Britain Is More Germanic Than It Thinks

Matthias Schulz, Spiegal Online, June 16, 2011

The fear of a violent conquest of their country is deeply engrained in the English psyche. One of the likely reasons for this fear is that their ancestors committed this misdeed themselves.

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, two Germanic tribesmen, Hengist and Horsa, came ashore on the coast of Kent in southeast England in the year 449. They had sailed 600 kilometers (372 miles) down the coast from their native North Frisia, and had then made the crossing to a green and pleasant Britain.

The country they encountered was a cultivated place. Emperor Claudius had declared the island a Roman province in 43 A.D., and had introduced theaters and paved streets. There were 30,000 people living in Londinium in late antiquity.

All of this was destroyed, however, when the adventurers–who became more and more numerous as families were reunited–arrived from across the sea.

But how many people came to Britain across the North Sea in total? A thousand? Ten thousand? Or was it an even higher number?

Small Caste of Noble Warriors

Until now, the so-called Minimalists have set the tone in British archeology. They believe in what they call an “elite transfer”, in which a small caste of Germanic noble warriors, perhaps a few thousand, placed themselves at the top of society in a coup of sorts, and eventually even displaced the Celtic language with their own. Many contemporary Britons, not overly keen on having such a close kinship with the Continent, like this scenario.

Thomas Sheppard, a museum curator, discovered this sentiment almost a century ago. In 1919, officers asked for his assistance after they accidentally discovered the roughly 1,500-year-old grave of an Anglo-Saxon woman while digging trenches in eastern England.

Sheppard concluded that the woman’s bleached bones came from “conquerors from Germany” and announced: “These are our ancestors!” But the soldiers were thunderstruck. At first they cursed and refused to believe that they were related to the “Huns.” But then the mood darkened. The trip back to the barracks “was like a funeral procession,” Sheppard wrote.

Flood of People Crossed the North Sea

But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves. A number of studies reinforce the intimacy of the German-English relationship.

Biologists at University College in London studied a segment of the Y chromosome that appears in almost all Danish and northern German men–and is also surprisingly common in Great Britain. This suggests that a veritable flood of people must have once crossed the North Sea.

New isotope studies conducted in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries produced similar results. When chemists analyzed the tooth enamel and bones of skeletons, they found that about 20 percent of the dead were newcomers who had originated on mainland Europe.

Part 2: Taking Advantage of an Unprotected Island

Archeologist Heinrich Härke of the University of Reading has now come up with a quantitative estimate of the migratory movement. He suspects that “up to 200,000 emigrants” crossed the North Sea.

The massive movement of people was apparently triggered in 407 A.D., the year in which the ailing Roman Empire withdrew much of its army from Britain. Soon afterwards, it stopped paying its soldiers altogether. As a result, the last legionaries took off.

This left the island unprotected, an opportunity that the starving people on the continent couldn’t pass up. Angles, Saxons and Jutes left their mound dwellings and broad bean fields in the wetlands of northern Europe in droves.

Entire family clans set out to sea, usually in the spring and summer when the water was calm. Their ships were bulging with household goods, cows and horses. According to an old chronicle, the land of the Angles was soon “abandoned.”

The new arrivals established their first cemetery around 410 in Dorchester-on-Thames, near Oxford. It was filled with the same kinds of urns, brooches and other ornaments found along the Elbe River in Germany.

Kingdoms Run by Robust Chieftans

Archeologists have now excavated such burial grounds in large numbers. The Germanic farmers of Spong Hill, in eastern England, remained in contact with their old homeland for two to three generations. Härke speculates that a steady stream of adventurers left the mainland between 450 and 550. Nevertheless, there are still inconsistencies. The estimated 200,000 intruders faced an overwhelming number of Britons, about a million, and yet the invaders triumphed. The kingdoms that soon developed, like East Anglia, Wessex (West Saxony) and Essex (East Saxony) were run by robust chieftains like Sigeric and Cynewulf.

The Celts were no match for these roughnecks. The Romans had taught them how to play the lyre and drink copious amounts of wine, but the populace in the regions controlled by the Pax Romana was barred from carrying weapons. As a result, the local peoples, no longer accustomed to the sword, lost one battle after the next and were forced to the edges of the island.

The Old English heroic epic “Beowulf” suggests how coarse and combative life was among the pagan conquerors in their reed-covered huts. They had soon occupied eastern and central England.

The famous legend of King Arthur also originated in that era–as a form of counter-propaganda. Historians characterize the work as a “defensive myth” created by the original Christian inhabitants (with the Holy Grail possibly symbolizing the communion cup). Perhaps the King Arthur legend is based on a mythical Celtic king who won a victory at Mount Badon around 500 A.D.

‘Social Structures Similar to Apartheid’

In truth, however, the army of the Britons was usually in retreat. Many fell into captivity. According to Härke, the captured Britons lived a miserable existence as “servants and maids” in the villages of the Anglo-Saxons.

There were two types of grave in the cemeteries of the time: those containing swords and other weapons, and those with none. The local inhabitants, deprived of their rights, were apparently buried in the latter type of grave.

The London geneticist Mark Thomas is convinced that the conquerors from the continent maintained “social structures similar to apartheid,” a view supported by the laws of King Ine of Wessex (around 695). They specify six social levels for the Britons, five of which refer to slaves.

As a result of the brutal subjugation, the reproduction rate of the losing Britons was apparently curbed, while the winners had many children. The consequences are still evident today in the British gene pool. “People from rural England are more closely related to the northern Germans than to their countrymen from Wales or Scotland,” Härke explains.

According to Härke, every other man on the island carries the “Friesian gene.”


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

60 Responses to “Britain Is More Germanic Than It Thinks” Subscribe

  1. sbuffalonative June 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    While I don’t doubt there was mixing and even some degree of replacement, British and Germans look noticeably different at least to me.

    If it’s true, it’s nice to know that British genes still live on in the Welsh and Scots.

