Who do the English think they are?

Interesting topic. Generally the English are a little more 'east / central Europe' in relation to the Irish, but still quite 'Western' and from what I think modeling populations ( I may be wrong ) English are more British than Germanic.
 
Also let's not forget the Viking contribution; most of my English ancestors came from the Danelaw-my mother's family is from Leicestershire, and her mother's from Nottinghamshire, although having left in the 1600s, of course.
 
People forget how wrong some of those hypotheses were, i.e. almost total replacement of the native Celts by the AngloSaxons.

See:
https://unherd.com/2020/08/who-do-t...tm_campaign=who-do-the-english-think-they-are

I think the interesting take-away from the cited article is the extent to which the 'experts' views on cultural vs. demic transmission are so mutable, or rather, that they are based on nothing more than a preferred viewpoint. One generation cites massive movements of people as an explanation, and the next, in a kind of teenage-rebellion, denigrate this and say it's, of course, nothing more than the movement of ideas.

As my wife likes to say, nothing ruins a good theory so quickly as a few facts.
 
As someone who is quite literally the product of these two exact groups/regions of England, the "Celtic" or better stated "Pre-Anglo-Saxon" groups definitely tend to have darker hair that is thicker/wavier. I'm not sure if "Celtic" is the correct word as they would have been an amalgamation of many earlier groups. I haven't been to England myself but I can sort of see a divide, some prominent, well known examples.

The Beatles - all 4 were ultra "British/Irish" looking - L21+ to the core.
David Bowie - Anglo-Saxon tendencies, but probably a mix of the two
David Beckham - Anglo Saxon look

Just a few examples, but as the article mentioned, it wasn't a repopulation event, and even today some of the hypothetical features such as broader face with wider set eyes of the Germanic people are more pronounced in some English than others. Of course the article didn't delve into any sort of pseudo-science that I am perhaps implying, but you can definitely see various groups of ancestors when you look at their faces and see patterns.
 
Interesting topic. Generally the English are a little more 'east / central Europe' in relation to the Irish, but still quite 'Western' and from what I think modeling populations ( I may be wrong ) English are more British than Germanic.
Actually it's the other way around. The British are on average more Germanic-like than Celtic (I presume you meant Brythonic Celtic as opposed to modern British), while it is the opposite for the Scots, Welsh and Irish. Read this study ("Insular Celtic population structure and footprints of genomic migration", ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784891) and look at supplementary figure 8 showing ancestry-proportions.

"The southeast England (SEE) cluster group is centred at zero on PC4, representing a group with predominantly Anglo-Saxon-like ancestry (S8 fig)."
 
^^You're talking about one area of England. The article is referencing a paper which tested all parts of England.

If you read the paper you will see that the article is correct.
 
... and even today some of the hypothetical features such as broader face with wider set eyes of the Germanic people are more pronounced in some English than others. Of course the article didn't delve into any sort of pseudo-science that I am perhaps implying, but you can definitely see various groups of ancestors when you look at their faces and see patterns.

Are you not confusing ancient Germanics means with today Germans ones??? Broader faced than Celts???
 
^^You're talking about one area of England. The article is referencing a paper which tested all parts of England.
That particular quote refers to SEE yes, but the general pattern is the same as can be seen here. The AngloSaxon-like ancestry is in red. This doesn't imply that AngloSaxons are the source for all the non-Celtic (red) ancestry, but that it is of a similar origin. I don't think this necessarily refutes the article, although I do find the main point to be misleading as it avoids referencing the latest studies done on the topic. The study I'm referring to is a newer study than "People of the British isles" and it is highly publicized and peer-reviewed. It builds on the results they produced.
 
I fail to see how that study is relevant as it's about Ireland.

We're talking about Celtic vs Anglo Saxon in ENGLAND.

I would suggest you read the paper on England which examines the autosomal signature of English people. The amount of "Celtic" won't be affected by how the balance is divided between Anglo-Saxons and Danes as they're almost indistinguishable.

You also have to look at the time period.

The heated question was whether Anglo Saxons virtually replaced the prior inhabitants of the Isles except for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the answer is no, they didn't.

Perhaps you should re-read the paper.
 
When modern Norwegians are used as a source for 'Nordic'.

Target: Irish
Distance: 1.1020% / 0.01102015
56.4 Celtic_insular_Scotland_LBA
39.6 Nordic
1.6 East_Med
1.6 Southwest_Euro
0.8 Northwest_African


Target: English
Distance: 0.8856% / 0.00885591
51.4 Nordic
39.6 Celtic_insular_Scotland_LBA
5.0 Southwest_Euro
2.8 East_Med
0.8 Northwest_African
0.4 North_east_europe
 
^^Let me give you a head's up. Here, we respect academic papers more than the results produced by some anonymous person using amateur calculators.

You may not have heard, but Eurogenes dumped Global 25, or as some of us call it: Garbage 25. At least he dumped the one for modern populations, so give me a break.

Stick to PAPERS, and papers that look at regions of ENGLAND. That's what this article was about.
 
From what I read, this abstract seems accurate and logical enough to me. No too large place for debate, I suppose.
 
I fail to see how that study is relevant as it's about Ireland.

We're talking about Celtic vs Anglo Saxon in ENGLAND.

I would suggest you read the paper on England which examines the autosomal signature of English people. The amount of "Celtic" won't be affected by how the balance is divided between Anglo-Saxons and Danes as they're almost indistinguishable.

You also have to look at the time period.

The heated question was whether Anglo Saxons virtually replaced the prior inhabitants of the Isles except for Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the answer is no, they didn't.

Perhaps you should re-read the paper.
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not really arguing against the points made by Razib in the article, who I respect by the way. No, the Anglo-Saxons certainly did not replace the Celts and their genetic input is less visible today. Nor am I suggesting all the Germanic-like DNA in Britain arrived with invaders during the post-Roman era. I am just clarifying that it would not be correct to take away from this article that English people are genetically derived in most part from some purebred genepool from only Celtic-speaking groups. The genetic history of British isles is much more complicated than that. Unsurprisingly the people of the British isles are all more related to each other than they are to other groups, but it doesn't make sense to refer to English people as Celtic rather than Germanic in genetics. Whatever the case, Celtic vs. Germanic is hardly a meaningful distinction when it comes to genetics anyway, as most groups in these categories will have very significant overlap and DNA from the other group. And I think I will leave the discussion at that note.
 
^^Let me give you a head's up. Here, we respect academic papers more than the results produced by some anonymous person using amateur calculators.

You may not have heard, but Eurogenes dumped Global 25, or as some of us call it: Garbage 25. At least he dumped the one for modern populations, so give me a break.

Stick to PAPERS, and papers that look at regions of ENGLAND. That's what this article was about.

I see several members using 'amateur calculators' all the time on the forum with no problem (including former members and moderators). I did not even question the article, I just showed that when modern Norwegians are used as a source the difference between Irish and English is more apparent, but I will just make an observation and not the intention to 'refute a scientific article'. I believe that the members are here to exchange ideas, talk and try things. Not just reading certain information and not allowing yourself to make any kind of observation.
 
Whatever the correct weight of every source population in the British Islands, it's true that England people as a whole are genetically clearly closer to Dutch people than are the "Celtic" countries, what doesn't exclude differences within England according to regions. Nothing new.
And even if some cautions are taken to trace a recent ancestry among the samples studied, England has undergone some constant immigration from "Celtic" regions these last centuries, stronger than the spotted English (elites) introgression into them, I think. This is stronger now (but the samples, I hope, are not been biased by the most recent flow).
 
English people are still mostly Pictish/Briton + Belgic, and depending on where their roots are, have A-S and Danish ancestry in various proportions in an east to west cline from high to low.
 

This thread has been viewed 9243 times.

Back
Top