08-03-2006, 10:04 AM
Hi all
I was able to read the original article on the German genetic influx in England and `the "apartheid" society, and I have to say that it is no new evidence, but a new analisys of old evidence that very much twist the facts to force a conclusion, that in turn has been very much exagerated by the mass media.
I see that the idcussion has been followed on archaeological terms, as well as in historical parallels. To sum up I would resume my position here as follows.
The subject, mass Germanic inmigration and displacement of the original population, is one of Human population history. To that the main prove should be genetic, and that is lacking, as I said so far Y Chromosome studies reveals certainly a different genetic composition for England, especially Eastern England, than Wales or Ireland, but the basic R1b haplogroupe remain majoritary. So, genetics support the idea of the continuity of local population.
The argument of English becoming the predominant language is flawed at the base, we are talking demography, and language is a cultural subject, it could be learnt by anyone regardless of his genetic background, to suppose that to become predominant a mass influx of population is required is a mistake, as many imperial languages, latin in Western Europe included, proved.
So, to sum up, a minority of Germanic conquerors impose their language, nothing surprising, it happened all the time in history. If other Germanic invaders didn´t succeed in that it is because they faced a much stronger cultural resistance in a more urban, developed society in Gallia with a cultivated aristocracy centered around the Roman heritage and the Catholic Church. The early catholic conversion of the Franks probably helped too, in Visigothic Spain the Germanic language was very much linked to the Arian cult.
I was able to read the original article on the German genetic influx in England and `the "apartheid" society, and I have to say that it is no new evidence, but a new analisys of old evidence that very much twist the facts to force a conclusion, that in turn has been very much exagerated by the mass media.
I see that the idcussion has been followed on archaeological terms, as well as in historical parallels. To sum up I would resume my position here as follows.
The subject, mass Germanic inmigration and displacement of the original population, is one of Human population history. To that the main prove should be genetic, and that is lacking, as I said so far Y Chromosome studies reveals certainly a different genetic composition for England, especially Eastern England, than Wales or Ireland, but the basic R1b haplogroupe remain majoritary. So, genetics support the idea of the continuity of local population.
The argument of English becoming the predominant language is flawed at the base, we are talking demography, and language is a cultural subject, it could be learnt by anyone regardless of his genetic background, to suppose that to become predominant a mass influx of population is required is a mistake, as many imperial languages, latin in Western Europe included, proved.
So, to sum up, a minority of Germanic conquerors impose their language, nothing surprising, it happened all the time in history. If other Germanic invaders didn´t succeed in that it is because they faced a much stronger cultural resistance in a more urban, developed society in Gallia with a cultivated aristocracy centered around the Roman heritage and the Catholic Church. The early catholic conversion of the Franks probably helped too, in Visigothic Spain the Germanic language was very much linked to the Arian cult.
AKA Inaki