  2. olewhitelady June 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    As I understand it, the large ancient tribal groups in Europe were Germanics, Celtics, Slavics, and Latins. The Anglo-Saxons were Germanic. I’m surprised that any British person would dispute this.

  3. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    One history book I read claimed that the Germans pretty much exterminated the indigenious British whose survivors fled to Wales and the far North west.

    The author based his premise on the fact that there are no place names in the old Welsh or English language in most of Britian. All names are in forms of old German.

    Contrast this with North America. About half the states and many rivers, lakes, mountains and towns have Indian names. That means the Indians were alive and well and mixed with the Europeans. The European invaders used the Indian names.

    The author’s thinking was that the Germans exterminated the original English before they could learn the English place names.

  4. Brendan June 17, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves.

    Similarly, the nation that most dislikes the Irish were once “micks” themselves: the Presbyterian Scots.

    The Poles and Russians are another example.

  5. flyingtiger June 17, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    According to the legends and myths, King Arthur or some Romo-Celtic warlord oppose and defeated the Saxons. Then there is a silence for about thirty years. The Saxons come over because the land is empty. What happened to the Britains? Was it famine, or plague, civil war or natural disaster. Your guess is as good as mine.

  6. TomSwift June 17, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    I believe Thomas Jefferson once said something along the lines of “If good men don’t have weapons or aren’t willing to use them they will soon find themselves slaves”

    There are only a few times in history when people of the male sex could make it through a lifetime without ever needing weapons.

  7. Dutchman June 17, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    To think my ancestors-Dutch, German. and English-are pretty much the same people. Of couse this has been the traditional view for a couple of hundred years. In the last 50 years or so there has arisen the ‘mostly peaceful assimilation theory’ that always seemed like nonsense to me. If the assimilation was peaceful, then why did the Britons stop speaking Celtic languages and start speaking Anglo-Saxon?

    A good example of the danger of immigration and bringing in people to do jobs that “Britons won’t do”.

  8. M June 17, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    This is far from surprising. Frankly I don’t know why Whites still consider themselves English, French, German, Americans, etc. If you are white you are White, period. We need to hail each other as brothers and sisters and regard each other as allies in a common struggle. It’s what the non-whites do. But that will require courage on our part and genuine expressions of solidarity, a willingness to take each other’s back. Maybe even march in the street, in quiet, solemn columns. We need to let the world know that we will not go quietly into the darkness….

  9. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Read “The Blood of the Isles” by Bryan Sykes(aka in North America as “Saxons, Viking and Celts”). This book is an analysis of the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA of Britain, Ireland and Scotland. The result is that the DNA of the British Isles(including England) is predominantly Celtic. There are concentrations of Nordic/Germanic DNA, but they are localized to specific areas(ie areas roughly corresponding to the Danelaw) and are by no means dominant.

  10. Fritz June 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    There is another theory that the ancient Britons were not actually Celtic but Germanic even before the Angles and Saxons arrived, and that is why there is the DNA similarity.

  11. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    This article is selecting history in the most blatant abuse of information possible. I will try to sum it up;

    The earliest Britons were pre-Celtic tribes that seem to have been never-the-less related to Celtic Indo-Europeans. They all came from the same origin point in Central Asia before and after the last Ice Age. The Celts arrived in the British Isles during the Bronze Age and settled there as they settled much of Europe (including Germany). The Northern Geats and Goths are considered some of those pre-Ice Age Celtic Indo-Europeans as well. They did settle along the Rhine and became founding tribes of Germanic gothic tribes.

    So there was a flourishing Celtic society all over the British Isles when the Romans came. Their collapse left a power vacuum because they had slaughtered so many Celts and Romanized so many that they could not resist the Anglo-Saxons, etc., where before there was no need for the Saxons to come. There was trade in pre-Roman Europe and the news of opened real estate attracted settlers from North Sea regions. But the arrival of Anglo-Saxons did not come with mass liquidation of Celts. The battles subsided quickly and things became settled. All of Europe was shifting and moving, just as the entire world always had where civilization was being born.

    The reason Europeans see themselves as distinct from other Europeans is because there were political and religious/cultural schisms that were partly caused and reinforced by the unique geography of Europe that kept relatively small groups apart. This resulted in regional genetic imprints and gave one certain physical and emotional characteristics, that were reflected in their cultures. We would not be who we are today without that. One of the problems is that modern transportation is allowing these natural barriers to be meaningless and so collapsing racial, ethnic, and cultural groups, who were never that large to begin with. It is a great tragedy.

    It is very American to not understand that there is more to it than just being white. America sought to end European strife. But it failed. The English Civil War of the 17th century is reflected in the Puritan New England pitted against the Virginian aristocratic type, as it was settled by titled nobility and as capitalist enterprise. I at least can see how this projected perfectly into our own Civil War and how it remains a divider between whites in America today.

    People in Europe have their own national memories and rivalries. Finns resent the Swedes because they conquered and dominated Finland for a long time. My senior cousin whose mother was Finnish fumes at her neighbor of Swedish extraction because she reminds her of that regularly. We are just one generation away from that in my family.

  12. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    I think that the opening statement is the entire sinister point of all the following writing.

    Where in the world is there not a people who fears invasion? Britain was invaded many time in the days when there was much movement in Europe as the collapse of the Roman Empire created a vacuum. So what? Are the English supposed to take this as a justification for allowing Muslims and Africans to continue to subjugate them? Even Tolkien admitted his German ancestry and was proud of it, except for the Nazi epic, which made him ashamed of it. Tolkien was the scholar who translated Beowulf into modern English first, long before he began The Hobbit, or LOTR. The language of English itself reflects a healthy combination of Northern European languages, with a healthy dose of French coming from my own genetic ancestors.

    The isolation of England for hundreds of years allowed all these groups to amalgamate into a distinct English nation with a distinct language. Regional differences used to abound in England, to the delight of the traveler. You could see a person in London and know where in England they had come from judging by the look and the accent.

