Truth be told, I don't overly care what genetics say about my line. Be it Anglo Saxon, Norseman, Dane, or true Celt. I am proud in knowing that I am of Scottish descent. This is who I am, this is where I am from, these are the people that breathed life into me. DUAN ALBANACH! Kudos for the study and the tremendous amount of work being done through this study. Thank you for the truth of the Last Stand.
This was a very interesting three part series. As a direct descendant of William Bradford, I can trace my family tree to Conyers, Georgia. Our DNA is mostly English from the Bristol area. There is thirteen percent Celtic, and some German and French but 70 percent is from the area below London. The narrator looks the world like my father. He, Neil Oliver, actually came to Georgia and did a piece about the klan and the Knights. He was horrified that the roots of their bigotry began in Scotland. We have always referred to the Scotch Irish that live in the Appalachian mountains. As an aside, there is nothing quite as beautiful as hearing a quaint mountain man quote the good King James from memory. They take on an accent that is definitely from the old country. Very beautiful.
I am 8th generation American. According to the DNA company, I genetically more English, than the typical modern English born person. I know my genealogy, and that is accurate based on surnames alone.
The genetic makeup of rural North America varies largely based on the region however there is a VERY strong genetic component of Franco, Germanic and Eastern European peoples throughout that cannot be denied. The British aspects are perhaps easier to see and understand because the British Empire owned and hoarded North American colonies longer than any other European Nation. Additionally at the time that Canada and the US were settling people on land, Ireland and Scotland were both being heavily subjugated by England. Scotland had just fought and lost Culloden, clans language and culture were banned, and Ireland was seeing the introduction of Protestant Rule and the "Union" with Great Britain. So many of the Irish and Scottish peoples who left or were forced out wanted to retain as much of there cultural identity as possible. I will also briefly mention here that heavy discrimination towards the Irish and Scottish but especially the Irish meant they could only settle in certain areas. Which has resulted in some areas having seemingly stronger Irish presence. Sorry for the paragraph, I'm a historian and genealogist with a focus in Social History. I also happen to be descended from German and Scotch peoples that settled in rural Canada, so I unfortunately have too much insight on this one.
King Bridei III, King of the Picts, campaigned against the Orcadian sub-kingdom in 682, a campaign so violent that the Annals of Ulster said that the Orkney Islands were "destroyed" by Bridei ("Orcades deletae sunt la Bruide"). - the place was well battered before the Vikings moved in - 25% of the pop killed by Bridei, how many died after seems to have been forgotten/lost
Kingslea Hearne The Franks were a minority elite when they invaded northern Gaul, as the Germanic tribes mostly were when they invaded parts of the Roman empire. The male genes would have been spread quite widely, including to lower social levels due to illegitimate children, but mostly the lower levels would have remained Romano-Gaulish. The Romans themselves were an invading minority elite so in their time the lower levels would have remained Gaulish, and of course the Gauls would have been an invading minority elite when the Celts expanded into France; the majority of the lower orders would have remained the previous Bronze Age people. Etc. etc. etc. There were at least two migrations before the Bronze Age, the Neolithic and Paleolithic; in the case of the Paleolithic they may not have been invading anybody, altho different archaeological cultures in southern France like the Solutrean and Mousterian go right back into the Ice Age.
If we stop calling them "Vikings," and call then "Danes and Norwegians," we'd have a better understanding of who people are. "Viking" was a short time period, and referred to the raiding parties. All those men on Viking longships had brothers at home, who were not Vikings, and would have laughed at anyone today who calls them Vikings.
There are several in the US who are mostly of British descent. I am one of those. I would love to see more studies done on our population. I would be thrilled to take part in a study such as this.
My ancestors were mostly English with some Irish and a dash of Swedish but at the end of the day, I consider myself to be Canadian because that is were I was born and raised.
where can I have my DNA tested. I'm RH -...and family date back to Forfar, Angus in 1750s I also share the Clan MacGregor/ King Grig of 870s..wondering if I have Pict DNA
Right. Most Romans were soldiers from al other parts of the Empire who were just stationed there for a tour and never intermarried. In fact, legionnaires were forbidden from marrying. When the Romans left in the 400s, they really left.
@@jimbob9876 The modern Italians are not the same people as the Romans. Similarly for the Greeks. They are mostly ethnic Albanian. or Macedonian. The area has has a turbulent and violent history.
I heard about a study done of the DNA in Hungary, and only 1% was of Magyar descent. I think that's often the case, when new populations arrive and take over, they often just take over the upper echelons of power rather than displacing (or worse yet killing) the inhabitants. I'm frankly surprised there is as much Angle, Saxon, Jute, and Viking DNA as there is in Britain.
A nice little example from Estonia. Whereas there are more dark-complexioned and dark-haired people on the islands than on the mainland, recent studies have shown that in South Estonia also there are areas where there are more dark-looking people than on the average. And, these areas turned out to match very nicely with the locations where Polish garrisons were located back when South Estonia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (c. 1560-1629). Haha.
Matthew McVeagh No, Estonians have been largely blond from ancient times. The geneticists have pointed out, however that, whereas nowadays more than 90% of Estonians still have blue eyes, the traditional blond hair is more and more substituted by shades of light brown such as caramel or "potato peel", i.e. light brown with a shade of grey. Yours truly happens to have "potato peel" hair and brownish-green eyes, but she is not a good example anyway, since her paternal lineage is an awful mess of Polish, Jewish and possibly Greek influences involved.
Matthew McVeagh Estonians belong to the Finno-Ugric group which has a blond strand in the Finnish and Estonian populations which stands out in comparison to the Sami people and other Finno-Ugric groups further east. It's uncertain why, but it has been around for much longer than contact with the population in Scandinavia has lasted. The Finns are actually more commonly fair skinned, blond and blue eyed than the Germanic related part of Scandinavia.
Efva Nyberg It's obvious that language-groups only partly coincide with genetic inheritance groups. I've heard that blondism began in the Baltic area and only spread to Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, Poland and Russia by migration. Various invading peoples like Germanics or Finnics could have taken over certain areas, some with strong blondism and others with browner hair, and imposed their language and hence ethnic identity while not contributing so much to the genes. Then you end up with different Finnic and Germanic speaking populations some of which are blonder and some of which are darker.
I've been all over Europe & the U.K., including two trips to Stockholm, Sweden in the 1980s. I was recently looking at several pictures that I took of Swedes during those trips and most of them had a hair color that I would describe as blondish-red (more red than blond). People generally associate red or "ginger" hair color with the Celts, so this was surprising to me. It seems like I saw more blonds in Copenhagen, Denmark. (I include mostly males in this, since it is very common for females to color their hair)
I live in Stockholm and you're are right and that goes for the Norwegians as well. If you instead go to southern Sweden, the region of Skåne for instance, that is closer to Denmark. There you will find more of that almost white blond haired people.
Yes, it's time for the European holiday to end. Time to send them all home. Look at the size of Britain, compared to the size of Africa or the Middle East. Buh-bye!
@@rubynibs The Mercator map makes Northern Europe look far larger than it actually is. Africa looks a fraction of it's real size so the inhabitants think that there is plenty of room for them in Europe. Sadly there isn't and with the best will in the world there will come a time where the door will have to be closed. It's not racist, just a stark reality.
