics of Stephen Oppenheimer and M.J. Harper's little book on the history of the English language is that English was spoken here well before the Romans arrived.
Originally posted by Duncan A: The easy answer to that is that the Brythonic language wasn't spoken in eastern England at all.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that view.
quote:
It's the major mystery of post-Roman Britain how several million people stopped speaking a Celtic language within the space of a few generations and started to speak an entirely new one.
How many million? What do you think the population of Roman Britain was? I'm not sure that there was one single homogenous 'Celtic' language in Britain anyway - not at that time at least. Also we are talking about parts of Britain only.
quote:
Archaeologists like Heinrich Harke still like to talk of ethnic cleansing but I just don't buy it. A few thousand Anglo-Saxon warriors wiping out an entire nation? The Danes didn't do it a couple of hundred years later and neither did the language change inside the Danelaw. Neither did the Anglo-saxons conquer Scotland and the Scots themselves speak English.
Whilst I am uncertain about the idea of 'ethnic-cleansing' in sub-Roman Britain, I am increasingly coming to think that there was a tremendous population upheaval after the Romans and that many parts of Britain were in a state of chaos. This could well have been the result of Barbarian invasions, or at least raids by Germanic peoples (whether or not their were already Saxons settled here and even if a form of English was being spoken here already).
quote:
The new view that is starting to emerge in the archaeology of Winn Scutt, the genetics of Stephen Oppenheimer and M.J. Harper's little book on the history of the English language is that English was spoken here well before the Romans arrived.
I don't think it is archaeology that Win Scutt is using to put forward his ideas. The problem with this current debate is that it is multi-disciplinary and not everyone is singing from the same song sheet and are also discussing elements that are outside their own fields of expertise. As for Harper, as I have said before, I don't think you would do the argument any favours by including his book in it. It still seems to me a possibility that it is a joke (although not a very good one) or an attempt at a spoof perhaps. Oppenheimer is certainly worth consideration though.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steffan: There is absolutely no evidence to support that view.
Not true. Francis Pryor talks about the population of Britannia being around 3 million in 410 AD. If they were all speaking a Celtic tongue then why did they suddenly stop? Britain was under Roman occupation for 450 years without switching to Latin but then decides to switch to English over roughly the same length of time?
How do you think this happened Steffan? I am rather keen to find out because current explanations just do not make sense. Languages change so very slowly. Modern English, apart from spelling conventions, is noticeably the same now as it was when Chaucer first wrote it down.
I think there are only two explanations. Either the Anglo-Saxon invaders ethnically cleansed the native Britons and forced the remainder to start speaking their language at the point of a sword, all 3 million of them, OR they were already speaking English. There is no archaeological evidence of ethnic cleansing on this scale. Neither do the genetics bare out this view. Three quarters of our DNA can be directly traced to the first immigrants who arrived after the last Ice Age. Oppenheimer provides persuasive evidence that the English speakers came from the east, probably when a land bridge still existed between Britain and Europe! The Celtic speakers, whether Goidelic or Brythonic, came from Iberia.
Now Harper's book, as you mention it, certainly is no spoof. I'm assuming that you've read it to make your judgement. So have I. If you go on to the Applied Epistemology website he will respond to your questions directly. For me its not about style but quality of argument and if someone can convince me that:
1. 'Celtic' was spoken in what is now the English part of Britannia (and Scotland too right up to the north-east coast for that matter); 2. English as we now know it is derived from Anglo-Saxon; and 3. there is a mechanism which explains how the Britons all stopped speaking Brythonic in exchange for English; then great.
Now it is correct that this is a multi-disciplinary endeavour but the archaeology that we know and love clearly helps us to understand the past. The population genetics and the linguistics are similar tools and we really must learn to use them. Regards.
Generally : What part of Eastern England did there not be any Brythonic spoken ? Was is Dover (Dwrfre - Town by the water), Catterick (Caertraeth - Fort near the beach), or maybe Canterbury (from Cantie - of Kent), or maybe London (Llundain in the Welsh). All of these places are named in Romanised brythonic references by the Romans. There are no pre-Roman or roman period place names or documentation by the Romans of an Anglo-Saxon presence. The classic example of brythonic speaking was of course the rebellion of Boudica at St Albans, very well documented by the Romans as a brythontic community in mutiny. Obviously, large parts of East Anglia did not exist at the time, as the fenland reached well inland. And for Northumbria, this was most certainly a Celtic kingdom at the point of Roman departure, the Bamburgh site was built upon a Celtic fort with many Celtic artefacts. Suffolk excavations has found substancial actifacts of celtic pottery, and three distict cultural periods in the acheaelogical sediment : Celtic then Roman then Saxon.
I was wondering what archaeological evidence there is for an Anglo-Saxon presence prior to Roman occupation ? Can anyone give me a URL to look up the work of Winn Scutt, google draws a blank ?
Post Roman disappearance of Brythonic language in England : There is substantial archaeological evidence of religious cleansing of Brythonic communities, whether that was limited to the population of abbeys or included the lay population is unknown. Many Celtic abbeys of 450 to 600 AD contain substantial evidence of massacres. The motive, which is well documented as the schism between new Roman and Celtic Christianity, the establishment of Canterbury by envoy from Rome, and the theological works from Strata Florida and later Hywel Dda.
The 'Spanish' Theory :The Iberia theory has merit, both by genetics and artefacts, as trade in Celtic times was sea based, and the trading connection from Galicia, Basque, Brittany, Ireland, Cornwall, Wales and Scotland would inevitably have resulted in diversity of the gene pool. To assume a one-way traffic of peoples in a sea based trading culture is strange theory, but it would assume a society structure that only later emerged, as the societies of the Vikings, and Anglo-Saxons, which was modelled on the Roman concept of military suffrage. There is no evidence of an 'imperial society' prior to Roman times, so to impose such a theory many hundreds of years prior to such a society emerging, is rather strange. The genetics tells us that matriarchal interbreeding took place and this could indicate a migration. it could also indicate that Celtic traders also trafficked female concubines. At the time, only important people had good burials, and that's what archaeologists dig up, at known sites. If the Celts traded across the sea, then the chiefdoms would have intermarried. It may just indicate the genes of the posh. Some more research is needed. Matriarchal DNA from interbreeding could also indicate that Celtic traders also trafficked female concubines !
