Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 380

Thread: Just How Germanic is Britain/England?

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,117
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by Stríbog
    The lightest areas are in the SE
    But the greatest difference on that map is with Wales, Cornwall and parts of the East Midlands. The rest is quite light. Maps of Lundman show about the same. Dark or light are relative, and it can't tell anything about the morhology.

    The regions that are less pigmentation have a larger population. They make up the majority.


    West Prussian is right that Anglo-Americans anthropologists like Coon, Stoddard, Grant, Baker, etc. might have a conscious or unconscious bias to overstate England's Nordic element.
    Stoddard was more of a eugenicist than an anthropologist.

    If so, Lundman (Swede) and Biasutti (Italian) also overstated the Nordid element. Did Czekanowski also overstate?

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,117
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    That is almost impossible to determine, as DNA samples from Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark are similar. It's a border region, and South Schleswig/Slesvig was once German. It was transferred to Denmark after a referendum, only after WW1, in 1920.

    They are in any case very much related Northern European populations.

    Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration:

    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Vetinari
    Actually, according to the following research, Britain is a mixed population though the Germanic element seems to be Danish rather than Anglo-Saxon:
    Last edited by Glenlivet; Friday, December 10th, 2004 at 07:53 AM.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, October 9th, 2005 @ 12:04 PM
    Subrace
    atlantid-med
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Lisbon
    Gender
    Politics
    A secret
    Religion
    catholic
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    THE Celts of Scotland and Wales are not as unique as some of them like to think. New research has revealed that the majority of Britons living in the south of England share the same DNA as their Celtic counterparts.
    The study, conducted by geneticists at University College London, found that as many as three-quarters of the men tested in some parts of the south of England have the same Y-chromosome as the ancient Britons or Celts, rather than that of the Anglo-Saxons.

    Overall, the scientists found that between 50% and 75% of those tested in parts of southern England were directly descended from Celts, implying that they had survived the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In Scotland the proportion of those with Celtic ancestry was found to be little different from the population of southern England.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/584960/posts

  4. #44
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 1st, 2018 @ 04:25 PM
    Ethnicity
    irish
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Ireland, Dublin
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    quagmire
    Politics
    left, libertarian, social justic
    Religion
    nihilistic satanism, gaia, ecolo
    Posts
    396
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by green nationalist
    The Isleand of Ireland is so small that there is no way the blood poisoning could be contained like that, it would have permeated throughout the entire ilseand.
    yeah! damn Germanics pissing in our celtic genepool

    A joke OK!

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 25th, 2007 @ 10:29 AM
    Subrace
    nordiſch-weſtiſch
    Location
    Deutſchland
    Gender
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    Volk und Raſſe
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by Volksdeutscher
    That is almost impossible to determine, as DNA samples from Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark are similar. It's a border region, and South Schleswig/Slesvig was once German. It was transferred to Denmark after a referendum, only after WW1, in 1920.
    Nope, that was the region of North Schleswig (I on the map; ethnically mostly Danish with a German minority) that was transferred to Denmark after WWI. North Schleswig is called by the Danes Sønderjylland: South Jütland. - South Schleswig (II and III on the map; ethnically mostly German with a Danish minority) however stayed German and still is.

    Man ſei Held oder Heiliger. In der Mitte liegt nicht die Weisheit, ſondern die Alltäglichkeit.

    SPENGLER

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, October 9th, 2005 @ 12:04 PM
    Subrace
    atlantid-med
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Lisbon
    Gender
    Politics
    A secret
    Religion
    catholic
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    I wonder what did the germanics build before the roman era...
    The ancient british offered us the magnificient stonehenge.

    I am not saying they didn't build anything, I am only asking what they did build...

    I guess in the megalithic era no one can compare with stonehenge, in "litoral" europe from Portugal to scandinavia, this culture didn't produce anything big like stonehenge, it was nevertheless the same culture that produced stonehenge!
    Before that celtic culture!
    Last edited by Vitor; Saturday, December 11th, 2004 at 12:39 AM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitor
    I wonder what did the germanics build before the roman era...
    The ancient british offered us the magnificient stonehenge.

    I am not saying they didn't build anything, I am only asking what they did build...

    I guess in the megalithic era no one can compare with stonehenge, in "litoral" europe from Portugal to scandinavia, this culture didn't produce anything big like stonehenge, it was nevertheless the same culture that produced stonehenge!
    Before that celtic culture!
    Press Release

    Tests reveal Amesbury Archer ‘King of Stonehenge’ was a settler from the Alps

    The man who may have helped organise the building of Stonehenge was a settler from continental Europe, archaeologists say.

    The latest tests on the Amesbury Archer, whose grave astonished archaeologists last year with the richness of its contents, show he was originally from the Alps region, probably Switzerland, Austria or Germany. The tests also show that the gold hair tresses found in the grave are the earliest gold objects found in Britain.

    The grave of the Archer, who lived around 2,300BC, contained about 100 items, more than ten times as many objects as any other burial site from this time. When details were released, the media dubbed the Archer “The King of Stonehenge”.

    The grave was found three miles from Stonehenge, near Amesbury in Wiltshire, last May during an excavation by Wessex Archaeology, based nearby at Salisbury, in advance of the building of a new housing scheme and school.

    The Archer was obviously an important man, and because he lived at the same time that the stones at Stonehenge were first being built, archaeologists believe he may have been involved in its creation.

    Tests were carried out on the Archer’s teeth and bones and on the objects found in the grave, which included two gold hair tresses, three copper knives, flint arrowheads, wristguards and pottery. They show that he came from the Alps region, and that the copper knives came from Spain and France. This is evidence of the wide trade network that existed in the early Bronze Age. The gold dated to as early as 2,470BC, the earliest gold objects found in Britain.

    Stonehenge was begun in the late Stone Age, around 3,000BC, as a ditch and a bank enclosing an open space. In about 2,300BC – approximately the time the Archer died –the world-famous stones were erected, the large 20-tonne Sarsen stones from the Marlborough Downs nearby and the smaller four-tonne Bluestones from Preseli in west Wales. How the Bluestones were transported 240 miles (380 kilometres) is not yet known.

    The importance of the Archer and his grave are detailed in a programme 'King of Stonehenge: A Meet the Ancestors Special' on BBC2 on Wednesday February 19 at 9pm.

    Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, said: “This was a time of great change in Britain – the skills of metalworking were being brought here from abroad and great monuments such as Stonehenge were being built.

    “We have long suspected that it was people from the continent of Europe who initiated the trade that first brought metalworking to Britain, and the Archer is the first discovery to confirm this.

    “He would have been a very important person in the Stonehenge area and it is fascinating to think that someone from abroad – probably modern day Switzerland – could well have played an important part in the construction of Britain’s most famous archaeological site.”

    The Archer was an example of the spread of the Beaker culture from the continent, marked by a new style of pottery, the use of barbed flat arrow heads, copper knives and small gold ornaments.

    Tests on the bones carried out by Wessex Archaeology’s own staff showed that the Archer was a man aged between 35 and 45. He was strongly built, but he had an abscess on his jaw and had suffered an accident a few years before his death that had ripped his left knee cap off. As a result of this he walked with a straight left which swung out to the side of him, and suffered from an infection in his bones which would have caused him constant pain.

    Other tests on the enamel found on the Archer’s teeth could not reveal how long he had lived in Britain, only that he must have lived in the Alps region while a child. He was most probably from what is now Switzerland, although it is possible he could have come from areas of Germany near Switzerland or Austria.

    Also found at the site was a second skeleton of a younger man, aged 20 to 25. Two gold hair tresses were found lodged in mud in his jaw. Bone analysis showed he and the Archer were related and it is likely they were father and son. Analysis of his teeth show he grew up in southern England but may have spent his late teens in the Midlands or north-east Scotland.

    Other tests were carried out by the British Museum, the National Museums of Wales and Scotland, the British Geological Survey, the National Trust Museum at Avebury and the Universities of Durham, Exeter, Oxford and Southampton. They showed that the Archer wore animal skins fashioned into a cloak and was buried with pottery made locally, perhaps specially for his funeral.
    http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects...feb_03_v1.html

    I agree that Stonehenge is the greatest Portuguese achievement ever. Now considering that you had absolutely nothing to do with it, what does that tell us?

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, October 9th, 2005 @ 12:04 PM
    Subrace
    atlantid-med
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Lisbon
    Gender
    Politics
    A secret
    Religion
    catholic
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects...feb_03_v1.html

    I agree that Stonehenge is the greatest Portuguese achievement ever. Now considering that you had absolutely nothing to do with it, what does that tell us?
    lol
    nothing at all...
    hahahaha

    where I said that it was the portuguese who build it?
    strange....very strange, are you using some kind of medication?

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, October 9th, 2005 @ 12:04 PM
    Subrace
    atlantid-med
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Lisbon
    Gender
    Politics
    A secret
    Religion
    catholic
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    archaeologist...if you love subjectivity go to archaeology!

    are you sure they were from central europe?
    My guess is that they wre more ancient than that...people arrive in great britain, much before the iron age...even bronze or whatever!