Found this fascinating. Learned a lot more about the spread of the DNA. We're all pretty much a good, strong blend of the same thing. The Celts were on the mainland and then came over to the islands. So you're bound to have some Celtic DNA. coming from the mainland mixed with the Norman or dramatic, although my understanding is, the gauls, were the Germanic peoples. I get so confused. I mean, I'm not a student of the tribes in Europe, so it gets a little confusing.
For a series that's called 'the face' of britain, there are very few actual british faces - lots of maps and the face of oliver, but not enough actual faces
JodaJK XD Actually, western and northern Scotland was a mainly a mixture of Celts and Vikings. But, I was hoping they would talk about that on this documentary.
Anglo Saxons actually settled in South East Scotland. The Lothians were part of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria. The Scots language originates from the Old English speaking settlers. The rest of Scotland was Celtic with some Viking influence on the islands and coasts.
There was (Native British) Brythonic Kingdoms in both Scotland and England Elment, in Yorkshire Stryclide in Scotland Goddoin in Scotland Cumbria all British Kingdoms. They are always fighting with the Angles and yes they did not speak Gaelic that was part of the Dal rada from Ireland. That came much later. They spoke a Cumbric Brythonic spoken through out Briton yes eve the Picts spoke it. Its called Welsh mow.
Seems everybody here is a freakin historian. It's about blood, not culture and borders. Thus original peoples became Celts, imported culture. But the pool of Angles/Saxons/Jutes showed up in 3 waves under different banners and did oust the Celts. Thus the indistinguishable Anglo-Saxon blood signature across England.
There are a lot more Brythonic speaking Celtic Britons in England that Anglo Saxon. At the time of the Roman Empire leaving there was about 2 million Ramo-Britons Alive there was a few thousand Angles Saxon Jutes. Out did them 3-1 no problem.
But the newly arrived immigrants do not mix with those who are here already. They remain within their own cultural groups. They are not making a new British population. The whole of this series stamps firmly that the population of Great Britain originated from and is still predominantly from mainland Europe as far back as the end of the last ice age. In recent history two Continens were overtaken by European culture North America and South America. The Spanish did not emigrate to South America like the British and French did to North America. There is still a strong native presence in South America although their native culture was almost totally obliterated. The Native Americans as a population hardly exist and their culture as we see it today appears manufactured and contrived. Great Britain maintains it's cultural heritage despite the attempts of Globalists to deny we are anything special "we are all the same" tell that the the descendants of the Iceni !
I've done a DNA test since posting this, and I'm not Cherokee at all. I'm 50% British (that includes England, southern Scotland, and Wales), 20% Irish, 10% Western European, 6% Eastern European, and other smaller trace amounts of other European cultures. All-in-all, I'm 96% European.
My ancestors were both Anglo Saxons and Brythonic Celts spoke Brythonic here this is what is sounds like before the Invaders came to Briton. Native Laguage of the Uk
I wonder if there would be any trace of any Celt genes in my DNA. Lineage has been traced to Ireland, Scotland, England; being an American for at least 4 generations, what would appear in testing of my current family? (Side note: I wonder how expensive the testing is, for those who are curious?)
incubusbaby Ancestry.com and sites like it offer a basic genetic test for $100. I would look into it, if you are interested. And just based on what you said, it seems likely you would have Celtic genes.
As much as I do like to research into genetics and find it interesting, I often wonder if there is some kind of an agenda going on with these genetic tests though. Welcome Trust tested over 4'000 people and the project is still on going. What about other areas that "were" tested by Welcome Trust, such as parts of Scotland and other regions of Wales. Ireland was tested too. And red headed Celts who migrated 10'000 yrs ago. There were no such thing as Celts then, or Celtic languages. And all the first settlers had red hair ? wouldn't of thought so. And who were the people that according to to finished papers who arrived "anciently" in Britain and Ireland by boat from France. And yet some geneticists claim that the paternal R1b named as the Celtic haplogroup is more Neolithic than Paleolithic.
Yeah genetic tests can to be open to different interpretations to. Some of these tests are being used for medical information, and sometimes racial issues. Genetic tests seem to be the new history :)
Its wrong to put as Danish being the same as Anglo-Saxon. They have created a bit of a misconception. Danes were already distinct. Even in the text a of Beowulf Danes are metioned at a time when the Anglo-Saxon subculture in Britain didn't yet exsist. What they fail to get across is that they (scientists) just can't work how how to make the difference in DNA. Also was the history of the Jutes? Have there complete cultural and Kingdok of Kent been written out of history and given to Angles and Saxons?
ChlopskiStyl It's not at all a question of being unable to 'make' a difference. It has been clearly explained that *genetically* there *is* no difference between the people who called themselves Danes and the Anglo Saxons. They aren't talking about any distinction based on culture or how a people perceive themselves or what they call themselves; they are talking about genetic identity. There is therefore, no difference to be found. It's not a scientific failing. Also a couple of points: Anglo Saxon wasn't a 'sub-culture' and Beowulf was written in Old English by Anglo Saxons. Saxons arrived in Britain around the beginning of the fifth century. Beowulf was written, in Britain around the eighth century (maybe a bit later)
ChlopskiStyl Culture and language is not static, it is constantly changing and evolving. So if one group of people leave Denmark around 500AD... and then another group arrive 300 years later, then there is every chance that the culture and language has evolved slightly different over that period of time. I am fortunate in that I know that my ancestors come from a Viking settlement... and this is reflected in my family name which is also of Danish Viking origin... so I know that a lot of the AS genes in my genetic make up will be Danish Viking. I have no doubt that some of them will be AS too because my grandmother's maiden surname is a traditional Angle name... and my other grandmother's maiden surname is a norman surname. On top of this I have both Irish and Scottish ancestry and the ginger gene is quite prominent in my family and is very strong... for example my spouse is Japanese but my daughter is ginger and fair skin. All of this is very interesting stuff but it is really only useful for defending against the racist ideas of many UKIP supporters who lack the ginger gene :) Personally, I am proud of my ancestry, I like the idea that some of my relatives arrived in the country with Ragnor's sons... and I am proud that I am a child of the mist from my mother's maiden name... and I am proud that my grandmother's relatives were border reivers... and I am proud that my family have a mining tradition that placed them at the forefront of some the most important events of the industrial revolution (there is a 90% chance that my great whatever grandfather either rode on the puffing billy or tried to sabotage it to protect jobs)... It has an element of historical romanticism to it all... but it does not have that great an impact on my modern day identity. My modern identity is largely decided by how other people perceive me... not on my own personal background. So does knowing you are Danish Viking or Anglo Saxon or Norman really matter that much? As for the Jutes... the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes all came from the Danish peninsular... the Jutes from the northern tip, the angles from the middle, and the saxons from the south. Instead of thinking about them as separate peoples, think of them like Geordies, Northumbrians, and Maccems. As for Frisia... Eddie Izzard did a documentary called Mongerel Nation... where he went to Frisia to buy a brown cow in old anglo saxon English... as a Northumbrian, myself, I understood every word said by the Frisian guy... he could've asked the same thing in Geordie or Scots and have been understood... ruclips.net/video/OeC1yAaWG34/видео.html
Ofcourse it matters if you are interested, why should it not..... If it didnt matter or was not of interest you wouldn't of been here talking about your own. History is just as important as the now and future. I just think as DNA reading gets better, then data that has already been taken and the DNA from digs from bone and tooth enamel will start to answer more questions. Jutes and Angles are no doubt related in the beggining but overtime they would of changed some what in a tribal way and with mixing with other surrounding nations..... As for the language, it was much better and closer to the continent that was relevent, its a shame that now is spoken a post 1066 bastard english. I also have Irish ancestry and i dont have an issue with it, i think Ireland should revert to there native language also, its what makes certaim groups individual
I think I am of a different opinion... I think you can be proud of where you've come from but the future is about going forward not trying to preserve a romantic image of a past. Culture and language evolves and when people try to make it static, it inevitably collapses... it is just delaying the inevitable. We can either embrace change or have it come about through violence.... but change will happen and it will be driven by technology. As for identity... how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us are two different things and it is how others perceive us that has the greatest impact upon our lives. It does not matter if you've got celtic genes and can claim to be part of the indigenous peoples of these isles... you will still get bullied at school for being ginger... you will still be at a disadvantage come the job interview... Whether your ancestors were Anglo-Saxon-Jute or Viking or Norman... your local dialect and the area of the country where you were born will have a greater impact on your job opportunities and how other people treat you.