    This writer seems to think that the surviving English should sink in shame of their hypocrisy. Shock, in 800 there was a stratified caste system. Surprise, there were even degrees of nobility! What hypocrisy. Nothing that a few million more Palistanies, Chinese and Africans can’t remedy, eh?

  13. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Having been exposed to continental technology, maybe the Saxons could saturate the countryside with more numerous and more prosperous farms than the long isolated Celts.

  14. Anonymous June 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    I agree with #8.

    I have never considered myself belonging to a distinct ethnic group within the white race. I have instead only perceived myself as belonging to the entire white race. Perhaps the reason why I feel this way is because we white Americans are generally a mixture of many European nationalities like English, German, Scots-Irish, Italian, etc.

  15. McGilicuddy June 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm #

    So the old theory (the English as more Germanic than Celtic) is new again? I wish the writer would explain how these findings are different from, and how or if they negate, those of the last few years that found that the English were only about a third Germanic. I most disappointed though, that the Spiegal presents this as some new idea when it is the traditional notion of the origins of the English.

    Ben Franklin spoke of early medieval Britain as ‘America for the Germans.’

  16. Istvan June 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    English is a Germanic language so why would it be surprising that the English and Germans are related tribes?

    I guess the British Royal family really is British after all!

  17. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 3:14 am #

    “”But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves.””

    Most of the many migrations of tribes in Europe 0-500 AD happens because replacement. Tribes and segments from the failing imperiums of middle east are coming up central Europe. Today a large percent of Germany isn’t German at all. They are turks and Asians. The immigration wave of today is embarrassing to many natives of Europe, as the new faces tells so clearly where large portions of the “natives” once came from.

    Hengist and Horsa were Frisian, that’s as original English as is possible to be.

  18. Annonymous June 18, 2011 at 5:29 am #

    All this talk about different races in Britain is nonsense to me.I am from the North east of England and I have a Celtic name so I think that I am entitled to an opinion here.

    We are talking about Western Europe as a wider but still a distinct or common racial group who all share the same ethnic features which is why it is so difficult to distinguish between exact (Western European) origins. I mean I have brown hair, blue eyes and a Celtic name. That is why people who are of the same common Western European stock intermix so well together.

    Now when we are talking about immigrants from outside of Western Europe,well they are different and don’t belong. So all that Left Wing talk about Britain being a Nation of immigrants is nonsense, evil left wing propaganda.We are all of a common stock except for the recent immigrants who don’t belong and never will.

  19. KO June 18, 2011 at 6:10 am #

    M, I disagree that racial solidarity is prevalent in any racial group. Different African tribes, American Indian tribes, and Asisan nationalities hate each other. What you are seeing as non-white racial solidarity is really a tenuous and temporary “get whitey” alliance that is led by white-hating white liberals.

  20. KO June 18, 2011 at 6:26 am #

    Alfred Duggan’s The Conscience of the King is an interesting and entertaining novel depicting the founding of the West Saxon nation.

    The Britons lost most of the island, but not for lack of trying. 6th century British poems about military struggles between the Britons and the invaders show a warrior ethos and a warrior society comparable to what is believed about the Germanic peoples.

  21. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 6:51 am #

    British and Germans look noticeably different at least to me.


    Not to me, and I’m of English blood. (To say “British” blood is meaningless.) At least, as applies to the Northwestern Germans. The estensive eastern territories of the former Germany (Prussia) might have been different. Some famous traveler once remarked that parts of (eastern) Germany are more Slavic than Russia. I wouldn’t doubt it. From Berlin eastward, it would have been different.

    If it’s true, it’s nice to know that British genes still live on in the Welsh and Scots.

    And in the Bretons of Brittany (France)…who fled from Britain, and who could easily be mistaken for Irish. They still preserve their Gallic (Gaelic?) language today.

    They are a stubbornly independent people. Le Pen, by the way, is a Breton.

    Brittany remained independent for many centuries (more than a thousand years) until the marriage of Anne of Brittany brought Brittany to the French crown.

  22. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    Nice try. But two highly respected geneticists have already debunked that myth.

    Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College, argued in Blood of the Isles that the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period. He argues that the British are most closely related to the Basques. He further argues that the Anglo-Saxons who are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, contributed less than 20 percent of the total.

    In his 2006 book The Origins of the British, revised in 2007, Dr Stephen Oppenheimer similarly argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry mainly traces back to the Palaeolithic Iberian people, now represented best by Basques, instead. He also argued that the Scandinavian input has been underestimated.

  23. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    White is white as far as I am concerned.

    But as for the Germanisation of “England”, what few, very few records there are, would suggest that the native Britons had a visceral loathing and revulsion towards the invading Germanics. (Norman Davies:The Isles.)

    It would also seem that some form of plague or pestilence had a disproportionate impact on the natives.

  24. John June 18, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    There was a recent article I read somewhere from a British geneticist that said that the DNA of most English is much closer to Celtic than Germanic …I think the figure was approx 80% and that the area most close to Germanic was in the east of England where most Danes/Vikings settled over a thousand years ago.

    Perhaps if as the article alludes to the fact that the Celtic Britons were more numerous than the invading Germans,there was/has been a fair amount of intermarriage happening between the races over the last 1500 years or more. The Normans that came after 1066 were of Viking origin so along with the preceding Anglo/Saxon and Danes there has been quite a mixture along with the original inhabitants, the Celtic Britons.

    I would still suspect most English, for recent historic reasons and also alluding to the Thomas Sheppard story, would not be comfortable with the headline as it is even if there is considerable truth in it.

  25. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    I think the notion that the Saxons exterminated or drove into Wales the indigenous population is a myth. DNA samples of population show there is little difference between an inhabitant of Wales and East Anglia. The language of the Anglo-Saxons supplanted the Celtic but I don’t think the Celtic Britons were wiped out.

  26. ghw June 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    — Anonymous wrote:

    One history book I read claimed that the Germans pretty much exterminated the indigenious British whose survivors fled to Wales and the far North west.

