The Tribes of Britain By Richard Miller (London)
There are some excellent historical pieces on race and Nordics (Northern Europeans) filtering through at Occidental Dissent.com, including this one on genetics and the Anglo-Saxon migrations.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/11/genetics-and-the-anglo-saxon-migrations/
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/02/19/is-anglo-saxon-a-racist-term/
http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/settlers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8k9LMaFeRM&feature=emb_title
Also, relevant material on the still, racially tribal nature of White Britain:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/22/britain-tribal-millennia-anglo-saxon
“The latest DNA research from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, in Oxford, claims “astonishing results”. According to its author, Peter Donnelly, there was no specific Celtic people before the Romans arrived, or after: only genetic clusters. There was no Anglo-Saxon genocide after the Romans left but a steady westward movement of Germanic peoples, intermarrying with the pre-existing Britons.
Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry
The Oxford team has studied the genes of 2,000 Britons who can trace their parentage back to the late 19th century. The results mostly confirm conventional wisdom. The Celtic scholar Barry Cunliffe has long argued that after the last ice age the British Isles were repopulated by waves of migrants returning from warmer climes. With his emphasis on “mobility, connectivity and the sea”, he separates the “west side story”, of Atlantic colonisation, from the “east side story”: of Germanic and other northern Europeans’ migration across the North Sea. We already knew that by the sixth century Frankish-German tribes occupied most of what is now England.
What we do not know is when they came, how they settled and who, if anyone, was there before them. Donnelly claims that his gene map shows a Saxon migration “moving into what is now eastern England from AD450-600 after the collapse of the Roman empire”. It shows 20-40% of the study’s English gene pool to be north European, spread across what is now considered England.
This migration was apparently so potent that in just a few centuries it eliminated almost all trace of indigenous language and archaeological remains in its newly settled lands. Donnelly’s co-author, the geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer, adds that “Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD”. Meanwhile the later Viking invasion achieved no such penetration and left no such genetic traces, leading to headlines last week about sexy Saxons and impotent Vikings.
I find this simply implausible. My suspicions are strengthened by the Nature article being strong on algorithms but weak on archaeology. There is no attempt in this research to cross-check its findings with archaeological and linguistic evidence. Cunliffe himself pointed out at the weekend that the research did not go back in time: “We already know there is a high percentage of north European DNA in the modern British population, but archaeology suggests it goes right back. From at least 4,000BC people were crossing from Europe into Britain.” Testing the current genes of late-Victorian Britons was really no help in establishing the size or timing of some distant migration.
Cambridge’s archaeology professor Colin Renfrew is as puzzled as Cunliffe by the study’s lack of time depth. To Renfrew “a central problem with the data is that it comes only from modern DNA, not from ancient skeletons. What would be interesting would be to look at data from pre-Roman and ancient Saxon bones, and see how far it matches with these findings.” In other words, a lot of money seems to have gone on what non-academics might call the blindingly obvious, with tendentious conclusions and a dose of inter-disciplinary rivalry.
Basque fundamentalists once argued for gene testing as a voting qualification
The concept of an Anglo-Saxon “invasion” and genocide of indigenous Britons is written deep into early English history, helped by Arthurian legend and a Victorian fascination with Saxon incursions, assisted by the German Prince Albert. But it is a defunct thesis, long set aside in favour of a “topping up” model of constant, slow migration. Hence the eagerness of Cunliffe and others for evidence of who, when and what it was that the incoming Saxons overwhelmed so completely. Two thousand Victorian grandparents cannot tell us that.
I used to puzzle over the question of what language Boudicca spoke at home. Was she really an “ancient Briton”, speaking some version of Welsh? Or was she a British Saxon, speaking a version of German? Cunliffe accepts that “many people now wonder if the long-term tongue of the east coast of England was not Celtic at all, but German”. The new concept of “sea-as-land” suggests that relative ease of movement by sea means coasts have closer cultural ties across water than with their own hinterland.
Thus the Saxons (who included many Roman mercenaries) may have seen themselves in eastern Britain as merely joining what had long been their kith and kin. Equally, Wales was closer to Ireland than England, and Cornwall to Brittany. It is frustrating that the gene survey ignored southern Ireland.
As it is, the new data is more intriguing beyond the Saxon pale. While it found “no evidence of a general Celtic population in the non-Saxon parts of the UK”, few historians would have expected otherwise. But the distinctiveness of the non-Saxon clusters is remarkable. Cornwall and Devon appear wholly different from each other, as do north and south Wales. The Severn and the Dee are similar, as are Ulster and Galloway. Even the old northern kingdom of Elmet is detectable in modern genes.
Grouping people by “genetic clusters” is obviously dangerous. It yields odious stereotypes and risks damaging the democratic axiom that all humans be treated equal. The politics of genetics can lead to the politics of exclusion: Basque fundamentalists once argued for gene testing as a voting qualification.
But scientific research is always liberating. When in 2002 tooth and bone DNA showed Stonehenge’s Amesbury man to have travelled from the Alps, with a companion from Kent, it opened an exhilarating window on bronze-age Europe. This new data shows the British Isles as a melting pot of Europe for millennia. Despite Oxford, it is surely “much changed” since AD600.
Even if Saxons did not “invade” in the dark ages but merely migrated over land people like them had long occupied, they clearly did press west and north, fighting the British Gododdin tribe in Northumbria and the Welsh along the Severn. And they stopped this migration at what became the Welsh and Scottish borders, leaving half the area of the British Isles to what perhaps we should now call clusters of people speaking versions of what used to be called Celtic, which is emphatically not Germanic.
That line of cessation remains to this day. The Saxon/English kings tried for centuries to conquer and hold these peoples in a “first British empire”. They failed to assimilate them, and now their sovereignty over them grows weaker by the decade. Ireland went in 1921 and Scotland remains in doubt. Even Wales and Cornwall are restive. Politics cannot defy tribal sensibilities.”
Still, that does not prevent the political from trying, as seen with the present drive to eliminate even the term “Anglo Saxon.”
“The term Anglo-Saxon is 'bound up with white supremacy' and should be replaced with 'early English', academics have argued.
Anglo-Saxon traditionally refers to groups from Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands who settled in Britain at the end of Roman rule.
However, early medieval England specialist Mary Rambaran-Olm, an independent scholar and author, claimed the term is used by white supremacists to refer to white British people and should be banned.
The academic – raised in Canada and now based in Ireland – says previous objections to the term Dark Ages sets a precedent.
She told The Times: 'Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with 'whiteness' but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.'
Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or 'Englelond' – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as 'Englisc' or 'Anglecynn'.
The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their 'supposed origins'.
Hitler wrote of the 'Anglo-Saxon determination' to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term.
John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard's Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.
'The term Anglo-Saxon is inextricably bound up with pseudohistorical accounts of white supremacy, and gives aid and comfort to contemporary white supremacists,' he wrote on Twitter. 'Scholars of medieval history must abandon it.'
Earlier this year the International Society of Anglo Saxonists took a poll of its 600 members, and 60 per cent of the group agreed to remove the reference to 'Anglo-Saxon' from its name.
But Tom Holland, author of books including Athelstan: The Making of England, said the term was 'inextricably bound up with the claim by Alfred ... to rule as a shared Anglian-Saxon identity'.
'Scholars must be free to use it,' he said.
In a tweet, he wrote of the idea to ditch the term Anglo-Saxon: 'Mad as a bag of ferrets, as they say in Deira [a former kingdom].'”
It certainly is a war against Anglo-Saxons, more so than any other white groups.
Comments