rterral OK, ill check. But face of Britain is pretty careless with facts. Like saying celts are the original hunter gatherers. The celts were just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago or so. And the normans were majority french, not majority norman(danish), contrary to what this series claim. Alot of them were actually from Bretagne which would have worked to "reset" the genetic map of Britain in a smal way. So I do not know if any of the "facts" presented in this series are to be trusted. It is dishonest.
Agreed. I was less than impressed with this series, though I have to admit it's very difficult to find docs that get attention that aren't fluffed out with myths and very broad generalizations. Maybe they think it's just too much for the public to take. I'm not sure it's intentionally dishonest, but surely it takes people in if they have not done their homework. Try finding a medieval doc that doesn't scream at you that medieval people didn't wash or drink water in the first five minutes! Lol!
+Martin Andersson I don't recall the show saying the findings suggest Celts were the "original hunter gatherers", but rather the first identifiable group of them in Britain. Scientists believe Homo Sepiens (modern humans) first reached Europe an estimated 43,000 years ago, with the oldest remains in Britain dating to 33,000 years ago. Celtic as a culture originated IN Europe and the Iberian peninsula as early as 1200 BCE, so they couldn't be "just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago". Historically speaking, Normandy WAS Norman/northman= Danish territory. Rollo received the land from the Frankish king William, as payment to stop raiding. While the populace might have been Frankish, the rulers were Norman. Bretagne is a Celtic area any way, not Frankish. Breton being closely related to Cornish and Welsh. Therefore the mixing you describe, if anything, it would "reset" Britain back toward it's Celtic origins, not adding in any Frankish. There is an in depth project to examine the amount of Danish (or other Viking) genes running in Normandy, but the full results are to be released this year. A preliminary DNA study suggests Rollo WAS Danish, and surname studies suggest his men were Danish. The problem is you describe 'facts' in a history which are different from those accepted by accredited historians, and cite no sources for you're OPINION the series is "careless with facts". You call it dishonest, right after pointing out you "do not know" if the facts are to be trusted. If you don't know, why are you immediately deciding "dishonest"?
nevyen ”i don't recall the show saying the findings suggest Celts were the "original hunter gatherers", but rather the first identifiable group of them in Britain.” Watch the show again. I can not take responsibility for your deficiencies in perception. ”Celtic as a culture originated IN Europe and the Iberian peninsula as early as 1200 BCE, so they couldn't be "just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago”.” This is still debated. However, the main theory is that Britain was repopulated after the last iceage from the ”iberian population reserve”. This is probably what you are getting mixed up. The celtic languages are clearly indoeuropean. Hence Yamna. Hence pontic steppe. Describing Normandy as danish is a wordplay. Culturally the ruling danish elites did their utmost to become french. By the late ninehundereds they had stopped recording their deeds in skaldic poetry and turned to chronichlers. For example. And genetically their contribution to the normands was infintisimal. It just makes most sense to describe the normans as gallo-roman. Rather than these germanic elites. And calling the french ”franks” is not a good description, imho. The french language is not germanic at all. This is probably a good clue to how small the ”frankish” contribution is to the french population. The french are gallo-roman. ”Therefore the mixing you describe, if anything, it would "reset" Britain back toward it's Celtic origins, not adding in any Frankish.” Yes? My point exactly. Why are you repeating it? ”dishonest” refers to a historian that refers to the celts as ”the original hunter gatherer population of britain”. Which they were not.
I’ve been told my Father’s family hailed from Britain, but until I do the DNA test, I really have no clue. When my mother’s people, the Richardsons, came to the American colonies, they interbred with the natives and God know who else. At best, I’m an amalgamation of bad genetics.😆
Pathetic response. The only real story of the human species is migration. And with that migration, is the evolution of culture. Always changing. Always diverging and converging. Evolve of die.
-some of the people you interviewed wanted so bad to be of "Viking" heritage - as if this were something to be so proud of - not mentioned except briefly at the end of part 3 was exactly what the invaders actually did to the Celts, Picts and other indigenous peoples - they hunted down and killed the men then raped the women then abducted the women and children and took them back to Norway/ Sweden/Denmark and sold them into slavery - almost coyly, and prudishly, it was said in this program that the Viking men "married" the indigenous women - a hilarious assumption - I would guess there is absolutely no proof of these "marriages" at all...- not very scientific - speaking of science, how about investigating DNA Celtic heritage in Norway/Sweden/Denmark - i would bet you find it there - did the Celtic men go to N/S/D and "marry" the women there? of course not....it is there because of the assault, abduction and enslavement of Celtic peoples by the "heroic and virile" Vikings - whose sole intention was to go out into the world to steal and rob others...let's recognize the facts and understand the real story - i dont want to hear fairy tales....
In all this it shows a modern British concept of seeing identity/race as the the source of modern identity. its false. in fact the english people are the product of a protestant, very puritan, people group. these other groups, shown in the dna, had no influence on on identity. Its all moral, intellectual, cultural protestantism. i see the English as mostly german. They make the mistake of misunderstanding later migrations of 'celts" from the west, north, etc of the island. This upon a small german population. its not accurate to say its 50% celtic. in fact one could just as well say its 100 % celtic and 100% German. As a canadian I understyand there has been since wwii too much immigration especially from very uneuropean peoples. its entirely the moral right of English, Scots in Scotland etc, to decide who comes in. not even non english citizens. I believe they would vote NO MORE IMMIGRANTS if they could.
Matthew McVeagh Hey Matt, hope you're ok. I was smiling at your exchange with Wong, as I read this thread. Wong's kind of comment is one of the things I really like about RUclips. Haha, it can be vicious, true, but, if you roll with it sometimes, it can be good fun, as long as you don't let it offend you. Give it a whirl sometime. Anyway, the Normans, were Danish Vikings who moved to Normandy, some centuries before the 1066 invasion. I'm not sure if remember reading some time ago, that they were given that land by a Frankish King (Charlemagne?) as a way of buying them off, so as to bring an end to them raiding his Kingdom (I don't know how accurate my memory is there). Their Danish heritage is mentioned in the program, some where in the last fifteen minutes, or so. If you weren't such a moron, with cloth-ears, you'd have heard Neil tell you in the narration. (Hope you get my little joke there ;-)
NOISEDEPT Heh thanks. I'm not sure but this may be the same video on which there were other discussions which also went into this. Some other people who know more about it than me - British, French and Scandinavian - went into some detail and my opinion is changed a bit. Maybe there was more Danish/Norse immigration than we might otherwise think, for instance it wasn't just the original invaders but also subsequent waves of Vikings. Also originally they only conquered one bit (Basse Normandy at the mouth of the Seine) and the rest of Normandy they grabbed later without consent of the King. There was also discussion of how much they would have mixed with the French population by the time of 1066.
