The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Murdered British soldier was Turkish Cypriot from Wood Green

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Postby Oracle » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:31 pm

Simon wrote:That is not what you meant. You were talking about the English being from the Celtic branch, along with the Irish. This is why you said one branch of the SAME people. You are now playing games with words to try and wiggle your way out of your argument :lol: Indeed, you said it yourself:

Oracle wrote:
They are originally, most recently, Celts.


Although, I'm not sure that even makes sense. :lol:


All Humans are derived from one mother (lived 150-200,000 years ago) ... then her descendants formed the first branch going east and west. All other sub-branches are from those two main branches of east and west. Here is the flow of the western branch through Europe ....
:


In which case the whole of the west is one branch; which in turn means that your argument about English and Irish doesn't actually mean anything. :?


Yes, surprisingly enough, we are all more related than you think. But once we set up national boundaries, standardised our languages and kept historical records then things became territorial. It is only the most recent (lazy, late nomads) usurpers that still cause problems :lol:

The last main group to spread over Britain is the same group of people which also colonised Ireland. Therefore they are the same group of people, most recently known as Celts.

I'm not playing with words, you just made some wrongful assumptions that's all.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Oracle » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:44 pm

Really if any group can lay claim to the British Isles, it should be the indigenous remaining Celts, overtly represented in Ireland and Scotland. The English although still mostly Celtic in origin, have mixed with more recent influxes of Continentals :D

Pytheas the Greek was amongst the first of those new Continentals .... 8)
Last edited by Oracle on Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Simon » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:44 pm

I know we are all closely related, but that is irrelevant here.

I haven't made any wrongful assumptions. You said that the English are mainly Celts. Anybody who has even basic knowledge of the origins of English people know this to be false. By the way, there were many, many groups that colonised Britain after the Celts. This is why there are 3 distinct countries in Britain today.
User avatar
Simon
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Simon » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:47 pm

[quote]Really if any group can lay claim to the British Isles, it should be the indigenous remaining Celts, overtly represented in Ireland and Scotland.[/quote]


They still inhabit the British Isles, so they don't need to lay claim to anything. :roll:

And you are now claiming that because the English mixed with continentals; this invalidates their claim to the British Isles. Come on, you can do better than that..... :roll: :roll:
Last edited by Simon on Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Simon
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Oracle » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:49 pm

Simon wrote:I know we are all closely related, but that is irrelevant here.

I haven't made any wrongful assumptions. You said that the English are mainly Celts. Anybody who has even basic knowledge of the origins of English people know this to be false. By the way, there were many, many groups that colonised Britain after the Celts. This is why there are 3 distinct countries in Britain today.


The overwhelming population was Celtic up until 500 AD. Yes Vikings, Anglos Saxons and Normans came later and diluted the Celts who stayed put in the "England" bit of the Isles... but they were not wiped out!
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Simon » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:53 pm

Some Celts stayed put, but most were pushed into Wales, Scotland and Ireland (maybe even Cornwall).

Hence today, these countries are seen as Celtic; whilst England is seen as anglo-saxon. Research has shown that the English are a distinct ethnic group from the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Indeed, I have provided links for this and there are many more, including various books.

You are getting there Oracle, by saying the anglo-saxons etc diluted the Celts in England, thus forming a distinct group, but you need to go that little bit further :lol:

[quote]The conventional view of English origins is that the English are primarily descended from the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic tribes that migrated to Great Britain following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, with assimilation of later migrants such as the Vikings and Normans. This version of history is considered by some historians and geneticists as simplistic or even incorrect. However, the notion of the Anglo-Saxon English has traditionally been important in defining English identity and distinguishing the English from their Celtic neighbours, such as the Scots, Welsh and Irish.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_pe ... _ethnicity


The above is the majority view. Even if it is too simplistic as some say, it is widely believed, and perception is the all important thing in such issues. There certainly isn't much evidence (if any) for the assertion that the English are Celts.
User avatar
Simon
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Oracle » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:23 pm

Simon wrote: Research has shown that the English are a distinct ethnic group from the Welsh, Scottish and Irish.


Give up Simon ...

:lol:

English and Irish may be closer than they think

By Nicholas Wade Published: March 5, 2007

NEW YORK: Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from Northern Europe and drove the Celts to the western and northern fringes.

But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

The implication that the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have a great deal in common with each other, at least from the geneticist's point of view, seems likely to please no one. The genetic evidence is still under development, and because only very rough dates can be derived from it, it is hard to weave evidence from DNA, archaeology, history and linguistics into a coherent picture of British and Irish origins.

That has not stopped the attempt. Stephen Oppenheimer, a medical geneticist at the University of Oxford, says the historians' account is wrong in almost every detail. In Oppenheimer's reconstruction of events, the principal ancestors of today's British and Irish populations arrived from Spain about 16,000 years ago, speaking a language related to Basque.