    The author based his premise on the fact that there are no place names in the old (Celtic) language in most of (England). All names are in forms of old German.


    I have read the same. The reason given was that the German tribes had no custom of slavery, were used to doing all their own work and did not attach a stigma to labor, and thus had no use for slaves nor any need to take captives.

    I don’t know that the Romanized Britons were “exterminated” but simply driven back — into Wales, Caledonia (now Scotland), Cornwall, and Brittany.

  27. Question Diversity June 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    26 ghw wrote:

    The reason given was that the German tribes had no custom of slavery, were used to doing all their own work and did not attach a stigma to labor, and thus had no use for slaves nor any need to take captives.

    That pattern even presented itself among antebellum German-Americans who lived in states where slavery was permitted. On top of that, the “slaves” available were all black Africans, whom they wanted nowhere near their farms or families. (Gee, why would they get a crazy idea like that?) Of course, there were a few exceptions. Similarly, Germany itself, after formal national unification, even when it had the ability, largely eschewed African colonialism (Namibia their only one, and only for barely more than 30 years).

  28. Wulfstan June 18, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    To John at 8.17:

    The British “geneticist” responsible for this rubbish was actually a paediatrician called Oppenheim whose theories hold no currency in serious academic circles,yet unsurprisingly find favour with the traitorous ruling elites who have been hell-bent on undermining the cultural and ethnic integrity of the largest nation within the British Isles as a neccessary ploy to implement the genocidal doctrine of multi-culturalism.The findings of this recent survey only endorse what every English child was once taught at school,before the cultural marxists decided to abolish England.

  29. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Many Bretons do indeed look Irish as do some Gallicians in northern Spain). However the Bretons are descended From Cornish and Welsh who fled to Brittany to escape the Irish who, on the collapse of Roman Britain, were attempting to colonise the above.

    This is reflected in the Breton tongue which is P-Celtic along with Cornish and Welsh.

    Erse (Irish Gaelic),Scots Gallic and Manx are Q-Celtic.

  30. Anonymous June 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    All I know is if I were a white person living in Britain, I would much rather have German immigrants/invaders then the black and brown ones they have now. And I would be more concerned with Britain and immigration today, then wondering if 1,500 years ago my ancestor was Germanic or Celtic.

  31. shaunantijihad June 18, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    It isn’t really news is it? We all know we are predominantly Celtic-Anglo-Saxon.

    The real story is how a nation does indeed change by immigration. The 8-babies-per-wife Moslem colonisers, invited by the treasonous Labour, Libs and Tories, WILL lead to Islamic State No. 55. Unless we stop them. That’s the real lesson.

  32. Browser June 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    shaunantijihad wrote:

    It isn’t really news is it? …The real story is how a nation does indeed change by immigration.


    Yes, I agree. The latest and largest invasion of the British Isles in a thousand years is under way as we speak, yet no one speaks of it as anything such. It is politely ignored by all official circles as if it isn’t happening.

    But the prior invasions — by the Celts, then the Romans, then the Germanics — though all involving horrific suffering, dislocation and turmoil, were nothing (demographically) compared to the transformation that is taking place now. Each of those earlier invasions only involved the introduction of a slightly different ethnic type; but they were all people of the same race, all Europeans. Even the same language group (Indo-European).

    What is taking place now is the introduction of people of entirely different RACES and cultures garnered from all corners of the globe. And not just another race, but MANY different races. This does not bode well for future tranquility, however much the multi-culturalists and cosmopolitans adore it. Their foolish and selfish “celebration of diversity” may yet be cause for much grieving.

    It’s always been known that “high fences make good neighbors”.

  33. Hourglass June 19, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    All of the above comments definitely coalesce into a wonderful history lesson as it were but being from America I am essentially a “mutt” of several white races,English, French, and yes, German. I look around me here in America and I cant tell which white race country makes up any of the faces that I see, I only know that they are all beautiful and that everyday we are being lost to our forced diversity. I do not hate any person of any race but at the same time I realize that we are failing to keep our race pure, or as pure as it can be once you stop segregating whites by the country they came from and see only the race for what it is.

    We need each other, and if something doesn’t change soon we are doomed and our children and grand childrens children are going to see the suffering of our inaction far worse than we see it today, this is a thought that bothers me immensely, they don’t deserve the future we are leaving them.

    I do not have an answer to how this can be achieved, I am however open to suggestion from anyone with an intellectual idea that even the most impoverished of us can partake in to make this dream a reality, it would receive my full support.

    We are White, we are beautiful,we need to bind together, all of us and take back our culture.

  34. Buridan June 19, 2011 at 4:57 am #

    This article : provocative, approximative and not very scientific, as usual in der Spiegel (in which all is sacrified to provocation and agressivity, specially anti-German agressivity, here the allusion to the “Krauts”). The question is : what percentage of the ancestors of the present-day inhabitants of Great-Britain were Germanic conquerors/immigrants coming after the fall of the Roman Empire ? The Spiegel does not give an estimation, and does not confront the last results with former DNA investigations, which said that this percentage was apparently low : language changed, but population, it seemed, not so much.

    I find somtimes in the contributions of debaters here an error : non-Germanic British DNA is equated with celtic DNA. But Celts had been invaders in the British islands, too, and it is to be seen if their invasion, which made the language change, made so much a difference in the population. It is even to be seen if the introduction of agriculture in Western Europe (about 6 000 years ago, much before the coming of the Celts) was accompanied by an important introduction of new elements in the population : there are clues which suggest that local hunter-gatherers societies adapted to agriculture, which would have been in WE rather a cultural than a populationnal wawe, so that, say, much genetical stock of the present-day British or French had already been there before agriculture came, 6 000 years ago. So it is very possible that the majority (or a very significant minority)of the ancestors (on a 6 000 years duration) of an average British had lived in Great-Britain and not elsewhere, and had spoken successively : first, a non-Indo-European language (the Basque being the only survivor of these in Western Europe, but many of these languages were maybe unrelated, so maybe no parent of the Basque was ever spoken in the British Isles), second, a Celtic language, third, Latin, fourth a Germanic language, fifth, that Germanic language with an immense French influence which English is. And if you go back to 6 000 years ago, why not go back much earlier ? It is very possible that there was not so much migration among the hunter-gatherer population of Europe, and that the Magdalenians (from 17 000 to 10 000 years ago), which painted the caves of Altamira and Lascaux, are, genetically speaking, very significative in present-day Western European population (this, though, is speculative : there is now no DNA inquiry precise enough to compare a Magdalenian to a present-day continental West European).

    The United States being the place, of course, where the mixing of the relatively separated European populations occured at great scale. An experiment that suggests that, probably, the genetical basis for intelligence and character are probably very equivalent among the different peoples of Europe, that point against a slight but sporadically appearing propensity in American Renaissance to proclaim the superiority of the Nordic : Yes, Sandinavian, British and German societies in Europe are rather exemplary by their achievements, but, in the USA, it does not seem that Sicilians, Greeks or Irish are so different or perform so bad…

  35. voter June 19, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    “The fear of a violent conquest of their country is deeply engrained in the English psyche.”

    And yet they are being conquered right now, through the back door, with the collusion of their own government (!), and no one is supposed to notice it or even mention it. You do so at your own peril.

  36. ghw June 19, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    Many contemporary Britons (are) not overly keen on having such a close kinship with the Continent.

    Thomas Sheppard, a museum curator, discovered this sentiment almost a century ago. In 1919, officers asked his assistance after they accidentally discovered the 1,500-year-old grave of an Anglo-Saxon woman while digging trenches in eastern England.

    Sheppard concluded that the woman’s bleached bones came from “conquerors from Germany” and announced: “These are our ancestors!” The soldiers were thunderstruck. At first they cursed and refused to believe that they were related to the “Huns.”

    But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves.


    Of course, Germans are not Huns! That nonsense about Huns is a hold-over from hysterical WW One propaganda.

    This anti-German attitude was not always so. I did not realize it still persists so strongly. It’s very out-of-date, and the British should get over it.

    For several centuries, Germany was the favored shopping place for British royal marriages. Indeed, it’s been centuries now since the English have had a truly “English” royal family. Most of their royalty since then has been German (although, due to two world wars it’s become politically convenient to obscure that embarassing fact).

    For many centuries even before that, there were strong ties with Germany. Even during Anglo-Saxon times, there remained a strong family and cultural connection with the continent.

    For much of England’s history, France (and for a while, Spain) was the great rival. Germany was seen as a friendly alternative to these powers. I believe the problem with Germany began with Germany’s reunification in 1870. After that, Germany rapidly became the dominant power on the continent, displacing France, and thus became the new “threat” to Britain’s hegemony.

    Worse still, Germany was rapidly industrializing, becoming a competitor to British exports around the world when Britain was the world’s main (almost only) manufacturing country. (France was not an industrial country at that time, being mostly agricultural.) Germany also entered the world-wide contest for empire, which was almost frenzied at the end of the 1800’s, when still unclaimed territory was becoming scarce. More rivalry!

    Britain did not appreciate this new rival one tiny bit. Britain regarded Germany as an intolerable upstart which had to be put in its place. Britain made its alliance with France, both seeing “the Jerries” as the new menace. That project did not work out as planned. Thus we got the First WW and the beginning of the end of the British Empire (and French too). And, in the longer term, the ruination of Europe and all the messes that we have inherited today.

    This is really a family squabble; and family squabbles are always the nastiest and the worst. It has proven extremely costly to both sides. Indeed, to EVERYONE. They need to stop it.

  37. Scottish-German combo man June 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    I agree with #36. I have always suspected that Britain resisted the growing threat to their status with the rise of Germany economic might. The fact that Germany is now Europe’s largest economy despite lacking any buildings or factories in 1945(essentially rubble), attest to the upward trendline they were on in the 1880s.The two bad dudes on the block always square off eventually, Germany was no more to blame than England for the 2 World Wars.

  38. Buridan June 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Do British have a peculiar dislike for the Germans ? In the late XIXth century there was an important philo-germanism in Britain, out of a nordicist feeling of proximity and superiority towards less developped European countries. The world wars changed that. But, today, it seems to me that there is a rather impartial trend of relative hostility to any European people. For instance, if you read Thatcher’s memoirs, you have clear agressivity and propensity to carefully poisoned remarks towards Germans, French and Italians. The Spaniards are not agressed, but I doubt that this is out of love or peculiar esteem…

    A thing which is spectacular in the English daily press : there is no place dedicated to Europe, as in every other European newspaper. They talk of the British Isles, of the former dominions, and of the former British colonies. They stil emotionnaly live in their empire…

    All this, I suppose, has two main explanations : there are an island (Japanese are not very xenophile, neither), and they have the most successful history of the European great nations.

  39. Buridan June 19, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    I do not understand very well the attachement for the Whites which is so mainstream in AmRen, and for instance expressed by many contributors to this thread. Why not the Far-Easterners ? I am French, and I am in favor of their immigration in my country ; if I were a US citizen, it seems to me I would have the same position. The burden caused by the Blacks will be substantially alleviated by their presence. It is one thing to have 12% of Blacks, it is another to have, say, 8% of them. They are radically opposed to affirmative action : indeed, they are maybe the only possibility to reverse affirmative action policies. Of course, to go to Harvard, to be in top position will become more difficult for a White, but the whole nation, Whites included, will economically and culturally benefit from their presence. Without the Jews, the cultural, scientific, economic power of the United States would be significantly inferior. Far-Easterners are maybe not so ambitious/talented as the Jews are, but they are hard working and talented, and they are much more numerous than the Jews. Why not, say, 50 millions Far-Easterners in the USA, 10 millions in France ? They will be a little less patriotic than the Natives ? Probably, but is that such a big problem ? They are not of the same race as Whites are ? What’s the problem with that, if they are not an inferior race, and if all indicates that mixed blood people are not intrinsically inferior to their parents ? You have to go back very far to find a common ancestor with them ? But an Irish-American who marries an Ukrainian-American, they have to go pretty far to find common ancestors… They are of a different culture ? The differences between a Wasp and an Irish or an Italian were vast, too… Without the Italians and the Irish, Wasps would have find the Black problem far superior to what it is…

    Maybe many of them will not stop to know Chinese language, and will be bilingual ? But Chinese language being so difficult to learn, that is a great opportunity. A country divided between to communities, the USA will lose the precious feeling of being one nation, will become insecure ? The assimilative power of the English language and of the American mass media culture will dissolve much of these differences. An Italo-American who is Nobel prize, boss of a big company, cinema director or actor, or your neighbor, you perceive him as a compatriot. The same will more or less (probably a little less…) happen with a Chinese-American.

  40. Crawfurdmuir June 19, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    The historic enemy of England was never Germany – it was France. From the time of the Angevins to the last few years of the reign of George III, the monarchs of Britain pretended to the throne of France, and quartered the flowers-de-luce or on a field azure of that country together with the arms of England, and later, Scotland, Ireland, and (for a while) the white horse of Hanover. British hostility to Germany probably began with the Prussian deposition in 1866 of George V of Hanover (the duke of Cumberland in the British peerage, Queen Victoria’s first cousin once removed). While the marriage of Victoria’s daughter (also named Victoria) to the crown prince of Prussia (later to reign for a short time as Kaiser Friedrich III) restored amicable relations, the machinations of Bismarck and the instincts of Wilhelm II were anti-British. The real animosity dates only from World War I.

    The commentary here about Celtic vs. Saxon ancestry neglects one important point, which is that there were far fewer people in all of Europe 1500 years ago than there are now, and, as a consequence, all Europeans are to some degree related to each other. That sort of inbreeding is, after all, what makes a subspecies or race. I was told many years ago by a distinguished geneticist, who was also a very competent genealogist, that probably the majority of persons of north European descent are descended in one or more lines from the emperor Charlemagne. Looking at my then-incipient male pattern baldness, he observed that it would not surprise him if I were descended from Charlemagne’s grandson, Charles the Bald (a carrier of the gene). Many years later I discovered this was the case, as well as finding several other Charlemagne lines in my family.

    Practically any person of English descent has Anglo-Norman ancestors, eventually connecting to Charlemagne. While the Normans were immediately Scandinavian, they intermarried with the established French aristocracy, which was Frankish. Charlemagne was of course a Frank (i.e., a German). There was also a significant Norman presence in Scotland, even though it was never conquered by the Normans; the Scots also have Burgundian/Flemish and Danish antecedents.

  41. Anonymous June 20, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    Reply to GHw at #36:

    I suppose it being just one year after the war the soldiers feeling that way was not surprising.

    I do agree 100% that the first world war was a disaster for all concerned. Whatever short term gains Britain obtained were more then cancelled out by the costs, strains and dislocations caused by the war. Britain’s ludicrous decision to throw in its lot with Czarist Russia and France was a monumental blunder. Britain would have been a million times better off in the long run had it not made some kind of accommodation with Germany. Britain’s foolish anti-German policies before 1914 were a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  42. Aware June 20, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Another factor concerning Britain’s heritage is her close genetic link to the Mediterranean. Tacitus wrote that people from Wales during his time had swarthier looks and curlier hair than the rest of the country, making him suspect that inhabitants of Spain may have migrated to that part of the Isles and settled. There’s said to be a study which goes back to the Victorian era that Britain is the most mixed-race nation of Northern Europe. The mixed-race Romans conquered the country and had soldiers from throughout the empire stationed there, leading to inevitable interbreeding which went on for centuries. Around 60% of Britons are said to have ancestries going back to the Mediterranean.

    As someone of Spanish and English heritage it’s nice to see that one of the mother countries benefited genetically in the best Europe had to offer. It’s because of her mixed heritage that Britain created a great and vibrant history and culture, bestowing the world with the likes of Shakespeare, Newton, and The Beatles. Had she been more homogenous she would have been as boring as Scandinavia.

  43. Anonymous June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    As a non-European Caucasian and an amateur anthropologist, I can distinguish the British and Germans in most cases. Only the Eastern English (especially East Anglians and Yorkshiremen) and Lowland Scots look German/Scandinavian. The rest is quite mixed and contains a substantial darkish element.

    The further west you go, the darker are the people, the difference between an Englishman from East Anglia and Cornwall is out of question.

    I guess the “Celtic” substratum in Britain gives the impetus of the anti-German setiment, it’s present in England too, despite the Germanic language…

  44. Wordy Anonmyous June 20, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    I believe the problem with Germany began with Germany’s reunification in 1870. After that, Germany rapidly became the dominant power on the continent, displacing France, and thus became the new “threat” to Britain’s hegemony.


    The British and French had been subduing, annexing and colonising the world for centuries, killing and conquering millions all over the world.

    There was no German Empire until 1871 so the Germans were late comers into the colonisation/world empire game, an upstart viewed by the French and English as an aggressor in need of “an attitude adjustment”–which was delivered to the Germans in the form of WW I.

    The Germans could only build an empire by stealing land and peons from those who had stolen ahead of them. These empires spread WW I throughout the world — when the French entered WW I, their colonies were dragged in with them. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, (French Indochina) suddenly found themselves at war against Germany!

    Which lead to millions of deaths all around, blame placed squarely on Germany, a punitive treaty…and the rest, as they say, is history. History rewritten and twisted by the victors, that is.

  45. Crawfurdmuir June 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    To Aware at #42 – Celts were anciently present in what is now Spain, and as well in some Mediterranean countries as far east as Asia Minor. There is an ancient legend that the Britons were descended from Brutus, or Bryt, a descendant of Aeneas (whose voyage from Troy to Italy is the subject of Vergil’s epic). Brutus was supposed, in turn, to have travelled from Italy to what is now England. Some mediæval Scottish sources claim that the Scots were ultimately descended from the Scythians. These stories may reflect unconscious racial memories of prehistoric Celtic migrations.

    There was an ancient tribe called the Bruttii in the south of Italy, who may have been Celts. The name suggests an origin for the story of Brutus or Bryt. The Celtic myth of Lyonesse, the submerged city that is supposed to lie off Cornwall, as found in the Arthurian legend, is paralleled by a similar myth of a submerged city in the Straits of Messina (between Calabria, whence came the Bruttii, and Sicily).

    Anywhere in Europe we find cultures that raise cattle, play the bagpipes, and wear kilts – from Albania to Albion – there are found Celts.

  46. Anonymous June 20, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    All this discussion won,t matter in another couple years because whatever people they are will be completely replaced and forgotten.

  47. Lauren June 20, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Well, actually, the Celts were invaders, themselves: invaders far more foreign to England’s Prehistoric Stock, probably, than were the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

    There is no telling what, culturally and genetically, was wiped out by the Celts.

    Personally, I regard the “Invasion” by Danes and Northern Germans to be a restoration, of sorts, as was the Norman Conquest, some time later. There were ancient peoples who plied both sides of the English Channel, and who migrated up and down Europe’s Western Coast, back into Prehistory…probably as far back as the latter evolution of Modern Man. These were the ancestors of the True English, as well as of the Danes and Northern Germans.

    This article is mainly just a smear of today’s Old Stock English: something to counter protests against massive Third World immigration.

  48. Alexandra June 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    I have English, Scottish, French, German, Polish, and Russian ancestry.

    I just consider myself Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Slavic. Or white for short.

  49. Fritz June 20, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    “As a non-European Caucasian and an amateur anthropologist, I can distinguish the British and Germans in most cases. Only the Eastern English (especially East Anglians and Yorkshiremen) and Lowland Scots look German/Scandinavian. The rest is quite mixed and contains a substantial darkish element.

    The further west you go, the darker are the people, the difference between an Englishman from East Anglia and Cornwall is out of question.”

    Of course the southern Germans, who have a lot of continental Celtic ancestry, can be quite dark as well.

    I guess the “Celtic” substratum in Britain gives the impetus of the anti-German setiment, it’s present in England too, despite the Germanic language…

  50. Anonymous June 20, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    Here is something interesting that predates any Germans or Celts

    Humans’ early arrival in Britain

    By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News

    Researchers have discovered stone tools in Norfolk, UK, that suggest that early humans arrived in Britain nearly a million years ago – or even earlier.

    The find, published in the journal Nature, pushes back the arrival of the first humans in what is now the UK by several hundred thousand years.

    Environmental data suggests that temperatures were relatively cool.

    This raises the possibility that these early Britons may have been among the first humans to use fire to keep warm.

    They may also have been some of the earliest humans to wear fur clothing.

    With the ancient tools were plant material, including a pine cone (top right) that provided clues about climate

    The discoveries were made in Happisburgh, in the north of Norfolk. At the time there was a land bridge connecting what is now southern Britain with continental Europe.

    There are no early human remains, but the researchers speculate that the most likely species was Homo antecessor, more commonly – and possibly appropriately – known as “Pioneer Man”.

    Remains of the species have been found in the Atapuerca region of northern Spain, and dated to 0.8-1.2 million years ago. So the species could well have been in Britain at around that time, according to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.

    “If the climate was good and the land bridge was there, there’s no real reason they couldn’t have come (to Britain) as far back as 1.2 million years ago,” he told BBC News.

    One million years ago, a land bridge linked the UK to continental Europe Pioneer Man was much like our own species in that it walked upright, used tools and was a hunter gatherer.

    But physically the species looked rather different. It had a smaller brain, strong brow ridges and big teeth, with some primitive features such as a flat face and no prominent chin on the lower jaw.

    The discovery raises many new questions, such as how these creatures dealt with the cold winters that existed at the time. Scientists have also speculated that they may have used shelters and clothing.

    It also raises the possibility that Britain was the first place where fire was used in a controlled way for warmth.

    “Although we don’t have the evidence for fire or of clothing to get through the winters up here, I think they must have had some extra adaptations,” said Professor Stringer.

    “I think the evidence suggests that they were living at the edge of the inhabited world in a really challenging environment and indeed they were real pioneers living here in Britain, nearly a million years ago,” he said.

    The research was led by Dr Nick Ashton of the British Museum, London, as part of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain (AHOB) project.

    The discovery suggests that early humans may have adapted to the cold

    “The discovery is immensely surprising because we are dealing with an incredibly early date,” Dr Ashton said.

    He added that the environmental data that indicated the relatively low temperatures was “even more surprising”.

    “It’s unusual to find humans in such a cool climate this far north at this very early date,” he said.

    This area of Norfolk was quite a different place one million years ago.

    “The [River] Thames was flowing through this area. And at the site we have sediments laid down by the Thames,” he explained.

    Pioneer man was eventually wiped out by an Ice Age. These occurred about every 100,000 years, and each time that happened Britain was depopulated.

    As conditions became more benign, a new group of humans arrived.

    There were at least eight different waves of people that came in and died out before the last wave, which is the one that survives today.

  51. Anonymous June 21, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Of course the southern Germans, who have a lot of continental Celtic ancestry, can be quite dark as well.


    Exactly… Another obvious example would be the difference between Bretagne and Normandy in France or Western and Eastern Scotland (personally observed). But none of them are really dark like but have a beautiful crossed complexion (dark hair-light eyes).

    I’ve read blond children in Bretagne were taken as German kids (fathered by the German soldiers) during the WW2 occupation of France and treated as dirt..

  52. Koos Smidt June 21, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    A lot of commentators are afraid of losing out to other cultures due to immigration. But history shows that the white culture is their own worst enemy. For instance: the American Civil War was the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties. According to John Huddleston, “Ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years of age died, as did 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40. Casualities of WWII in Europe were approximately 40.000.000 soldiers and civilians. Even this article we are commenting on shows that the white invaders from the mainland were brutally killing the white Britons. So please, do not be afraid of other cultures, because history shows otherwise.

  53. Ravel June 21, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    To #52, recent studies indicate a much higher death toll in the Civil War as Confederate deaths are likely undercounted (as they were outnumbered, outmanned, outgunned and undersupplied). As to the main thrust of this story, are the scientists differentiating between the substrains of R1b? The invaders have much the same genetic profile as the inhabitants albeit in different proportions–the one exception being Haplogroup J, which is virtually absent fron the Isles. In my estimation, Englishmen are much closer to the Irish or so-called “Celtic” peoples as they have a strong tendency to exaggerate (e.g. Whites in Britain will be in the minority shortly; wartime propaganda calling for German extermination; Diana’s death will “Latinize” the English people and make them more emotional; Canadians are constanly under threat from being eaten by bears, etc.).

  54. Anonymous June 21, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    I was anonymous comment #22. I’m shocked at how many readers have either dismissed or ignored what geneticists have had to say on the issue of British ancestry and have instead relied on myth, rumor and outright ignorance.

  55. Bon, From the Land of Babble June 21, 2011 at 1:31 pm #

    He argues that the British are most closely related to the Basques.

    This is fascinating. I have negative blood, inherited down my Scottish line, the largest distribution of which is in the Pyrenees Mountains, among the Basque people. Some researchers believe the negative RH factor to be a genetic mutation which arose among the Basque and then spread northward in a diaspora all the way to the northern reaches of the UK.

    The Basque people of Spain and France have the highest percentage of Rh negative blood. About 30% have Rh negative blood and about 60% carry one negative gene.


  56. Crawfurdmuir June 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    Bon, the Rh-negative factor may be an indication that your Scottish line is actually Pictish. The Picts were the original population of what is now Scotland; the Dalriadic Scots invaded from Ireland in the fifth century A.D.

    There is no substantial record of the Pictish language, only a few Ogham inscriptions that are not identifiably Celtic. The Picts may have been of similar stock to the Basques. There is no way to know by linguistic means.

    There seem to be two predominant subracial types in Scotland and Ireland; a stereotypical Celtic raw-boned, red-headed, fair-skinned, blue- or grey-eyed sort, and a dark-haired smaller type. One sometimes hears the latter, if of Irish descent, described as “Black Irish,” and explained by the admixture of blood from shipwrecked sailors of the Spanish Armada, The Wikipedia article on the “Black Irish” derides this as a myth, and attributes their ancestry to a prehistoric migration of Iberian peoples, akin to the Basques. The Armada theory does not explain the presence of this type in Scotland, so it is possible the latter are Pictish in ancestry.

  57. Anonymous June 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    To Koos Smidt:

    “Do not be afraid of other cultures, because history shows otherwise”.

    Oh really? I can think of a 1,000 examples to disprove what you say. Want one? How about the Ottoman Turks conquest and enslavement of the Balkans for 600 years. Or their two genocides against the Christian Armenians. Which they deny to this day. Now why don’t you provide us with some examples to “prove” what you say?

    BTW, it isn’t “fear” of other cultures. I simply don’t want to be replaced by another one.

  58. Anonymous June 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    26 — ghw wrote at 12:09 PM on June 18:

    “I don’t know that the Romanized Britons were “exterminated” but simply driven back — into Wales, Caledonia (now Scotland), Cornwall, and Brittany.”

    But it ought to be recognized that they didn’t remain exclusively there for very long.

  59. Anonymous June 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    I read a book (still in my library) called The Celts, by Gerrard Herm. In it he traces all the European tribes ultimately to the Indo-European tribes. He makes the case that they were all Celts, but arrived in different waves and differentiated after they settled in the regions they are still known for today, i.e., into Scandinavians, Germans, Gauls, Britons, etc. The latest wave of Celts was during the Bronze Age, but there had been waves before them. The Irish Celts met tribes like the Tuatha De Dannan that they later mythologized into the realm of Fairies. Irish Fairies are problematic to the Irish and demand respect, reflecting a sort of culturally developed tribal guilt complex for having eliminated them. These were people they found in Ireland when they arrived and either conquered or absorbed into their numbers. Even the Iberians were a Celtic tribe that originally (after the Ice Age) settled in Spain. (BTW Gallicia in Northern Spain is still noticeably Celtic). Only the Basques seem non-Celtic. The best guesses I have read is that they were a separate group that had retreated straight south at the onset of the last Ice Age and moved back north as it receded, a remnant of the earlier peoples who had an earlier origin and branch off than the Indo-European tribes.

    It’s all a fascinating subject to me, and all about our white ancestors and identity. This man merely wishes to divide us and destroy resistance to full race replacement.

  60. Anonymous June 22, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    40 — Crawfurdmuir wrote at 11:00 PM on June 19:

    “The historic enemy of England was never Germany – it was France.”

    And that was because of the Norman conquest and the rise of the dual kingships of the Plantagenet dynasty.

    “Practically any person of English descent has Anglo-Norman ancestors, eventually connecting to Charlemagne. While the Normans were immediately Scandinavian, they intermarried with the established French aristocracy, which was Frankish. Charlemagne was of course a Frank (i.e., a German). There was also a significant Norman presence in Scotland, even though it was never conquered by the Normans; the Scots also have Burgundian/Flemish and Danish antecedents.”

    As an Anglo-Norman who has traced his line directly to the Falaise Scroll, I want to add that the Normans were indeed Viking, and Frank, but the French Franks were by then also a mix of Romanized Gallic French. Rolfe (Rollo) was the Viking chieftain that made the final treaty with King Charles (the Simple) in 911. (Records suggest that he was in fact a Jarl (or earl). The history also says that the Normans took local women as wives, and this was the origin of the Normans as a distinct people. This is also what is recorded in the 19th century genealogical work, The Norman People in North America.