The main purpose of The Domesday Book was money!! It was essentially an assessment of the land, and the value of its products of William’s new kingdom. It was a tax book, basically. And a wealth of info can be found within.
The Doomsday Book was commissioned by William The Conquerer to determine the wealth of his new English kingdom. Listed within are estates, livestock, crops, buildings, etc. Everything you needed to know about what was in England at that time. A genetic version is basically another census told through DNA over counting sheep.
@Blake.... I Like Hedgehogs.... Is there such thing a pure English like 100% English as far as back as you trace all the way back too the Anglo Saxons is it possible there is was Anglo Saxons who have didn't have children with the Celts did the Anglo Saxons bring their own women with them was there any Anglo Saxons who had children with their own women.
+francisco “prazzio225” prazzio well that wouldn't make them 100% "pure" English would it? The Anglo Saxons had to arrive - they weren't from here. If you had asked if there were Celts who didn't have children with Anglo Saxons, that would have made more sense. But it is completely irrelevant because even if they brought their own women and had children with only them, over the centuries those children would have married others...
@@joannechisholm4501 what exactly is 98% british. Stock. Celtic tribes originally come from the European content. Along with the germanic tribes. I personally dont think there is a difference. Same peoples with different cultures
Love Oliver's brough.This trio let me down, though. Trying to make his 'customers' feel ggod rather than providing DNA based evidence supporting theories of prehistoric migration with solid ststistical inferences. Not a waste of time, but a little let down in yhe end.
Neil Oliver uses the term "Celt" in a way that is is not supported by current ethno-archaeology. There is no Celtic genetic race as such, as he well knows. Celtic is a linguistic/cultural designation, which cannot be applied to Neolithic populations in Britain. It's true that there are strong genetic remnants of the pre-Anglo Saxon population, but to call them Celts is fairly random. They later spoke Celtic language and used decorative styles termed Celtic, but if you inquire into the origin of the term, it doesn't mean much. Indigenous is more like what they were/are.
The thing I like best about this program is that we can turn around to UKIP supporters and ask if they've got any ginger in their family... if the answer is no, then they're not part of the indigenous population that they keep harping on about.
Nymeria Meliae Even going back to the roots of my Morrison Clan in the medieval times, we were a mix of Picts, Gaels, and Norse; thus I have found this a great argument against xenophobes of all types.
Nymeria Meliae Where does UKIP want a ban on immigration? They want Australian and Canadian points systems and 50,000 immigrants per year. You do realise that being against the EU and Britain taking in 400,000 per year doesn't mean you want zero immigration. Grow up.
Kingslea Hearne Ukip supporters, like most English have immigrate roots. Their blaming the people at the bottom for the problems, is terribly misplaced as the problem is the welfare handouts and tax cuts for the rich that squeeze the middle classes. Such xenophobia is more than misdirected, it is dangerous.
Chris Gilmore Chris, one can play the "immigration" game from the first homo sapiens onwards. Again, the UK is undergoing a massive wave of immigration on a scale not witnessed in over a thousand years. UKIP has never suggested halting all immigration. Do you consider Australia and Canada "xenophobic"? That's what UKIP envisions. Again, wanting to place moderation and slow down letting in almost a half million individuals per year does not equate with 0 immigration. And seeing as UKIP wants out of the EU, it's quite clear they see the system as the problem, not the people. If you want to concern yourself over xenophobia in the UK, I'd look to Scotland and the dangerous nationalism that has taken hold there to the point English are being targeted by SNP mobs.
Kingslea Hearne Much of the immigration has been the result of the Empire of Britannia and it's aftermath, if England does not want immigrates, then it need to stop interfering in other countries affairs, Iraq, being the latest. The immigrates follow the Empire.
I'm sorry for laughing but all the faces the facial mapping expert put together looked virtually the same, from the south West to south East to the east up north Jordie land and Orkney to the Midlands no change out of the last 10,000 yrs even with Asians, Africans, Vikings, Germans, and Normans thrown into the mix lol. Oh yes don't forget 2% Neanderthal
Isn't it funny how people really pushed that view in the media, until word leaked out that it wasn't true? It's certainly racist, claiming that all other people evolved, while leaving Africans behind.
An amazing, beautiful story of survival of John Richardson, their ancestor. Thank you for this wonderful piece of history.
As a Flett in North America, I find this very thought provoking… my father and family came in the late 1920s from Findochty
Truth be told, I don't overly care what genetics say about my line. Be it Anglo Saxon, Norseman, Dane, or true Celt. I am proud in knowing that I am of Scottish descent. This is who I am, this is where I am from, these are the people that breathed life into me. DUAN ALBANACH! Kudos for the study and the tremendous amount of work being done through this study. Thank you for the truth of the Last Stand.
So, looking at the big picture, can we say that it has taken 10k years to dilute Celtic blood by 50%?
yes but the Britons are still here
@@joannechisholm4501 not for long....
This was a very interesting three part series. As a direct descendant of William Bradford, I can trace my family tree to Conyers, Georgia. Our DNA is mostly English from the Bristol area. There is thirteen percent Celtic, and some German and French but 70 percent is from the area below London. The narrator looks the world like my father.
He, Neil Oliver, actually came to Georgia and did a piece about the klan and the Knights. He was horrified that the roots of their bigotry began in Scotland.
We have always referred to the Scotch Irish that live in the Appalachian mountains.
As an aside, there is nothing quite as beautiful as hearing a quaint mountain man quote the good King James from memory. They take on an accent that is definitely from the old country. Very beautiful.
Real interesting, Neil always does a fabulous job.
He sure does that man knows how to pack a punch
Would be interesting to look at US genetics, especially in rural areas, they were mostly of British, Scotish, Irish stock.
I am 8th generation American. According to the DNA company, I genetically more English, than the typical modern English born person. I know my genealogy, and that is accurate based on surnames alone.
Deb Carsey my family is from North Carolina. My DNA was British and Irish with some Scandinavian.
Rural upper Midwest is almost certainly almost exclusively German and Scandinavian, soooooo...
The genetic makeup of rural North America varies largely based on the region however there is a VERY strong genetic component of Franco, Germanic and Eastern European peoples throughout that cannot be denied. The British aspects are perhaps easier to see and understand because the British Empire owned and hoarded North American colonies longer than any other European Nation. Additionally at the time that Canada and the US were settling people on land, Ireland and Scotland were both being heavily subjugated by England. Scotland had just fought and lost Culloden, clans language and culture were banned, and Ireland was seeing the introduction of Protestant Rule and the "Union" with Great Britain. So many of the Irish and Scottish peoples who left or were forced out wanted to retain as much of there cultural identity as possible. I will also briefly mention here that heavy discrimination towards the Irish and Scottish but especially the Irish meant they could only settle in certain areas. Which has resulted in some areas having seemingly stronger Irish presence. Sorry for the paragraph, I'm a historian and genealogist with a focus in Social History. I also happen to be descended from German and Scotch peoples that settled in rural Canada, so I unfortunately have too much insight on this one.
@@gillyhuxbaugh sorry to be pedantic, but you shouldn't refer to them as scotch. Scotch is a drink. Scots are a people.
King Bridei III, King of the Picts, campaigned against the Orcadian sub-kingdom in 682, a campaign so violent that the Annals of Ulster said that the Orkney Islands were "destroyed" by Bridei ("Orcades deletae sunt la Bruide"). - the place was well battered before the Vikings moved in - 25% of the pop killed by Bridei, how many died after seems to have been forgotten/lost
Great program! But big question: How can we know that the Vikings “took the women” by force? Isn’t it possible the relationships were also mutual?
With a last name being "Douglas" and a nickname "Runt" I'd be devastated if I wasn't a Celt!
Normans were not only of Germanic origin (either Dane, Frankish or even Saxon) but also Gauls (so Celtic or celtized pre-indo europeans).
This is what I thought. In fact they were more of that ancestry than Viking.
Matthew McVeagh
I'd say above all Frankish and Gaul, at least the people. The elites were probably above all Viking.
Almansur8 Franks were a Germanic tribe themselves, which was where much of Norman intermixing arose. I'd classy Normans as predominately Germanic.
Kingslea Hearne
That is what I said. Franks, Saxons and Scandinavians, so yes mostly Germanic, despite the Gaulish roots.
Kingslea Hearne The Franks were a minority elite when they invaded northern Gaul, as the Germanic tribes mostly were when they invaded parts of the Roman empire. The male genes would have been spread quite widely, including to lower social levels due to illegitimate children, but mostly the lower levels would have remained Romano-Gaulish. The Romans themselves were an invading minority elite so in their time the lower levels would have remained Gaulish, and of course the Gauls would have been an invading minority elite when the Celts expanded into France; the majority of the lower orders would have remained the previous Bronze Age people. Etc. etc. etc. There were at least two migrations before the Bronze Age, the Neolithic and Paleolithic; in the case of the Paleolithic they may not have been invading anybody, altho different archaeological cultures in southern France like the Solutrean and Mousterian go right back into the Ice Age.
Would be interesting to do similar studies in parts of Russia and Ukraine. I wonder how much Norse viking dna can be found around Novgorod and Kiev.
If we stop calling them "Vikings," and call then "Danes and Norwegians," we'd have a better understanding of who people are. "Viking" was a short time period, and referred to the raiding parties. All those men on Viking longships had brothers at home, who were not Vikings, and would have laughed at anyone today who calls them Vikings.
42:27 - a profound statement no politician will ever repeat.
There are several in the US who are mostly of British descent. I am one of those. I would love to see more studies done on our population. I would be thrilled to take part in a study such as this.
Since my mom was Welsh, Scottish & maybe Irish & my dad Danish, it sounds like my origins would go back to Denmark, one way or the other!
Interesting to note this was made in 2006!
The last 15 mins is heartbreaking
I want to know what the genetic component is for mainland Scotland and really wish there was more about Scotland -- beyond Orkney.
yes From the Native Brythonic speaking Britons.
My ancestors were mostly English with some Irish and a dash of Swedish but at the end of the day, I consider myself to be Canadian because that is were I was born and raised.
where can I have my DNA tested. I'm RH -...and family date back to Forfar, Angus in 1750s
I also share the Clan MacGregor/ King Grig of 870s..wondering if I have Pict DNA
So I’m curious to why there wasn’t any Italian genetics from the romans being there for over 300 years
The thing about invasions there always just a smash and grab and most are just a small elite that takes over the rest to torment them
Right. Most Romans were soldiers from al other parts of the Empire who were just stationed there for a tour and never intermarried. In fact, legionnaires were forbidden from marrying. When the Romans left in the 400s, they really left.
The Roman invasion of Britain wasn't just made up of Italians; they would take people from North Africa, Spain or anywhere!
@@jimbob9876 The modern Italians are not the same people as the Romans. Similarly for the Greeks. They are mostly ethnic Albanian. or Macedonian. The area has has a turbulent and violent history.
I have the Norse DNA from Iceland and Norway. The rest is Devon, Cornwall and Welsh Celtic blood
Next, where exactly do the Celts come from?
I heard about a study done of the DNA in Hungary, and only 1% was of Magyar descent. I think that's often the case, when new populations arrive and take over, they often just take over the upper echelons of power rather than displacing (or worse yet killing) the inhabitants. I'm frankly surprised there is as much Angle, Saxon, Jute, and Viking DNA as there is in Britain.
A nice little example from Estonia. Whereas there are more dark-complexioned and dark-haired people on the islands than on the mainland, recent studies have shown that in South Estonia also there are areas where there are more dark-looking people than on the average. And, these areas turned out to match very nicely with the locations where Polish garrisons were located back when South Estonia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (c. 1560-1629). Haha.
I wonder whether Estonians have been largely blond from ancient times or whether it began when the Swedes took over.
Matthew McVeagh No, Estonians have been largely blond from ancient times. The geneticists have pointed out, however that, whereas nowadays more than 90% of Estonians still have blue eyes, the traditional blond hair is more and more substituted by shades of light brown such as caramel or "potato peel", i.e. light brown with a shade of grey. Yours truly happens to have "potato peel" hair and brownish-green eyes, but she is not a good example anyway, since her paternal lineage is an awful mess of Polish, Jewish and possibly Greek influences involved.
Matthew McVeagh Estonians belong to the Finno-Ugric group which has a blond strand in the Finnish and Estonian populations which stands out in comparison to the Sami people and other Finno-Ugric groups further east. It's uncertain why, but it has been around for much longer than contact with the population in Scandinavia has lasted. The Finns are actually more commonly fair skinned, blond and blue eyed than the Germanic related part of Scandinavia.
Efva Nyberg It's obvious that language-groups only partly coincide with genetic inheritance groups. I've heard that blondism began in the Baltic area and only spread to Scandinavia, Finland, Germany, Poland and Russia by migration. Various invading peoples like Germanics or Finnics could have taken over certain areas, some with strong blondism and others with browner hair, and imposed their language and hence ethnic identity while not contributing so much to the genes. Then you end up with different Finnic and Germanic speaking populations some of which are blonder and some of which are darker.
I've been all over Europe & the U.K., including two trips to Stockholm, Sweden in the 1980s. I was recently looking at several pictures that I took of Swedes during those trips and most of them had a hair color that I would describe as blondish-red (more red than blond). People generally associate red or "ginger" hair color with the Celts, so this was surprising to me. It seems like I saw more blonds in Copenhagen, Denmark. (I include mostly males in this, since it is very common for females to color their hair)
I live in Stockholm and you're are right and that goes for the Norwegians as well. If you instead go to southern Sweden, the region of Skåne for instance, that is closer to Denmark. There you will find more of that almost white blond haired people.
"So let's look at some Vitalstatistix." Heheheh. Got that pun.
The new face of Britain makes me really sad....
Yes, it's time for the European holiday to end. Time to send them all home. Look at the size of Britain, compared to the size of Africa or the Middle East. Buh-bye!
@@rubynibs The Mercator map makes Northern Europe look far larger than it actually is. Africa looks a fraction of it's real size so the inhabitants think that there is plenty of room for them in Europe. Sadly there isn't and with the best will in the world there will come a time where the door will have to be closed. It's not racist, just a stark reality.
@@rubynibs pure racist you
@@isaactrio Stop with your racist attacks.
Found this fascinating. Learned a lot more about the spread of the DNA. We're all pretty much a good, strong blend of the same thing. The Celts were on the mainland and then came over to the islands. So you're bound to have some Celtic DNA. coming from the mainland mixed with the Norman or dramatic, although my understanding is, the gauls, were the Germanic peoples. I get so confused. I mean, I'm not a student of the tribes in Europe, so it gets a little confusing.
