Native Europeans; was: Re: Gerry!

Torsten wrote

> Inasmuch as 'Celtic ancestry' makes sense genetically. The Celts
> were conquerors themselves and came from elsewhere. I suggested the
> Jutes were once Celtic (or similar) speaking, Tacitus says the
> Aestii on the coast of the Baltic spoke a language similar to that
> of Britain, and a logical conclusion of that would seem to be that
> the area between West Jutland and the Rhineland, where both banks
> show the same archaeology just before Caesar mentions the Germani
> for the first time in history, was Celtic-speaking too. But some
> have suggested a Nordwestblock language in that area.

Torsten, this is news to me. I know that the Nordwestblock has been
confirmed by place name analysis as strtching down as far as Calais
and Boulogne in France, and that it has been suggested that these
people became Celticised as the Belgae (Irish Fir Bolg), who invaded
South East England as the Atrebates, just prior to the rise of Rome.
I was unaware that Caesar calls the Germani as Celti. In fact I
believed he divided "Gaul" into four areas. The Aquitani -
Celticised Basques; Belage (already discussed); Gaul - Celts proper;
and Germania - Ethnic Germans, actively displacing Celts from the
Rhineland.

> Impressionistically, I have a hard time characterizing the Dutch.
> They seem like no other people in Europe, like some aboriginal I-
> don't-know-what (this is obviously not the case for most of the
> people, but once I've recognized elements from the rest of Europe,
> there remains a kernel of fascinating differentness). I can believe
> the Flemish are a-kind-of-German or a-kind-of-French, but not the
> Dutch.
>
> As for the Saxons, the Thuringian Chronicle says they came from the
> east (Sacae) and by their conquest of the Baltic Coast would have
> separated the two "Odin colonies" in Thuringia and Denmark. They
> would have changed their language at that time to the lingua franca
> of the area, namely Germanic. As for their ethnic (not linguistic)
> composition at the time of Hengist and Horsa, God only knows.
> Someone once mentioned in Cybalist that the Afghans you see on TV
> look like something you might see on the street of any Western
> European or American city. To me they look like our politicians.

Recent Genetic studies of England, Wales, Friesland and Scandinavia
suggest an interesting pattern. The Y Chromosome shows no difference
between the Friesian and English populations, but differences with
every one else. The MtDNA shows that there is no difference between
English and Welsh and differences with everyone else.

From this we can assume that bands of Friesan Saxons and Angles came
to Ebgland, enslaved the British (Welsh) men and took the Welsh women
as their wives, thus "creating" the English. Regarding the Saxons in
Thuringia, this is recorded by Procopius as a movement back into
Germany from Britain in the years from 500-570 BCE. The attack on
these Saxons by the developing Frankish Kingdom pushed them to the
East.

> Personally, when I travel in England I see people that look like
> back home and people that look very different. Usually the natives
> in Britain describes those people as "Celtic-looking" (by some
> strange coincidence it seemed the casters in the "Lord of the Ring"
> movie selected exclusively those types for the inhabitants of the
> shire).

Torsten "Celtic Looking" seems to be racial stereotyping my friend.
As someone who is 7/8ths Celtic myself, I have been called everything
from Jewish, Maltese, Italian, French, Greek and even Arab. As I
keep saying, the differences within "the group" in Human population
terms are always greater than the differences between Groups.
Earlier generations of Physical Anthropologists claimed there was a
difference between Mediterranean (i.e. Latins/Romance), Aplines
(Celts, South Slaves, Czechs etc) and Nordics (Germans, Balts), but
this theory has been rejected by modern anthropologists on the basis
of the genetic studies mentioned already.

> And BTW, one shouldn't forget that the Angles and Saxons and Jutes
> were themselves on the run from Attila and his Huns. A new life in
> Britain beckoned, once they got rid of those pesky natives.

That took longer than people think. Arthur held them up for nearly
two generations after the Battle of Badon and before the Germanic
revolt of 570.

> As to why the Jutes are dumped from the standard invasin story, the
> reasoning is that the present Jutes, being Danes, must be North
> Germanic speaking, and there's no trace of North Germanic in te
> Hengist and Horsa invasion.

Yes there are. In fact Kentish and the Isle of Wight (the areas of
Jutish) settlement show destinctive Scandinavian features (as
separate from the North Germanic and Friesan decorations elsewhere.

> Therefore either Danes have usurped the old land of the Jutes and
> fraudulently taken their name, or the Jutes stayed at home. But as
> I've tried to show on Cybalist, the Jutes might be counted as
> speaking something in between the two language groups.

Interesting. Considering the Danes in the Tale of Boewulf are said
to have been living in South Western Sweden, I would say that you are
farly correct with your first guess Torsten. Given the predominance
of Saxons elsewhere, it would seem that West Germanic came to be the
lingua-franca along the North Sea Coast from about the 300's (on the
Continent) to the 500s.

Regards

John