Page 1 of 1

It would appear that...........

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:58 pm
by Chookie
...I am more close;y related to a chimpanzee than I am to my brother-in-law.

SCOTS and the English appear to be more closely related than many Britons may care to admit.

According to Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, some 70% of Scottish males and 68% of Englishmen have DNA evidence which shows a common link to ancestors who came to Britain from the Basque country in northern Spain between 7,500 and 15,000 years ago. Based on research into DNA studies across the UK and Ireland over the past 10 years, the professor's theory on British origins challenges mainstream historical views.

Most people in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were assumed to be descended from Celtic farming tribes who migrated here from central Europe up to 6,500 years ago, with the English largely taking their genetic line from the Anglo-Saxon invaders of the Dark Ages who supposedly wiped out the Celts in their areas of England.

That's all part of a "Celtic myth", says the professor, the author of The Origins Of The British: A Genetic Detective Story. "The majority of the gene pool of the British Isles is very ancient and dates to the era after the last great Ice Age. It has nothing to do with Celts or Anglo-Saxons or any of these more recent ethnic labels.

"The Ice Age made Britain a polar desert and there was nobody living here around 13,000 BC until the first settlers came to the British Isles from the Basque country of northern Spain between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago. Something like three-quarters of the ancestors of our modern gene pool arrived then.

"The ancestors of some 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of Scots and 68% of the English arrived here during that period. None of the later immigrations contributed anything more than 5% to the gene pool. So genetically speaking, Scots have more in common with the English than they have differences.

"There is also no evidence of Celtic languages being spoken until much later, so most of these people probably spoke something like Basque, and though it is controversial, there is structural evidence of Basque influence on later Celtic languages and English as well."

Oppenheimer says there is still a significant 30% genetic difference between Scots and the English - "it's that third or so which makes the English different," he added. The genetic changes were largely due to the influx of early Norwegians to the north of Scotland, whereas the east side of England attracted tribes such as the Angles and Saxons from further south."

Leading Scottish historian Professor Tom Devine last night dismissed his theories as "interesting but irrelevant", saying "cultural, political and social differences" were much more significant in the development of the British peoples.

Althea Davies, environmental archaeologist at Stirling University Centre for Environmental History, said: "The last Ice Age glacier didn't melt until 11,000 years ago and the oldest archaeological sites in Scotland date back to about 9,000 years ago, so that fits into his time bracket for the arrival of the first settlers.

"To say that those first people came from just one specific area is very restrictive, however, and a lot of people will be disputing those theories.

It would appear that...........

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:25 pm
by buttercup
Sounds fair enough to me.

It would appear that...........

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:56 pm
by Galbally
I didn't realize that this was news? I mean the celts are reputed to only have come to Ireland at around 400 BC, and were just the ruling class over the rest of the people on the Island, and I presume the same goes for the Island of Britain. They certainly weren't the ones who built Stonehenge or Newgrange or any of those things. I guess its natural that in a pre-literate society that after time people would come to associate themslevs and their identity with the ruling caste.

If you just look at Irish people for example, most do not have red hair, or green eyes, and also if you look at English people they do not all have blonde hair and blue eyes, though there are quite a lot of these types of people. Most of us look reassuringly similar really, and anyway, its an obviously foolish idea to base history on things like 100 percent ethnicity or "race" in Europe there has been far too much movements of people and types for any such idea to have any validity.

I think its a great thing actually that science can more or less prove that people are generally the same, and that most of these differences are superficial or even artifical things based on culture and language more than anything else, it doesn't mean that there are not differences, but simply that this "blood and soil" idea has finally had its day. I mean given the fact that the differences between major racial types such as Africans, Europeans, Asians etc are so small in reality, then its even more ridiculous for people as closely related as Scots and English to think that there are any real diferences between them other than cultural, no?