| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » A United Kingdom? Maybe
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Roger Bagula |
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: In Dr. 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06brits.html?ex=1330837200&en=ccbd9f14ea6a0f83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
A United Kingdom? Maybe
Tim Bower
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: March 6, 2007
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 country's
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, however, 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 Dr. 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 southern 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, who 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 Dr.
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
arrived 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 between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, when
rising sea levels split Britain and Ireland from the Continent and from
each other, Dr. Oppenheimer calculates in a new book, "The Origins of
the British: A Genetic Detective Story" (Carroll & Graf, 2006).
Ireland received the fewest of the subsequent invaders; their DNA makes
up about 12 percent of the Irish gene pool, Dr. 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, Dr. 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 to two million, an
estimate that Dr. Oppenheimer notes is larger than his but considerably
less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed
by others. The Norman invasion of 1066 brought not many more than 10,000
people, according to Dr. Haerke.
Other geneticists say Dr. Oppenheimer's reconstruction is plausible,
though some disagree with details. Several said genetic methods did not
give precise enough dates to be confident of certain aspects, like when
the first settlers arrived.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
1066 and All ThatGraphic
1066 and All That
"Once you have an established population, it is quite difficult to
change it very radically," said Daniel G. 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
Dr. Oppenheimer argues, or more recently, in the Neolithic Age, which
began 10,000 years ago.
Bryan Sykes, another Oxford geneticist, said he agreed with Dr.
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. His
conclusions, based on his own genetic survey and information in his
genealogical testing service, Oxford Ancestors, are reported in his new
book, "Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland."
A different view of the Anglo-Saxon invasions has been developed by Mark
Thomas of University College, London. Dr. Thomas and colleagues say the
invaders wiped out substantial numbers of the indigenous population,
replacing 50 percent to 100 percent of those in central England. Their
argument is that the Y chromosomes of English men seem identical to
those of people in Norway and the Friesland area of the Netherlands, two
regions from which the invaders may have originated.
Dr. Oppenheimer disputes this, saying the similarity between the English
and northern European Y chromosomes arises because both regions were
repopulated by people from the Iberian refuges after the glaciers retreated.
Dr. Sykes said he agreed with Dr. Oppenheimer on this point, but another
geneticist, Christopher Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Centre near Cambridge,
said the jury was still out. "There is not yet a consensus view among
geneticists, so the genetic story may well change," he said. As to the
identity of the first postglacial settlers, Dr. Tyler-Smith said he
"would favor a Neolithic origin for the Y chromosomes, although the
evidence is still quite sketchy."
_/*Dr. Oppenheimer's population history of the British Isles relies not
only on genetic data but also on the dating of language changes by
methods developed by geneticists. These are not generally accepted by
historical linguists, who long ago developed but largely rejected a
dating method known as glottochronology. Geneticists have recently
plunged into the field, arguing that linguists have been too pessimistic
and that advanced statistical methods developed for dating genes can
also be applied to languages.*/_
Dr. Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at
Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient
language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought
knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also
adopts Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of
vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic
language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.
English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the
language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Dr.
Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking
peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical
schedule. They did not bring their language to England because English,
in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the
arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar
describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.
The Belgae perhaps introduced some socially transforming technique, such
as iron-working, which led to their language replacing that of the
indigenous inhabitants, but Dr. Forster said he had not yet identified
any specific innovation from the archaeological record.
Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West
Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language
of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the
Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an
offshoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch
independent of the other three, which also implies a greater antiquity.
Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago, Dr.
Forster estimates.
Historians have usually assumed that Celtic was spoken throughout
Britain when the Romans arrived. But Dr. Oppenheimer argues that the
absence of Celtic place names in England -- words for places are
particularly durable -- makes this unlikely.
If the people of the British Isles hold most of their genetic heritage
in common, with their differences consisting only of a regional
flavoring of Celtic in the west and of northern European in the east,
might that perception draw them together? Geneticists see little
prospect that their findings will reduce cultural and political
differences. The Celtic cultural myth "is very entrenched and has a lot
to do with the Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity; their main
identifying feature is that they are not English," said Dr. Sykes, an
Englishman who has traced his Y chromosome and surname to an ancestor
who lived in the village of Flockton in Yorkshire in 1286.
Dr. Oppenheimer said genes "have no bearing on cultural history." There
is no significant genetic difference between the people of Northern
Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400 years, he said.
As for his thesis that the British and Irish are genetically much alike,
"It would be wonderful if it improved relations, but I somehow think it
won't." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:57 pm
|
|