Was there an Anglo-Saxon genocide?

[Visigodo]

This is from the epilogue of his book "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer 2006. I don't share all the opinions that he try to explain in his work but I must to say that the books is interesting to read. Anyway I am interested to know some opinions about his topic:


Was there an Anglo-Saxon genocide?

The key historical source that ha led to the conviction that the English originated as recently as the Dark Ages is Gildas tract 'On the Ruin of Britain’. The gory embellishments of this latter-day Job have led to the entrenched view that Angles and Saxons came over from the Continent, slaughtered the Celts in England and became the ‘English’. Few of his core claims hold water.

Even Gildas’Saxon Advent is contradicted by Bede, who claims it was Anglian. There is little evidence for genocide, but it remains in schoolbooks. Genocide means the deliberate extermination of a nation. Now, if that means the death of over 50% of the people, I am certain, after studying the genetic history, that there was no genocide in Dark Ages England.

There is specific evidence of an invasion from the region of Schleswig-Holstein at the base of the Danish Peninsula, but on my estimation this amounts to only 4% of male gene types in the British Isles. This does not give enough genetic evidence for even a 10% cull (literally, a decimation), except in parts of Norfolk and the Fens, which reached about that level of intrusion.

This means was not just substantial continuity of population, but a survival of around 95% of the indigenous lines. Even the Vikings achieved a higher estimated overall level of genetic invasion. Increasingly, this lack of ‘wipeout’ is what many archaeologists are interfering from their detailed cultural and burial evidence. In Francis Pryor’s works, ‘massive war graves’, settlement dislocation and ‘knock-on’ impacts… have not been found’. Rather, there is evidence of continuity in spite of cultural change: ‘if Anglo-Saxon people and culture displaced ‘native’ practices, one would expect the latter to have vanished completely. They did not.

On of the fascinating results of this matching of source gene types from the base of the Cimbrian (Danish) Peninsula to England is the target distribution. As would be expected from Bede and all the Anglian cultural matches, including runes and cruciform brooches, the higher rates of intrusion (9-17%) fell in Anglian regions of England. These were in Norfolk, the Fen and, to a lesser extent, north-eastern parts of Mercia and Lincoln. By contrast, Saxon England in the South could only muster the background English rate of 5% invasion; and, unlike further north, the south has no evidence for any specific genetic founding event dated to this period. So, why did Gildas, but not Bede, tell us that Saxons committed the slaughter? As may be clear by now, I think he had his own nation’s agenda.

I would go much further that doubting Gildas on the genetic and cultural evidence. The so-called Anglo-Saxons were not even the first English nation. They did not all arrive at the same time. The Saxons, in particular, were already in residence during Roman times. The Angles were not genetically, culturally or linguistically close to the Saxons, not for that matter to Frisians. The Angles and Jutes were more Scandinavian culturally or linguistically, with clear genetic and archaeological matches to the Danish Peninsula and Sweden. They were not even our first Scandinavian visitors, nor the last.



For more and different opinions you can have a look at this:

Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration -- Weale et al. 19 (7): 1008 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...PB20063627.pdf

Thanks for your opinon in advance.

[PrussianGeneral]

If in fact there was an Anglo-Saxon genocide then what comprises the majority of England? The Celts in the area of present day England were either killed, displaced, or interbred with the invading Saxons. And of course before the Celts arrived there were the relatives of "Cheddar Man". The Danes/Vikings of course had there hayday with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms then came the French Vikings(Normans). Regardless I believe that present day England is comprised mostly of Germanic genetics just the percentages are debated. Please some insight.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by PrussianGeneral

If in fact there was an Anglo-Saxon genocide then what comprises the majority of England?

Genetic maps seem to coincide with the Jute-Anglo-Saxon invasions.

The Celts in the area of present day England were either killed, displaced, or interbred with the invading Saxons.

The latter appears at some studies at the mtDNA level, which suggests rape and/or sexual slavery.

And of course before the Celts arrived there were the relatives of "Cheddar Man".

Excusatio non petita acusatio manifesta.

Having said this, the "Celts" were no others than the native inhabitants of the islands, as suggested by the incidence of the R1b haplogroup.

The Danes/Vikings of course had there hayday with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms then came the French Vikings(Normans). Regardless I believe that present day England is comprised mostly of Germanic genetics just the percentages are debated. Please some insight.

That appears to be the case in the eastern parts of the island, as I've mentioned in the first paragraph. Wales, Cornwall, Devon, ... Cumbria, were pockets where the natives managed to escape from the slaughter that the immigration/invasion brought to the eastern lands of the island.

[Cynan]

Although I disagree with Oppenheimer's general view of this situation, according to him, NO genocide ever took place. Remember, he argues that the vast majority of British residents--including England's--are descended from pre-Celtic Iberian settlers, despite the influx of Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans. He seems to view these groups as mere specks spread around the U.K. That means that no invading population was strong or numerous enough to be genocidal to any group.

[Menydh]

Does he offer any type of genetic data divided by regions?

The percentages are usually given as overall England, which include regions like Cornwal, Devon and Sommerset. The old Kingdom of Dumnonia (Dyfneint) seems to have acted as a reduct where Britons were not overrun by Saxons, and only later Saxons from the Kingdom of Wessex would have settled as overlords, with Briton territory reducing to Cornwall.