A sad future for Britain, without any hesitation in saying.
The Austrians face the same detriment.
No research in Cumbria?
For a series that's called 'the face' of britain, there are very few actual british faces - lots of maps and the face of oliver, but not enough actual faces
What about the rest of Scotland?
JodaJK XD Actually, western and northern Scotland was a mainly a mixture of Celts and Vikings. But, I was hoping they would talk about that on this documentary.
Anglo Saxons actually settled in South East Scotland. The Lothians were part of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria. The Scots language originates from the Old English speaking settlers. The rest of Scotland was Celtic with some Viking influence on the islands and coasts.
That's true Joda. The Romans built a wall to border Scotland off due to the Picts. Roman never went north into Scotland.
JodaJK yes That's true my Gear great grandmother was from Ayrshire and her husband was from London. So half Celt half Anglo Saxon.
There was (Native British) Brythonic Kingdoms in both Scotland and England Elment, in Yorkshire Stryclide in Scotland Goddoin in Scotland Cumbria all British Kingdoms. They are always fighting with the Angles and yes they did not speak Gaelic that was part of the Dal rada from Ireland. That came much later. They spoke a Cumbric Brythonic spoken through out Briton yes eve the Picts spoke it. Its called Welsh mow.
Native British Haplo group in R1bL21 Germanic is R1bS21 Native is still the most.
I have got blonde hair but my grandad has ginger hair
The same with me to?
Enthralling Neil!!
Seems everybody here is a freakin historian. It's about blood, not culture and borders. Thus original peoples became Celts, imported culture. But the pool of Angles/Saxons/Jutes showed up in 3 waves under different banners and did oust the Celts. Thus the indistinguishable Anglo-Saxon blood signature across England.
There are a lot more Brythonic speaking Celtic Britons in England that Anglo Saxon. At the time of the Roman Empire leaving there was about 2 million Ramo-Britons Alive there was a few thousand Angles Saxon Jutes. Out did them 3-1 no problem.
But the newly arrived immigrants do not mix with those who are here already. They remain within their own cultural groups. They are not making a new British population. The whole of this series stamps firmly that the population of Great Britain originated from and is still predominantly from mainland Europe as far back as the end of the last ice age. In recent history two Continens were overtaken by European culture North America and South America. The Spanish did not emigrate to South America like the British and French did to North America. There is still a strong native presence in South America although their native culture was almost totally obliterated. The Native Americans as a population hardly exist and their culture as we see it today appears manufactured and contrived. Great Britain maintains it's cultural heritage despite the attempts of Globalists to deny we are anything special "we are all the same" tell that the the descendants of the Iceni !
I'm American so I'm probably Celt and Anglo-Saxion. Plus, I'm Cherokee!
Kelly Jones Your surname is Welsh.
+Kelly Jones I'm British so I'm probably Celt and Anglo Saxon Plus I'm Filipino.
+Kelly Jones Appalachian?
I've done a DNA test since posting this, and I'm not Cherokee at all. I'm 50% British (that includes England, southern Scotland, and Wales), 20% Irish, 10% Western European, 6% Eastern European, and other smaller trace amounts of other European cultures. All-in-all, I'm 96% European.
My ancestors were both Anglo Saxons and Brythonic Celts spoke Brythonic here this is what is sounds like before the Invaders came to Briton. Native Laguage of the Uk
I wonder if there would be any trace of any Celt genes in my DNA. Lineage has been traced to Ireland, Scotland, England; being an American for at least 4 generations, what would appear in testing of my current family? (Side note: I wonder how expensive the testing is, for those who are curious?)
incubusbaby Ancestry.com and sites like it offer a basic genetic test for $100. I would look into it, if you are interested. And just based on what you said, it seems likely you would have Celtic genes.
I used 23andme.com for my test
Yes you be a full Celt I can grantee it.
so oxford represents the rest of Britain ?
As much as I do like to research into genetics and find it interesting, I often wonder if there is some kind of an agenda going on with these genetic tests though. Welcome Trust tested over 4'000 people and the project is still on going. What about other areas that "were" tested by Welcome Trust, such as parts of Scotland and other regions of Wales. Ireland was tested too.
And red headed Celts who migrated 10'000 yrs ago. There were no such thing as Celts then, or Celtic languages. And all the first settlers had red hair ? wouldn't of thought so.
And who were the people that according to to finished papers who arrived "anciently" in Britain and Ireland by boat from France.
And yet some geneticists claim that the paternal R1b named as the Celtic haplogroup is more Neolithic than Paleolithic.
I agree. who has rights to all of that genetic information?
Yeah genetic tests can to be open to different interpretations to.
Some of these tests are being used for medical information, and sometimes racial issues.
Genetic tests seem to be the new history :)
Anglo Saxon, Anglo Norman and Celtic , and Greek !
Research and family history, it's not tat hard to figure out.
*that
DNA sorted with "Windex"!!!!!
No I did my Genealogy, basic !
I have a long line of Ancestors I have researched ... European and Greek.
Its wrong to put as Danish being the same as Anglo-Saxon. They have created a bit of a misconception. Danes were already distinct. Even in the text a of Beowulf Danes are metioned at a time when the Anglo-Saxon subculture in Britain didn't yet exsist. What they fail to get across is that they (scientists) just can't work how how to make the difference in DNA.
Also was the history of the Jutes? Have there complete cultural and Kingdok of Kent been written out of history and given to Angles and Saxons?
I agree.
ChlopskiStyl It's not at all a question of being unable to 'make' a difference. It has been clearly explained that *genetically* there *is* no difference between the people who called themselves Danes and the Anglo Saxons. They aren't talking about any distinction based on culture or how a people perceive themselves or what they call themselves; they are talking about genetic identity.
There is therefore, no difference to be found. It's not a scientific failing.
Also a couple of points: Anglo Saxon wasn't a 'sub-culture' and Beowulf was written in Old English by Anglo Saxons. Saxons arrived in Britain around the beginning of the fifth century. Beowulf was written, in Britain around the eighth century (maybe a bit later)
ChlopskiStyl Culture and language is not static, it is constantly changing and evolving. So if one group of people leave Denmark around 500AD... and then another group arrive 300 years later, then there is every chance that the culture and language has evolved slightly different over that period of time.
I am fortunate in that I know that my ancestors come from a Viking settlement... and this is reflected in my family name which is also of Danish Viking origin... so I know that a lot of the AS genes in my genetic make up will be Danish Viking. I have no doubt that some of them will be AS too because my grandmother's maiden surname is a traditional Angle name... and my other grandmother's maiden surname is a norman surname. On top of this I have both Irish and Scottish ancestry and the ginger gene is quite prominent in my family and is very strong... for example my spouse is Japanese but my daughter is ginger and fair skin.
All of this is very interesting stuff but it is really only useful for defending against the racist ideas of many UKIP supporters who lack the ginger gene :)
Personally, I am proud of my ancestry, I like the idea that some of my relatives arrived in the country with Ragnor's sons... and I am proud that I am a child of the mist from my mother's maiden name... and I am proud that my grandmother's relatives were border reivers... and I am proud that my family have a mining tradition that placed them at the forefront of some the most important events of the industrial revolution (there is a 90% chance that my great whatever grandfather either rode on the puffing billy or tried to sabotage it to protect jobs)... It has an element of historical romanticism to it all... but it does not have that great an impact on my modern day identity. My modern identity is largely decided by how other people perceive me... not on my own personal background. So does knowing you are Danish Viking or Anglo Saxon or Norman really matter that much?
As for the Jutes... the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes all came from the Danish peninsular... the Jutes from the northern tip, the angles from the middle, and the saxons from the south. Instead of thinking about them as separate peoples, think of them like Geordies, Northumbrians, and Maccems.
As for Frisia... Eddie Izzard did a documentary called Mongerel Nation... where he went to Frisia to buy a brown cow in old anglo saxon English... as a Northumbrian, myself, I understood every word said by the Frisian guy... he could've asked the same thing in Geordie or Scots and have been understood... ruclips.net/video/OeC1yAaWG34/видео.html
Ofcourse it matters if you are interested, why should it not..... If it didnt matter or was not of interest you wouldn't of been here talking about your own. History is just as important as the now and future. I just think as DNA reading gets better, then data that has already been taken and the DNA from digs from bone and tooth enamel will start to answer more questions.
Jutes and Angles are no doubt related in the beggining but overtime they would of changed some what in a tribal way and with mixing with other surrounding nations..... As for the language, it was much better and closer to the continent that was relevent, its a shame that now is spoken a post 1066 bastard english.
I also have Irish ancestry and i dont have an issue with it, i think Ireland should revert to there native language also, its what makes certaim groups individual
I think I am of a different opinion... I think you can be proud of where you've come from but the future is about going forward not trying to preserve a romantic image of a past. Culture and language evolves and when people try to make it static, it inevitably collapses... it is just delaying the inevitable.
We can either embrace change or have it come about through violence.... but change will happen and it will be driven by technology.
As for identity... how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us are two different things and it is how others perceive us that has the greatest impact upon our lives. It does not matter if you've got celtic genes and can claim to be part of the indigenous peoples of these isles... you will still get bullied at school for being ginger... you will still be at a disadvantage come the job interview...
Whether your ancestors were Anglo-Saxon-Jute or Viking or Norman... your local dialect and the area of the country where you were born will have a greater impact on your job opportunities and how other people treat you.
I wonder how much germanic DNA has wormed its way into Neil Oliver? Bet he would hate to find out :D
+Martin Andersson He did find out. Check the episode prior to this one.
rterral OK, ill check. But face of Britain is pretty careless with facts. Like saying celts are the original hunter gatherers. The celts were just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago or so.
And the normans were majority french, not majority norman(danish), contrary to what this series claim. Alot of them were actually from Bretagne which would have worked to "reset" the genetic map of Britain in a smal way.
So I do not know if any of the "facts" presented in this series are to be trusted. It is dishonest.
Agreed. I was less than impressed with this series, though I have to admit it's very difficult to find docs that get attention that aren't fluffed out with myths and very broad generalizations. Maybe they think it's just too much for the public to take. I'm not sure it's intentionally dishonest, but surely it takes people in if they have not done their homework. Try finding a medieval doc that doesn't scream at you that medieval people didn't wash or drink water in the first five minutes! Lol!
+Martin Andersson I don't recall the show saying the findings suggest Celts were the "original hunter gatherers", but rather the first identifiable group of them in Britain. Scientists believe Homo Sepiens (modern humans) first reached Europe an estimated 43,000 years ago, with the oldest remains in Britain dating to 33,000 years ago. Celtic as a culture originated IN Europe and the Iberian peninsula as early as 1200 BCE, so they couldn't be "just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago". Historically speaking, Normandy WAS Norman/northman= Danish territory. Rollo received the land from the Frankish king William, as payment to stop raiding. While the populace might have been Frankish, the rulers were Norman. Bretagne is a Celtic area any way, not Frankish. Breton being closely related to Cornish and Welsh. Therefore the mixing you describe, if anything, it would "reset" Britain back toward it's Celtic origins, not adding in any Frankish. There is an in depth project to examine the amount of Danish (or other Viking) genes running in Normandy, but the full results are to be released this year. A preliminary DNA study suggests Rollo WAS Danish, and surname studies suggest his men were Danish. The problem is you describe 'facts' in a history which are different from those accepted by accredited historians, and cite no sources for you're OPINION the series is "careless with facts". You call it dishonest, right after pointing out you "do not know" if the facts are to be trusted. If you don't know, why are you immediately deciding "dishonest"?
nevyen
”i don't recall the show saying the findings suggest Celts were the "original hunter gatherers", but rather the first identifiable group of them in Britain.”
Watch the show again. I can not take responsibility for your deficiencies in perception.
”Celtic as a culture originated IN Europe and the Iberian peninsula as early as 1200 BCE, so they couldn't be "just another indo european tribe invading europe 4-5k years ago”.”
This is still debated. However, the main theory is that Britain was repopulated after the last iceage from the ”iberian population reserve”. This is probably what you are getting mixed up. The celtic languages are clearly indoeuropean. Hence Yamna. Hence pontic steppe.
Describing Normandy as danish is a wordplay. Culturally the ruling danish elites did their utmost to become french. By the late ninehundereds they had stopped recording their deeds in skaldic poetry and turned to chronichlers. For example. And genetically their contribution to the normands was infintisimal. It just makes most sense to describe the normans as gallo-roman. Rather than these germanic elites. And calling the french ”franks” is not a good description, imho. The french language is not germanic at all. This is probably a good clue to how small the ”frankish” contribution is to the french population. The french are gallo-roman.
”Therefore the mixing you describe, if anything, it would "reset" Britain back toward it's Celtic origins, not adding in any Frankish.”
Yes? My point exactly. Why are you repeating it?
”dishonest” refers to a historian that refers to the celts as ”the original hunter gatherer population of britain”. Which they were not.
The Picts were matralinial
Im a Pics
The new Face of Britain looks less open, kind and happy than the earlier composites he showed.
I’ve been told my Father’s family hailed from Britain, but until I do the DNA test, I really have no clue. When my mother’s people, the Richardsons, came to the American colonies, they interbred with the natives and God know who else. At best, I’m an amalgamation of bad genetics.😆
A very sad end to a great documentary. Europe for Europeans.
He needed to get it aired and funded lol, got to keep with the 'diversity' agenda or big brother ends your career.
@ eat shit
CraigSpannier aww little baby can't handle the truth lol
@ lmao
Pathetic response. The only real story of the human species is migration. And with that migration, is the evolution of culture. Always changing. Always diverging and converging. Evolve of die.
Excellent information, but very poor CC interpretation.
-some of the people you interviewed wanted so bad to be of "Viking" heritage - as if this were something to be so proud of - not mentioned except briefly at the end of part 3 was exactly what the invaders actually did to the Celts, Picts and other indigenous peoples - they hunted down and killed the men then raped the women then abducted the women and children and took them back to Norway/ Sweden/Denmark and sold them into slavery - almost coyly, and prudishly, it was said in this program that the Viking men "married" the indigenous women - a hilarious assumption - I would guess there is absolutely no proof of these "marriages" at all...- not very scientific - speaking of science, how about investigating DNA Celtic heritage in Norway/Sweden/Denmark - i would bet you find it there - did the Celtic men go to N/S/D and "marry" the women there? of course not....it is there because of the assault, abduction and enslavement of Celtic peoples by the "heroic and virile" Vikings - whose sole intention was to go out into the world to steal and rob others...let's recognize the facts and understand the real story - i dont want to hear fairy tales....
Not all of them did this.
In all this it shows a modern British concept of seeing identity/race as the the source of modern identity. its false.
in fact the english people are the product of a protestant, very puritan, people group. these other groups, shown in the dna, had no influence on on identity.
Its all moral, intellectual, cultural protestantism.
i see the English as mostly german. They make the mistake of misunderstanding later migrations of 'celts" from the west, north, etc of the island. This upon a small german population. its not accurate to say its 50% celtic. in fact one could just as well say its 100 % celtic and 100% German.
As a canadian I understyand there has been since wwii too much immigration especially from very uneuropean peoples.
its entirely the moral right of English, Scots in Scotland etc, to decide who comes in. not even non english citizens.
I believe they would vote NO MORE IMMIGRANTS if they could.
oysters are molluscs, not crustaceans
the missing Linc New Zealand, plus the worlds oldest companies are in Korea & Japan
Load more assumptions and stuff. The Normans would have been more French than Viking, for instance.
Which is made clear.
wong Where in the doc?
Matthew McVeagh Are you proud of being stupid? Just watch and listen to what's said.
Matthew McVeagh
Hey Matt, hope you're ok. I was smiling at your exchange with Wong, as I read this thread. Wong's kind of comment is one of the things I really like about RUclips. Haha, it can be vicious, true, but, if you roll with it sometimes, it can be good fun, as long as you don't let it offend you. Give it a whirl sometime.
Anyway, the Normans, were Danish Vikings who moved to Normandy, some centuries before the 1066 invasion. I'm not sure if remember reading some time ago, that they were given that land by a Frankish King (Charlemagne?) as a way of buying them off, so as to bring an end to them raiding his Kingdom (I don't know how accurate my memory is there).
Their Danish heritage is mentioned in the program, some where in the last fifteen minutes, or so.
If you weren't such a moron, with cloth-ears, you'd have heard Neil tell you in the narration. (Hope you get my little joke there ;-)
NOISEDEPT Heh thanks. I'm not sure but this may be the same video on which there were other discussions which also went into this. Some other people who know more about it than me - British, French and Scandinavian - went into some detail and my opinion is changed a bit. Maybe there was more Danish/Norse immigration than we might otherwise think, for instance it wasn't just the original invaders but also subsequent waves of Vikings. Also originally they only conquered one bit (Basse Normandy at the mouth of the Seine) and the rest of Normandy they grabbed later without consent of the King. There was also discussion of how much they would have mixed with the French population by the time of 1066.
And what about the Romans and their ancestors ?
sedecim to modern, this is going back 10,000
none
A happy future for Britain and Canada true global villages for human
This is Brythonic spoken.
ruclips.net/video/8txwzypTiA4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8txwzypTiA4/видео.html
"..a genetic doomsday book.." Really Ian. Can you be more specific about this ?
The doomsday book was basically a census taken in the middle ages, that named people, social status, occupation, lineages, etc
The main purpose of The Domesday Book was money!! It was essentially an assessment of the land, and the value of its products of William’s new kingdom. It was a tax book, basically. And a wealth of info can be found within.
The Doomsday Book was commissioned by William The Conquerer to determine the wealth of his new English kingdom. Listed within are estates, livestock, crops, buildings, etc. Everything you needed to know about what was in England at that time.
A genetic version is basically another census told through DNA over counting sheep.
@Blake.... I Like Hedgehogs.... Is there such thing a pure English like 100% English as far as back as you trace all the way back too the Anglo Saxons is it possible there is was Anglo Saxons who have didn't have children with the Celts did the Anglo Saxons bring their own women with them was there any Anglo Saxons who had children with their own women.
+francisco “prazzio225” prazzio well that wouldn't make them 100% "pure" English would it? The Anglo Saxons had to arrive - they weren't from here. If you had asked if there were Celts who didn't have children with Anglo Saxons, that would have made more sense. But it is completely irrelevant because even if they brought their own women and had children with only them, over the centuries those children would have married others...
They did bonk the Celts those Angl Saxon the only migrants that did integrate the rest Romans Normans didnt.
@@leighjordine4031 I have seen 98% Pure British stock on DNA tests
They got a date when these 2 groups mixed was 858 so no they were seprate.
@@joannechisholm4501 what exactly is 98% british. Stock. Celtic tribes originally come from the European content. Along with the germanic tribes. I personally dont think there is a difference. Same peoples with different cultures
Love Oliver's brough.This trio let me down, though. Trying to make his 'customers' feel ggod rather than providing DNA based evidence supporting theories of prehistoric migration with solid ststistical inferences. Not a waste of time, but a little let down in yhe end.
Neil Oliver uses the term "Celt" in a way that is is not supported by current ethno-archaeology. There is no Celtic genetic race as such, as he well knows. Celtic is a linguistic/cultural designation, which cannot be applied to Neolithic populations in Britain. It's true that there are strong genetic remnants of the pre-Anglo Saxon population, but to call them Celts is fairly random. They later spoke Celtic language and used decorative styles termed Celtic, but if you inquire into the origin of the term, it doesn't mean much. Indigenous is more like what they were/are.
The thing I like best about this program is that we can turn around to UKIP supporters and ask if they've got any ginger in their family... if the answer is no, then they're not part of the indigenous population that they keep harping on about.
Nymeria Meliae Even going back to the roots of my Morrison Clan in the medieval times, we were a mix of Picts, Gaels, and Norse; thus I have found this a great argument against xenophobes of all types.
Nymeria Meliae Where does UKIP want a ban on immigration? They want Australian and Canadian points systems and 50,000 immigrants per year. You do realise that being against the EU and Britain taking in 400,000 per year doesn't mean you want zero immigration. Grow up.
Kingslea Hearne Ukip supporters, like most English have immigrate roots. Their blaming the people at the bottom for the problems, is terribly misplaced as the problem is the welfare handouts and tax cuts for the rich that squeeze the middle classes. Such xenophobia is more than misdirected, it is dangerous.
Chris Gilmore Chris, one can play the "immigration" game from the first homo sapiens onwards. Again, the UK is undergoing a massive wave of immigration on a scale not witnessed in over a thousand years. UKIP has never suggested halting all immigration. Do you consider Australia and Canada "xenophobic"? That's what UKIP envisions. Again, wanting to place moderation and slow down letting in almost a half million individuals per year does not equate with 0 immigration. And seeing as UKIP wants out of the EU, it's quite clear they see the system as the problem, not the people. If you want to concern yourself over xenophobia in the UK, I'd look to Scotland and the dangerous nationalism that has taken hold there to the point English are being targeted by SNP mobs.
Kingslea Hearne Much of the immigration has been the result of the Empire of Britannia and it's aftermath, if England does not want immigrates, then it need to stop interfering in other countries affairs, Iraq, being the latest. The immigrates follow the Empire.
the composite model of the future Britain is awful. he couldn't help to have a sop to the multicult
just not comprehensive enough.
I'm sorry for laughing but all the faces the facial mapping expert put together looked virtually the same, from the south West to south East to the east up north Jordie land and Orkney to the Midlands no change out of the last 10,000 yrs even with Asians, Africans, Vikings, Germans, and Normans thrown into the mix lol. Oh yes don't forget 2% Neanderthal
And going far back enough everyone came from Africa
Isn't it funny how people really pushed that view in the media, until word leaked out that it wasn't true? It's certainly racist, claiming that all other people evolved, while leaving Africans behind.
Meet Mohammed and Nasreen 45:28