The British Isles were unpopulated then, wiped clean of people by glaciers that had smothered Northern Europe for about 4,000 years and forced the former inhabitants into refuges in Spain and Italy. When the climate warmed and the glaciers retreated, people moved back north. The new arrivals in the British Isles would have found an empty territory, which they could have reached just by walking along the Atlantic coastline, since the English Channel and the Irish Sea were still land.


This new population, which lived by hunting and gathering, survived a sharp cold spell called the Younger Dryas that lasted from 12,300 to 11,000 years ago. Much later, some 6,000 years ago, agriculture finally reached the British Isles from its birthplace in the Near East. Agriculture may have been introduced by people speaking Celtic, in Oppenheimer's view.

Although the Celtic immigrants may have been few in number, they spread their farming techniques and their language throughout Ireland and the western coast of Britain. Later immigrants from Northern Europe had more influence on the eastern and southern coasts. They, too, spread their language, a branch of German, but these invaders' numbers were also small compared with the local population.

In all, about three-quarters of the ancestors of today's British and Irish populations arrived 15,000 to 7,500 years ago, when rising sea levels split Britain and Ireland from Continental Europe and from each other, Oppenheimer calculates in a new book, "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story."

Ireland received the fewest of the subsequent invaders; their DNA makes up about 12 percent of the Irish gene pool, Oppenheimer estimates. DNA from invaders accounts for 20 percent of the gene pool in Wales, 30 percent in Scotland, and about a third in eastern and southern England.

But no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5 percent of the current gene pool, Oppenheimer says on the basis of genetic data. He cites figures from the archaeologist Heinrich Haerke that the Anglo-Saxon invasions that began in the fourth century A.D. added about 250,000 people to a British population of one million to two million, an estimate Oppenheimer notes is larger than his but considerably less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed by others. The Norman invasion of A.D. 1066 brought not many more than 10,000 people, according to Haerke.

Other geneticists say Oppenheimer's reconstruction is plausible, though some disagree with details. Several said that genetic methods did not give precise enough dates to be confident of certain aspects, like when the first settlers arrived.

"Once you have an established population, it is quite difficult to change it very radically," said Daniel Bradley, a geneticist at Trinity College, Dublin. But he said he was "quite agnostic" as to whether the original population became established in Britain and Ireland immediately after the glaciers retreated 16,000 years ago, as Oppenheimer argues, or more recently, in the Neolithic Age, which began 10,000 years ago.

Bryan Sykes, another Oxford geneticist, said he agreed with Oppenheimer that the ancestors of "by far the majority of people" were present in the British Isles before the Roman conquest of A.D. 43. "The Saxons, Vikings and Normans had a minor effect, and much less than some of the medieval historical texts would indicate," he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/05/ ... php?page=1
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Simon » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:26 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oracle you must be getting desperate, scouring the internet in search of anything that may support your argument. :lol:

You printed an article about Oppenheimer's controversial views - I have already told you about Oppenheimer quite a few posts ago, and you rebuked me, saying that there is much more to look at other than the Y chromosome. :lol:

Firstly, this article contradicts what you yourself earlier said.

[quote]with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts[/quote]

I thought they were both derived from Celts? :lol:

But, the evidence in this article does not seem convincing does it?

[quote]The genetic evidence is still under development, and because only very rough dates can be derived from it, it is hard to weave evidence from DNA, archaeology, history and linguistics into a coherent picture of British and Irish origins. [/quote]

Hmmm, not a great deal to work with there.


[quote]In Oppenheimer's reconstruction of events[/quote]


So it is Oppenheimer versus a huge body of opinion.


[quote]Other geneticists say Oppenheimer's reconstruction is plausible, though some disagree with details. Several said that genetic methods did not give precise enough dates to be confident of certain aspects, like when the first settlers arrived. [/quote]


Again, the evidence seems flimsy at best. Hardly substantial proof that the Irish and English are derived from the same people.


The important point is:

[quote]Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from Northern Europe and drove the Celts to the western and northern fringes. [/quote]


And this is what historians will continue to teach unless there is clear, substantial evidence to the contrary. At the moment there isn't. The above is a fairly recent study which is far from being widely accepted just yet.
User avatar
Simon
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Oracle » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:14 pm

Simon wrote::
Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from Northern Europe and drove the Celts to the western and northern fringes.


And this is what historians will continue to teach unless there is clear, substantial evidence to the contrary. At the moment there isn't. The above is a fairly recent study which is far from being widely accepted just yet.


Especially with people like you who refuse to incorporate new findings ...

But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority....

Here, this is for you! :wink:

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... torder=asc
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Simon » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:31 pm

Hold on, you are now calling me racist? And how have you now come to that conclusion? Your arguments have been easily disposed of, and you now have to become personal. :roll:

The operative words in your highlighted blue are "LEADING SOME TO CLAIM".

Like I have said, you contradicted yourself by stating that English and Irish are Celts, and are now trying to pass this article as fact; when the majority of historians have a different view and the article itself hardly sounds evidentially convincing. I am happy to incorporate new ideas if they are widely accepted as true by the experts, this isn't.
Last edited by Simon on Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Simon
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest