The origins of Britons

[El-Mariachi]

Story in today's Independent in which a study has found that the celts are descendents of Spanish fisherman.

 

Seems that the British are a mixture of Vikings, Spanish, Romans, Arabs and Africans

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

 

Origins of Britons

 

Oisin

 

Descended from Iberian fishermen who migrated to Britain between 4,000 and 5,000BC and now considered the UK's indigenous inhabitants.

 

Wodan

 

Second most common clan arrived from Denmark during Viking invasions in the 9th century.

 

Sigurd

 

Descended from Viking invaders who settled in the British Isles from AD 793. One of the most common clans in the Shetland Isles, and areas of north and west Scotland.

 

Eshu

 

The wave of Oisin immigration was joined by the Eshu clan, which has roots in Africa. Eshu descendants are primarily found in coastal areas.

 

Re

 

A second wave of arrivals which came from the Middle East. The Re were farmers who spread westwards across Europe.

 

Roman

 

Although the Romans ruled from AD 43 until 410, they left a tiny genetic footprint. For the first 200 years occupying forces were forbidden from marrying locally.

[Greybeard]

Ay caramba !!

[CockneyMafia]

Interesting.

 

That said, too many people use evidence such as this as a makeweight when arguing for modern day multiculturalism.

 

The demographic change in this country over the last 40 years has been frightening, and is accelerating too rapidly for proper cultural and racial assimilation to work.

 

In my opinion.

[rubydazzler]

I'm not sure that the OP is intended to prove really. It's all so long ago anyway, what difference does it make? IIRC, the few Britons that were left fled to Wales centuries ago, and you might find some remnants in Brittany.

 

I could say that my genetic inheritance is half Irish, a quarter English and a quarter made up of bits of Scottish, French and Jewish ancestry, and others that I don't know anything about - but does that tell you anything about me?

 

I suppose you could argue that having Irish and Scottish genes makes me imaginative, fiery, argumentative and sensitive to slights, the English part tends to the forebearing, pragmatic and realistic, and makes a good fighter, but who cares

 

Telling us about invasions from centuries ago is a bit nonsensical and means nothing very much. After all the Scots are really Irish and the Northern English are more Danish/Viking than anything, if you want to go down that road.

 

*edit to say, do they meant Ancient Britons, or "the British"?

[Jabberwocky]

Well if you go back far enough you can say were descended from black Africans.

[Gadgetgirl]

some have not come that far.

[defstef]

Telling us about invasions from centuries ago is a bit nonsensical and means nothing very much. After all the Scots are really Irish and the Northern English are more Danish/Viking than anything, if you want to go down that road.

Surely that's the point though Rubes? That the richness of British culture, and of the English language, betray an extremely complex and interesting history. Throughout that history these assimilations (of and by those already here) have moulded an all-encompassing outlook, given British culture its character, and aided in diplomacy and trade (and Empire-building - rightly or wrongly). Most importantly, I think those connections have made us more aware of the rest of the world, and our connection to it. It's important that people know about history, because it warns against becoming too insular.

[rubydazzler]

I take your point, and I agree. But, I still think that the tribal moverments were so long ago that they are hardly relevant to UK today.

 

I also have a sneaking suspicion that, having followed his/her postings on various threads, the OP's motives weren't solely to caution us against becoming too insular

[LordChaverly]

I also have a sneaking suspicion that, having followed his/her postings on various threads, the OP's motives weren't solely to caution us against becoming too insular

 

It was ever thus. The subtext of this thread is that we are all descended from immigrants of one kind or another and therefore that we should not worry too much about recent immigration.

 

This reasoning is false. As Professor David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, has argued, until very recently these islands had (very largely) settled populations for a thousand years or more. The mass immigration of recent decades is unprecedented in our modern history.

[El-Mariachi]

It was ever thus. The subtext of this thread is that we are all descended from immigrants of one kind or another and therefore that we should not worry too much about recent immigration.

 

This reasoning is false. As Professor David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, has argued, until very recently these islands had (very largely) settled populations for a thousand years or more. The mass immigration of recent decades is unprecedented in our modern history.

 

No the subtext of this thread is that I certainly didn't think the spanish were amongst the first here over 6000 years ago! Nor Arab farmers for that matter. I just found it fascinating and thought I'd share it with everyone.

 

The people we seem to have the most affinity for, the Romans, left a small footprint all things considered.

 

I think you are obsessed with immigration, whilst Ruby suffers from a "I'm a woman and I know it all syndrome".

 

p.s. Anything in excess is bad, and mass immigration is no different!