Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

So how does any new reseach disprove this, did the above test the wrong people?

The 2002 study looked at only a limited set of samples fron only a few places in the UK.

The later reserch in 2003 onwards looked at a far larger set of samples across the whole of the UK: Probably the most important was Capelli,. who directly addressed that 2002 study and showed the results were un-representative.

Posted again so you can read it:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf

Archaeologists after the Second World War rejected the traditionally held view that an Anglo-Saxon invasion pushed the indigenous Celtic Britons to the fringes of Britain.
Instead, they said the arrival of Anglo-Saxon culture could have come from trade or a small ruling elite

Outed dated reseach after WW2.

Bot quite - it is based on 2003/6 research.

As indicated above the Genetic evidence shows only a very small overall genetic markers for Anglo saxons (to use a label) in the Current Population, )or for that matter from any other known invaders/immigrant gropus) albeit with local regional varaitions, which tends to discount a large scale influx of Anglo Saxons. What apppears to have happened is that a number of Saxons may have been brought as mercanaries by the Romans in late 4th Century AD and when the Romans left they used their miltary position to carve out local kingdoms.

As to the Language change, some research suggests that at least in the East of England they may already have been speaking a closely related Language to the incomers' language for many hundreds of years. This theory is however open to question, and it is quite possible that the language changed through elitist ascendancy.

[SpartanGamer]

I see "dog" is still ignoring all the latest research and hanging on to his 2002 outdated "theories"

Amongst other things, firstly, you ignored this:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/scien ... .html?_r=1


Please note the bubble encapsulating the British Isles and Germanic Areas.


Then you ignored this:

NO I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY VIEWS ΑΤ ΑLL - MY POSTION REMAINS THAT BASED ON POST 2002 STUDIES THE PRIMARY ANCESTORS OF THE BRITISH ARE THE PEOPLES WHO ORIGINATED IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULAR AND MIGRATED ALONG THE ATLANTIC COAST AT THE END OF THE LAST GACIAL MAXIMUM. !

Time to update your false foundations ...


European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 1293–1302.

The place of the Basques in the European Y-chromosome diversity landscape

Abstract
There is a trend to consider the gene pool of the Basques as a 'living fossil' of the earliest modern humans that colonized Europe. To investigate this assumption, we have typed 45 binary markers and five short tandem repeat loci of the Y chromosome in a set of 168 male Basques. Results on these combined haplotypes were analyzed in the context of matching data belonging to approximately 3000 individuals from over 20 European, Near East and North African populations, which were compiled from the literature. Our results place the low Y-chromosome diversity of Basques within the European diversity landscape. This low diversity seems to be the result of a lower effective population size maintained through generations. At least some lineages of Y chromosome in modern Basques originated and have been evolving since pre-Neolithic times. However, the strong genetic drift experienced by the Basques does not allow us to consider Basques either the only or the best representatives of the ancestral European gene pool. Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations, nor we find evidence supporting Basques as the focus of major population expansions.

Are you now going to ignore this too?


http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/


Some early results:

From looking at DNA Sir Walter discovered that three quarters of the regional gene pool tested in the North East matches the Anglo Saxon genetic signature.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6 ... n28422210/

There are no surprise findings from genetics which overturn written historical records! The Germanic tribes - made a huge impact, and quite recently, on the original stock of "England".

[supporttheunderdog]

I am currently trying to locate the original scientific reports the two news items refer to, but News paper summaries of scientific reports are not the most relaiable of sources.

However looking at the map quoted in the NY times article that has one single grouping for the whole of the UK which overlaps the whole of Ireland, suggesting the UK and Ireland are pretty genetically homogeonous, which is very much the point made by Capelle, Sykes and Oppenheimer et al

The Newcastle Chronichal item is equally short on facts: it says the man is of Anglo Saxon Origin and not Viking, when the article also shows that one cannot distingusih between Danish Vikings and Anglo saxons: this was in fact something confirmed in the Studies of Capelli, Sykes, etc.

Indeed there is nothing in these news reports by way of objective evidence which effectively challenges the idea that that the current inhabitants of the British Islea are principally decsended from the pre-roman inhabitants, and that no inavder since Neolithic times has made mach contyribution, except locally.

There are a number of reasons why the people of Greenside may all be predominatly of danish/anglo saxon stock, such as a local founder effect and /or close family affinity of the people who remained in the village as it declined with local industry. That or that relatively boring family game, played in some North East pit villages.