Clearly if you include those western regions to account for a genetic map of England, the picture has to approach to that of Wales. But, what if you consider regions like Wessex or Essex alone?

What does this tell of England as a whole, as a country? Well, perhaps that it cannot be taken as either a Celtic nor a Germanic country, lying somewhere in the middle or nowhere in there. Which answer should you expect in real life if you told an English that he is a Germanic? Likely, a denial. Or at least a fair degree of reticence to admit it. At least that has been my experience at large. For some reason they appear to be more eager to identify with the Briton identity. Who knows? Perhaps because that gives them more of a native status?

[Cynan]

These are pretty much Oppenheimer's main points:

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."
"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."
"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

As you can see, as to what England generally is, that would be roughly half Iberian and half Scandinavian. You'll also notice the the main divisions are drawn down between East and West, not so much among particular regions or kingdoms.

I have a BIG PROBLEM, though, with relying on genetic evidence because it is a fact that your genetic makeup accounts for only 1/32 of your ethnic makeup, so to see these "scientists" so hell-bent on studying the genes rather than one's physiological structure is counterproductive to me.

I don't see why it is so hard for Oppenheimer to simply LOOK at the inhabitants of Britain and note (like any moron can) that they look nothing like Iberian people, Basques, or whoever else he claims Brits are primarily descended from.

[Menydh]

It's variable, I guess. E.g., I couldn't tell if this man is Spanish (not particularly Basque, in fact not even close to characteristical), or Briton. From the source it was not 100% clear to me if he is Cornish or Welsh. The former, I think.

Paul "The More Man" Cornish - Ecademy Profile

I wouldn't take him by English, fully.



But certainly there is much more to it than just the genotype and even the phenotype. For most cases, even in close matches, there is always something in the eyes that tells you what genotype and phenotype does not.

[Cynan]

Yes, there is no question that particular inhabitants of Britain DO resemble people from the Iberian peninsula, as in the case you presented. But to suggest, as Oppenheimer does, that since 58% of English inhabitants carry the Iberian gene means that Iberians make up the majority of the population is flat-out goofy considering that no one would argue that 58% of English people resemble Basques.

All it proves to me is that--as with the brown-eyed gene over the blue-eyed gene--Iberian genes simply dominate over Germanic and perhaps Celtic genes. That's it. The people of England are still primarily Scandinavian/Germanic/Celtic.

By the way, I would be interested in seeing what you would call the characteristic Basque.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Cynan

But to suggest, as Oppenheimer does, that since 58% of English inhabitants carry the Iberian gene

I have very serious doubts that that would be the case.

Notice that he states that it ranges from a low peak in Fakenham, of 59%. That would make the average so much higher, perhaps even at rates of 70%+. It is not realistic.

All it proves to me is that--as with the brown-eyed gene over the blue-eyed gene--Iberian genes simply dominate over Germanic

Iberian genes do dominate over Germanic. No argument there.

and perhaps Celtic genes.

In the Peninsula, much like in the Islands, the "Keltic" input is assumed to have been overwhelmingly a fact of aculturation. A case of an adstratum of warrior types over a substratum of native types. There seems to be agreement in that generally invasions have not carried out significant changes in populations, unless accompanied or followed by larger migrations.

With regards to differences such as variations in pigmentation and morphology, you must also consider that for the formation of those genetic haplogroups we would be dealing with tens of thousands of years of difference until the formation of stable anthropomorphic individuals close to modern ones.

In other words, genotype is assumed to predate phenotype enough to have allowed for adaptive traits.

[Cynan]

One thing that bothers me is that the inhabitants that Oppenhiemer claims the Brits are primarily made up of (having arrived no later than 12,000 B.C. due to the glacialization of 12,000-8,000 B.C.) could not have numbered more than a few hundred, if that. John Davies points out how the number of Paleolithic settlers were far outnumbered by the number of Mesolithic settlers later on, who were in turn far outnumbered by the following Neolithic settlers.

So how on earth could we have so much Upper Paleolithic blood in us? That would HAVE to make the case--as we all agree--that Iberian genes simply dominate over Germanic/Celtic/Scandinavian genes. And that would support my case that the Paleolithic phenotypes were more likely bred out than altered through adaptation.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

With regards to differences such as variations in pigmentation and morphology, you must also consider that for the formation of those genetic haplogroups we would be dealing with tens of thousands of years of difference until the formation of stable anthropomorphic individuals close to modern ones.

In other words, genotype is assumed to predate phenotype enough to have allowed for adaptive traits.

While I agree with you, Mynydd, that pigmentation and--to a lesser extent--morphology can alter due to thousands of years of adaptation, I figure that if the Cromagnid can still exist all over the world in all types of climates, then the Paleolithic appearance could manage some stability in Britain. Also, at most, the Paleolithic morphology had 27,000 years of adaptation in Britain--most likely less--which, geologically speaking, isn't that much.

By the way, I found the attached photo of this Southern Spanish actor, and I'm wondering if he seems fitting of an Upper Paleolithic Iberian settler.