Just How Germanic is Britain/England?

[Odin Biggles]

Top marks for going to all that effort, that was a lonnnnng read.

[Siegfried]

Interesting data, WestPrussian. Do you have similar studies that include the Dutch?

[Odin Biggles]

English west prussian, English .

Where i live is more in the Angle territory though.

[Glenlivet]

OK I've written a long reply...I think a lot of people derive their knowledge from the internet and base their ideas on what a few British Nordicists with internet sites would have them believe. There seems to be a general tendency dating back to the days of Stoddard and Madison Grant to claim that England is a Nordic nation and that Germany is not, so i think this is worth investigating.

I don't base it on that. I read anthropology books, and not only websites.

"…England and other Nordic countries" (on race)

[Dr. D.J H. Nyèssen, p.5, The Passing Of The Frisians]

"…Holland forms no exception to the principally Nordic environment to which it belongs, together with Great Britain, Northern Belgium, North-western Germany and the Scandinavian countries"

[Dr. D.J H. Nyèssen, p.21, The Passing Of The Frisians]

"The genuine German type, he said, is distinguished by dolichocephaly, orthognathy, and large build of body. It was chiefly found in Scandinavia and England, but ever less frequently in Germany. Did not von Hölder write to Beddoe that he desired to visit England to see true Germans?"

[Dr. D.J H. Nyèssen, p. 71, The Passing Of The Frisians]

"…England which is strongly dolichocephalic, and may be regarded, next to Scandinavia, as the cradle of the Nordic race because it was early free of the glacial ice."

[Dr. D.J H. Nyèssen, p.80, The Passing Of The Frisians]

"The English population of today must be regarded as Nordic due to the tall stature, fair hair, and long headedness” [Pittard, through Nyèssen]

Not all of Germany is Nordid, but the NW is predominantly Nordid, as is probably the southwest, perhaps even more so morphologically, but not in terms of pigmentation (darker).

[color=black][font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]First of all, I think the contention that England is more Nordid than Germany is a matter of definition. England is certainly much more Atlantid and Mediterranean than is Germany, as basically all Iberians (such as Vitor on this thread) and British (such as Rhydderch) will point out to you.

Such types are easily singled out in an English crowd, as are the Mediterranids in SW Germany. They are exceptions, not the rule. I'm the last one who would deny their existence. I make threads about such types, but I never claim that they are even a significant part of the population. They are just an exotic element, as is e.g. Tydal in Sweden or Norway.

This would indicate that the British (partly Keltic Nordic) and Scandinavians (partly Hallstatt, a type not as common percentage wise in Germany as in Scandinavia though by no means absent) may be more closely related to each other than Scandinavians are to Germans (often Faelid); a belief you seem to have made your own.

I don't claim that, as I believe Lundman (1977) is more reliable when he link the Scando-Nordids and Phalians to a common origin.

Lundman (Raser och Folkstockar i Baltoskandia, 1946) has a map of Nordid intensity based on stature (from the Swedish-Norwegian average), BLI (C.I), under 7 % brown eyes, Height-Length Index (HLI) under 72,5 and blood allele q under 10 %. Inner Scandinavia has all. NW Germany got HLI under 72,5 (as the West Elbe stock is indeed very low-skulled) and q under 7 %, but central, eastern and northern England have everything except under 7 % brown eyes. Southern and southeastern England lack the stature and eye colour percentage.

Scandinavia is not primary, it's only a balanced out population from three streams. Britain, the Atlantic formation, is one of the primary sources for the SW Scandinavian folk stock. Swedish anthropologist Gaston Backman derived the Nordids in Sweden (in the SW) from the Megalithic people.

I wish that norda could join this discussion. He has probably interesting information that he could share with us.

[Marius]

SE England is very densely populated and it's genetically close to the continent, whether Celtae and Belgae or Germanic.

I must admit you give often strange definitions and terms like: "Belgae". What is this meaning? That the people in Belgium have their own particular subrace?

[Glenlivet]

Some studies support Baker's opinion, that in some regions the pre-Germanic element has persisted, but even so, they were predominantly of a Nordid type. Baker (Race, 1974) described their difference from the Anglo-Saxon Nordids.

"The question next arises, 'What were the physical characters of the invaders who brought the Iron Age culture to Great Britain, and whom Ceasar called Celtae and Belgae?' This can best be answered by the study of the
skeletons that their descendants left in the graveyards of the Romano-British period. The skulls have been subjected to very careful study, with full statistical analysis, by Morant.[762] It is clear that those Celtae and Belgae who established themselves in Britain were essentially
Nordid. Indeed, it is shown in the table on p. 82 of Morant's paper that their skulls scarcely differ from those of the Anglo-Saxons who subsequently dominated them, except in one particular character, namely, that the skull
is slightly (but significantly) lower in the Iron Age man than in the Anglo-Saxon. Beyond this there are some minor differences that might be noticed if it were possible to put a typical Iron Age man of Romano-British times beside an Anglo-Saxon.[226] The skull might be meso- rather than
dolichocranial, and not only lower, but rounded on top instead of slightly keeled; the cranial capacity would be a little less. The distance between the level of the lower teeth and the chin would probably be less than in the deep-jawed Anglo-Saxon. The build would tend to be slighter, with less massive long-bones moved by less powerful muscles. One thing is certain. The Celts who came to Britain were not the Celts of Broca, Lagneau, and Dally. They were Germanokelten, not Gallokelten; essentially Nordid, not Alpinid. It follows that in all probability they were mainly fair-haired, though some of the Celtae who had Alpinids among their ancestors may have had pale brown hair, and exact uniformity in this respect would anyhow not be expected."

Baker (Race, 1974) suggested that the unhybridised descendants of the Belgae and Celtae continued to predominate in southeastern England. However, these would be Germanokelten, and closely related to North Sea Germanics (Ingvaeones). One must distinguish between culturally Celtic, but pre-Celtic Palaeolitic populations and invading Celts. Baker (Race, 1974) mentioned that 'race kymrique' were applied to those Nordids who spoke a Celtic language, and that French historian Amedee Thierry included the 'Belges' (Caesar's 'Belgae') among them.

Physical anthropologists, relying on evidence
provided by the skulls of ancient and modern times, consider the descendants of Iron Age people of Romano-British times continued to occupy the country during the period of Anglo-Saxon domination, and were so far from being driven away or exterminated that it might almost be said that it was they who eventually absorbed the Anglo-Saxons, while adopting the language oftheir conquerors. Onthis view the present-day population of England and much of Scotland is to a very considerable extent derived from the Celtae and Belgae of the Iron Age.[640, 762, 510, 175, 516]"

Baker did not suggest what you thought.

Baker (Race, 1974) also wrote that "it has been stated that the English were 'a truly multiracial society' because there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Belgics, and 'flamboyant Celts' among their ancestors. The reader should note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid). Incidentally it is doubtful whether the Angles and Saxons were different peoples in any sense".

What Baker said is totaly being refuted by present day genetics, I am not saying that there are no german genes in england, I am saying that most england is a mix, and there are parts of england that are truly pure indigenous.

[Vitor]

Top marks for going to all that effort, that was a lonnnnng read.

What do you think of the map i posted.

Population subjugated, with the new culture (and language).


In the old days there were no population replacement, it would mean a lot of ships and people.
D-day hapenned in the XX century.

The easiness of the germanic conquest was due to the tribal division in the british land (ended with king arthur ...this is really a myth, nevertheless they joined forces in the VI-VII century AD.)

In fact one small army could do what the anglo-saxon did (before the unified british forces), although there were some posterior migrations from the germanic area, this posterior "invasions" mixed freely with the locals.
that was what hapenned.

If I were british, I would love to protect the welsh and some other minor language in the west, It's the common ancestor languages of allmoust all the english (even the nordic loking).

[Glenlivet]

No, I don't mean that.

"It was about the 1st century BC that the last stage of Celtic settlement materialized. Known to Caesar as the Belgae, the newcomers came from those territories situated to the south of present-day Belgium. This colonization of the south-east of Britain has the distinction of being the only Celtic migration to be documented."

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/celtset.htm

Native Tribes of Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient.../iron_02.shtml

"The Romans applied the name Belgae to a whole group of tribes in northwest Gaul"

The Changing British Population:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society...pulation.shtml

I must admit you give often strange definitions and terms like: "Belgae". What is this meaning? That the people in Belgium have their own particular subrace?

[Vitor]

Some studies support Baker's opinion, that in some regions the pre-Germanic element has persisted, but even so, they were predominantly of a Nordid type. Baker (Race, 1974) described their difference from the Anglo-Saxon Nordids.

"The question next arises, 'What were the physical characters of the invaders who brought the Iron Age culture to Great Britain, and whom Ceasar called Celtae and Belgae?' This can best be answered by the study of the
skeletons that their descendants left in the graveyards of the Romano-British period. The skulls have been subjected to very careful study, with full statistical analysis, by Morant.[762] It is clear that those Celtae and Belgae who established themselves in Britain were essentially
Nordid. Indeed, it is shown in the table on p. 82 of Morant's paper that their skulls scarcely differ from those of the Anglo-Saxons who subsequently dominated them, except in one particular character, namely, that the skull
is slightly (but significantly) lower in the Iron Age man than in the Anglo-Saxon. Beyond this there are some minor differences that might be noticed if it were possible to put a typical Iron Age man of Romano-British times beside an Anglo-Saxon.[226] The skull might be meso- rather than
dolichocranial, and not only lower, but rounded on top instead of slightly keeled; the cranial capacity would be a little less. The distance between the level of the lower teeth and the chin would probably be less than in the deep-jawed Anglo-Saxon. The build would tend to be slighter, with less massive long-bones moved by less powerful muscles. One thing is certain. The Celts who came to Britain were not the Celts of Broca, Lagneau, and Dally. They were Germanokelten, not Gallokelten; essentially Nordid, not Alpinid. It follows that in all probability they were mainly fair-haired, though some of the Celtae who had Alpinids among their ancestors may have had pale brown hair, and exact uniformity in this respect would anyhow not be expected."

Baker (Race, 1974) suggested that the unhybridised descendants of the Belgae and Celtae continued to predominate in southeastern England. However, these would be Germanokelten, and closely related to North Sea Germanics (Ingvaeones). One must distinguish between culturally Celtic, but pre-Celtic Palaeolitic populations and invading Celts. Baker (Race, 1974) mentioned that 'race kymrique' were applied to those Nordids who spoke a Celtic language, and that French historian Amedee Thierry included the 'Belges' (Caesar's 'Belgae') among them.

Physical anthropologists, relying on evidence
provided by the skulls of ancient and modern times, consider the descendants of Iron Age people of Romano-British times continued to occupy the country during the period of Anglo-Saxon domination, and were so far from being driven away or exterminated that it might almost be said that it was they who eventually absorbed the Anglo-Saxons, while adopting the language oftheir conquerors. Onthis view the present-day population of England and much of Scotland is to a very considerable extent derived from the Celtae and Belgae of the Iron Age.[640, 762, 510, 175, 516]"

Baker did not suggest what you thought.

Baker (Race, 1974) also wrote that "it has been stated that the English were 'a truly multiracial society' because there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Belgics, and 'flamboyant Celts' among their ancestors. The reader should note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid). Incidentally it is doubtful whether the Angles and Saxons were different peoples in any sense".

You give a lot value to old studies with small samples...(and strongly biased)

studying a few skeletons with the strong subjectiveness of someone oppinion, is something I don't like.

It's better to use modern genetic methods...
They are unbiased, not subjective, and most important....it's possible to have large samples!

[Vetinari]

Not in the genes, not in culture!

Actually, according to the following research, Britain is a mixed population though the Germanic element seems to be Danish rather than Anglo-Saxon:

Evidence of Admixture from Haplotyping in an Epidemiological Study of UK Caucasian Males: Implications for Association Analyses

Cohort and case-control genetic association studies offer the greatest power to detect small genotypic influences on disease phenotypes, relative to family based designs. However, genetic subdivisions could confound studies involving unrelated individuals, but the topic has been little investigated. We examined geographical and interallelic association of SNP and microsatellite haplotypes of the Y chromosome, of regions of chromosome 11, and of autosomal SNP genotypes relevant to cardiovascular risk traits in a UK-wide epidemiological survey. Results: We show evidence (p = 0.00001) of the Danelaw history of the UK, marked by a two-fold excess of a Viking Y haplotype in central England. We also found evidence for a (different) single-centre geographical over-representation of one haplotype, both for APOC3-A4-A5 and for IGF2. The basis of this remains obscure but neither reflect genotyping error nor correlate with the phenotypic associations by centre of these markers. A panel of SNPs relevant to cardiovascular risks traits showed neither association with geographical location nor with Y haplotypes. Conclusion: Combinations of Y haplotyping, autosomal haplotyping, and genomewide SNP typing, taken together with phenotypic2 associations, should improve epidemiological recognition and interpretation of possible confounding by genetic subdivision.

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publication...4_v57_p142.pdf