[SpartanGamer]

We have good historical records indicating when (i.e. a few centuries ago) the Germanic tribes replaced most of the previous inhabitants.

You are now agreeing that the people of the British Isles are Germanic and not Iberian or some uniquely neolithic descendants.

[supporttheunderdog]

We have good historical records indicating when (i.e. a few centuries ago) the Germanic tribes replaced most of the previous inhabitants.

You are now agreeing that the people of the British Isles are Germanic and not Iberian or some uniquely neolithic descendants.

No I am not. The Historical records are questionable, or rather it is the relatively recent interpretations placed on them (possibly from an older misreading of them) that is now in doubt. Recent estimates suggest that at best the alleged Saxon invasion amounted to no more than 10% of the entire population, quite possibly a lot less, not enough to cause the alleged population displacement.

Further some cunning linguists argue that the language thought to be Anglo Sxaon was in fact already being spoken in Britain before the Roman invasion.

Some people even surmise that the Anglo Saxons may likewise be descendents of the Iberians, but who ended up on the European mainland after the land=bridge between Britain and the rest of Europe was submerged.

[SpartanGamer]

The Historical records are questionable,

Your selective support of what to believe makes your analysis questionable.

According to the most recent reasearch, and contrary to popular belief, the English are NOT predominantly descended from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, but probably from Neolithic peoples who probably came to Brtitain from Spain along the Atlantic coast, in the period after the end of the last glacial maximum and before the Channel land-bridge was flooded/destroyed, i.e. between 10,000 and 7,500 years ago. By and large later invaders / immigrants do not appear to have each added more than 5% to the British gene pool:

You started off, trumpeting the above, yet presented no "recent" research to back up any claims; whilst ignoring current research which devalues your dreams of a superior, long-lived and pure race of "Englishman".

Surely there's a little bit of Hitler in you ...

[SpartanGamer]

Face it, dog, way more than you'd ever comfortably admit of the present day English are descendants of either Vikings, Anglo-Saxons or Normans.

What's in a name?


Our genetic analysis appears to confirm a belief, based on archaeological and place-names evidence, that the northwest of England was once heavily settled by Scandinavians, many of whom were refugees expelled from Ireland in AD 902

Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-Based Sampling: The Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in Northwest England.

Georgina R. Bowden et al., (2007), Oxford Journals.

...........


England and the Danelaw

The map shows where settlement or parish place-names which are of Scandinavian language origin are mainly found. In some cases, the entire name is Scandinavian, in others it is a hybrid - part English, part Scandinavian. Some names are the result of Scandinavian re-naming of English settlements, making them easier for speakers of Old Norse to pronounce (for instance, Shipton became Skipton. Cheswick became Keswick). Common Scandinavian elements in place-names are: -by, -thorp, -trop, or -thorpe, -toft, -tofts, -thwait or -thwaite, -holm or -holme, and ness.





http://www.viking.no/e/england/danelaw/ ... anelaw.htm

[supporttheunderdog]

You too are probably related to Hitler - indeed by one estimate if one goes back as little as about 7500 years ago, but possibly a bit more, all living peoples today are related whereby either all of the people then living who have current living decendants are the ancestors of all people now living: in that respect our original ancestors from Africa would probably be classed as "black".

I have never claimed superiority of the British race: indeed I have always made the point that since all humans can trace their ancestory back to a set of common ancestors no one person or race is in any way superior or inferior to any other simply by virtue of their genetics. We are born equal and likewise equally die.

That is why I fid the attitude of Nazis and other scum like ELAM so pathetic who so consider some peoples to be inferior because of their genetics and label people accordingly - EG the use of the term Jew as a form of insult.

[SpartanGamer]

Better hang on to the 90% chance you have a molecule of William Shakespeare within you.



Only thing we can conclude from your evidence is that this is the only true "English" representative:

[supporttheunderdog]

Better hang on to the 90% chance you have a molecule of William Shakespeare within you.



Only thing we can conclude from your evidence is that this is the only true "English" representative:

Go back just a bit further (about 500-650 years )and and I almost certainly am descended from everyone in England who has left descendants.

FYI The BBC History website itself seems to accept that the majority of Brits are decended from Pre- saxon Stock. Where the big debate is, is about the influence of the Saxons, where some modern lingustic studies suggest English split off from the Germanic languages possibly many centuries before the Romans came to Britain, and long before the Anglo saxons arrived.

As for pictures