    A very subjective study that show that Stonehenge with iberian connections!
    http://members.tripod.com/~Halfmoon/Spain.html

    but again archaeology is subjective...let's go to the actual and objective genetic studies...
    like this one:

    The Irish are not Celts, say experts
    Jan Battles
    The Times

    THE long-held belief that Ireland’s population is descended from the Celts has been disproved by geneticists, who have concluded that they never invaded Ireland.
    The research at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) into the origins of Ireland’s population found no substantial evidence of the Celts in Irish DNA, and concludes they never settled here en masse.


    The study, part-funded by the National Millennium Committee, has just been published in The American Journal of Human Genetics. It was one of four projects funded by the government under the Genetic History of Ireland programme, which aimed to provide a definitive survey of the origins of the ancient peoples of Ireland.
    Part of the project’s brief was to “discover whether there was a large incursion by Celtic people about 2,500 years ago” as was widely believed. After comparing a variety of genetic traits in Irish people with those of thousands of European and Near Eastern inhabitants, the scientists at TCD say there was not.
    “Some people would go as far as saying there was total replacement of the population (of Ireland) 2,500 years ago,” said Brian McEvoy, one of the authors. “But if that happened we would definitely be more related to people in central Europe, because the Celts were supposed to have come from there. We’re just not seeing that. We’re seeing something earlier. Our legacy is the result of the first people to settle in Ireland around 9,000 years ago.”
    About 15,000 years ago, ice covered Ireland, Britain and a lot of northern Europe so prehistoric man retreated back into Spain, Italy and Greece, which were still fairly temperate. When the ice started melting again around 12,000 years ago, people followed it northwards as areas became habitable again.
    “The primary genetic legacy of Ireland seems to have come from people from Spain and Portugal after the last ice age,” said McEvoy. “They seem to have come up along the coast through western Europe and arrived in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It’s not due to something that happened 2,500 years ago with Celts. “We have a very old genetic legacy.”
    While we may not owe our heritage to the Celts, we are still linked to other populations considered Celtic, such as Scotland and Wales. McEvoy said: “It seems to be more a cultural spread than actual people coming in wiping out and replacing everyone else.”
    A PhD student in Trinity’s department of genetics, McEvoy will present the findings tomorrow at the Irish Society of Human Genetics annual meeting.
    He and Dan Bradley of TCD took samples of mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother, from 200 volunteers around Ireland using cheek swabs. They also compiled a database of more than 8,500 individuals from around Europe and analysed them for similarities and matches in the sequences.
    They found most of the Irish samples matched with those around Britain and the Pyrenees in Spain. There were some matches in Scandinavia and parts of northern Africa.
    “Of the Celtic regions, by far the strongest correspondence is with Scotland,” said Bradley. “It corresponds exactly with language.” While that could be due to the Plantation of Ulster, Bradley said it was more likely due to something much older because the matches occur throughout the whole of Ireland and not just the north.
    The geneticists produced a map of Europe with contours linking places that were genetically similar. One contour goes around the edge of the Atlantic, around Wales, Scotland, Ireland and includes Galicia in Spain and the Basque region.
    “This isn’t consistent with the idea of a large invasion here around 500BC,” said Bradley. “You would expect some more affinity with central Europe if we owed the bulk of our ancestry to a movement from central Europe but we don’t.”
    Some archeologists also doubt there was a Celtic invasion because few of their artifacts have been found in Ireland.
    and we know that irish and ancient british were one and the same people!


    Of course this connections are old, and even the iberians did change with some of those european migration, we are not like the ancient iberians, but we are still close!
    being the basques and the irish the most unchanged people in europe.
    Last edited by Vitor; Saturday, December 11th, 2004 at 01:44 AM.

  10. #50
    You are not wrong, who deem / That my days have been a dream Johannes de León's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 15th, 2012 @ 11:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    Iberian
    Subrace
    Atlanto-Baskid
    Location
    Terra Firma
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Posts
    1,489
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Britain is not GERMANIC

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitor
    Res is not present in today portuguese language.
    Wrong. It still exists, it is erudite vocabulary, present in those good dictionaries that are edited, at least, in five volumes; or used regionally. Never heard the expression má res, for instance as in isso é má res?
    .

Page 5 of 38 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Future of Germanic England
    By Carl in forum England
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 15th, 2018, 02:51 AM
  2. How Germanic is England?
    By karolvs in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 09:30 AM
  3. Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity
    By Nachtengel in forum England
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Sunday, May 9th, 2010, 04:23 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 10:24 AM
  5. The Germanic Idea in England
    By Nordgau in forum England
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 12:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •