Britain 'had apartheid society'

[ShadesWolf]

Thought this was a quite interesting article.


An apartheid society existed in early Anglo-Saxon Britain, research suggests.
Scientists believe a small population of migrants from Germany, Holland and Denmark established a segregated society when they arrived in England.

The researchers think the incomers changed the local gene pool by using their economic advantage to out-breed the native population.

The team tells a Royal Society journal that this may explain the abundance of Germanic genes in England today.

There are a very high number of Germanic male-line ancestors in England's current population. Genetic research has revealed the country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic Y-chromosomes.

But this Anglo-Saxon genetic dominance has puzzled experts because some archaeological and historical evidence points to only a relatively small number of Anglo-Saxon migrants.

Estimates range between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrating into England between 5th and 7th Century AD, compared with a native population of about two million.

Ethnic divide

To understand what might have happened all of those years ago, UK scientists used computer simulations to model the gene pool changes that would have occurred with the arrival of such small numbers of migrants.

The team used historical evidence that suggested native Britons were at a substantial economic and social disadvantage compared to the Anglo-Saxon settlers.

The researchers believe this may have led to a reproductive imbalance giving rise to an ethnic divide.

Ancient texts, such as the laws of Ine, reveal that the life of an Anglo-Saxon was valued more than that of a native's.

Dr Mark Thomas, an author on the research and an evolutionary biologist from University College London (UCL), said: "By testing a number of different combinations of ethnic intermarriage rates and the reproductive advantage of being Anglo-Saxon, we found that under a very wide range of different combinations of these factors we would get the genetic and linguistic patterns we see today.

"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," Dr Thomas added.

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."


The research is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[Papewaio]

Wow I would never have thought that guys like Hefner, Trump or Murdoch had a wider set of choices of women and a higher then average amount of children if they so choosed.

[Justiciar]

Can't say that's in the slightest bit surprising. There had already been small communties of Germanic immigrants in Britain for a while and they slowly grew and grew as birth rates increased and further masses of immigrants crossed the Noth Sea until the next thing you know they're taking over the place. Are you suggesting in a very shady way that the same thing is happening in the present day with our own immigrant communities? :inquisitive:

[ShadesWolf]

No it just seems to be all over the papers today.
I opened my usually daily and an article was also in it.

[Papewaio]

Actually if the immigrants are poorer it will on the whole happen in reverse. The richer guys will go for the best looking women on the whole, they don't care if the girls parents are rich or not.

If both communities are similar wealth then you will see mixed marriages of equal proportions to the size of the communities. The only thing that really consistently noted is that height seems to be a greater determinant... I've seen very few asian guys going out with caucasian girls in Aus, but when they are the asian guy is 90% of the time taller then the cacuasian girl.

So maybe the Germans of olde where richer and taller... not much luck for the local farm boy in that situation... just look at Han Solo, taller and runs his own export import line gets the girl, Luke the short farm boy just gets some imaginary friends.

[Blodrast]

I'm probably missing the point here... What exactly is new, or unexpected, or anything like that, in this discovery ? I'm being serious, it's not a facetious or sarcastic question.

I mean, isn't it already known that in all times, certain ethnicities were more privileged than others ? The discrimination has always had several criteria, not just race, but race was one of them often enough, according to my (admittedly modest) knowledge.

Some of our grandparents used to have black slaves about 100 years ago, right ?...
So...?~:confused:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm probably missing the point here... What exactly is new, or unexpected, or anything like that, in this discovery ? I'm being serious, it's not a facetious or sarcastic question.

I mean, isn't it already known that in all times, certain ethnicities were more privileged than others ? The discrimination has always had several criteria, not just race, but race was one of them often enough, according to my (admittedly modest) knowledge.

The report was originally a piece of scientific research into how a fairly limited number of invaders could substantially alter the genetic make-up of the conquered, in a relatively short time.

Science is not supposed to simply accept the premise 'that everyone knows that' as fact, but to provide mechanisms and proof. The study is an interesting exploration of how social dominance greatly increases the chances of genes dominating - not just in say, lions but in human societies as well.

The problem is that when this thought process gets into the public media, it is characterised as 'apartheid' and other emotive and ill-informed sound bites. So your confusion is entirely understandable. :smile:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isn't really news, the Saxons basically did to the Celts what the Normans did to them. That said the Saxons did integrate into the local society. Hell Saxon men were on average 2 inches taller, maybe that impressed the girls.

Calling it Apartheid is idiotic though. It wasn't because they were CEltic, it was because they weren't Saxon warriors, which is to say they weren't pagan and weren't burried with swords.

Anyway, this seems to ingore the fact that Romano-British society had collapsed and slid back into darkness even before the Saxons arrrived.

[Blodrast]

Ok, thank you for the explanation, Haruchai/Banquo's Ghost.:bow:
I did read the report, btw; I just imagined this would not be newsworthy, because presumably there are other more or less well-known cases throughout history, which had already been documented.I wish I knew enough history to be able to come up with other similar examples, but I can't think of anything I can actually get sources for...

[Red Peasant]

This isn't really news, the Saxons basically did to the Celts what the Normans did to them.


But, if that is the case, then we should all have Gallic chromosomes (?) and be speaking French (better than the French themselves, of course ~;) )

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But, if that is the case, then we should all have Gallic chromosomes (?) and be speaking French (better than the French themselves, of course ~;) )

I assume you are aware, of course, that the Normans were substantially of Nordic origin?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But, if that is the case, then we should all have Gallic chromosomes (?) and be speaking French (better than the French themselves, of course ~;) )

The Normans were were Vikings back three or four generation IIRC.

If you read my post more carefully you'll realise that what both did was step on the locals and establish themselves as an aristocracy. However the Saxons were a democratic and (relatively) fair people who, like the Vikings, gradually integrated themselves with the locals, while the Normans were an Imperialist people.

William the Bastard was living quite comfortably as the Duke of Normandy, Aelle and his people were scratching out a miserable living in Scandanavia.

[Justiciar]

All the Normans did was set up a minority, the aristocracy. The Saxons emmigrated en masse, forming the base on each level of society. Slight difference thar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except that there were around 2,000,000 Britons and only around 200,000 Saxon invaders, yes the Saxons took them out one-by-one and yes the society was a shambles but there is clear evidence that the Britons were not wiped out and that the Saxons established themselves as an enfranchised class with the Britons below them, eventually the two merged but prior to that it was a little similar to the Spartans and the Helots.

[Kralizec]

Except that there were around 2,000,000 Britons and only around 2,000,000 Saxon invaders

That sounds pretty even actually ~;p

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Curses, edited.

That's eye-skip for you.

[Papewaio]

The report was originally a piece of scientific research into how a fairly limited number of invaders could substantially alter the genetic make-up of the conquered, in a relatively short time.

Science is not supposed to simply accept the premise 'that everyone knows that' as fact, but to provide mechanisms and proof. The study is an interesting exploration of how social dominance greatly increases the chances of genes dominating - not just in say, lions but in human societies as well.


Good point, even if it would seem a likely conclusion it still should be researched.

What is interesting is that this is a case of relatively modern evolution of a human group (change in gene frequency in a population and/or change in total numbers of the genes). A lot of people are saying people have stopped evolving, I don't think this is the case at all.

Also could this created a greater sexual dimorphsim in the UK? If the Saxon male line dominated and they were taller, but the Briton female line dominated and they were shorter. Was it a case that the height difference between UK men and women was greater then say Italy of the same era? (Graves would give a clue).

Also was the height advantage enought to make the Brits better workers and warriors in future generations? Is this the feedstock for the future Empire in which the sun never set?

Lots of questions methinks, and that is where science should be, at the edge exploring.

[Radier]

Actually if the immigrants are poorer it will on the whole happen in reverse.

In case you mean today, I disagree. Today in Europe it is more like the saxon-celt situation in England but only with the difference that the newcommers often are poor. The poor immegrants get more kids than us natives.

In my old class there were two immegrants. They had 20 brothers/sisters together. ~:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good point, even if it would seem a likely conclusion it still should be researched.

What is interesting is that this is a case of relatively modern evolution of a human group (change in gene frequency in a population and/or change in total numbers of the genes). A lot of people are saying people have stopped evolving, I don't think this is the case at all.

Also could this created a greater sexual dimorphsim in the UK? If the Saxon male line dominated and they were taller, but the Briton female line dominated and they were shorter. Was it a case that the height difference between UK men and women was greater then say Italy of the same era? (Graves would give a clue).

Also was the height advantage enought to make the Brits better workers and warriors in future generations? Is this the feedstock for the future Empire in which the sun never set?

Lots of questions methinks, and that is where science should be, at the edge exploring.

The women will only be shorter if they marry into a Saxon line. A woman with a Saxon father will probably be taller than her mother but shorter than her paternal grandmother. Or she could just go one way or the other.

A Saxo-Celtic union will not produce tall men and short girls. The only genetic traits affected by gender are those coded for on the X chromosone of the X-Y pair.

In answer to your other question, the English are now shorter than the Germans, Dutch and Scandanavians, as well as the Scots. Its the Roman in Romano-British that made then short, the Celts were just as big as the Germans, and still are.

All this brings up a significant point. It should be:

"England had "Apartheid" Society." Which it didn't really, but oh-well.

[Red Peasant]

I assume you are aware, of course, that the Normans were substantially of Nordic origin?

Perfectly aware of that, thanks, but most of the invading force was French of one sort or other. ~;)

[Red Peasant]

The Normans were were Vikings back three or four generation IIRC.

If you read my post more carefully you'll realise that what both did was step on the locals and establish themselves as an aristocracy. However the Saxons were a democratic and (relatively) fair people who, like the Vikings, gradually integrated themselves with the locals, while the Normans were an Imperialist people.

William the Bastard was living quite comfortably as the Duke of Normandy, Aelle and his people were scratching out a miserable living in Scandanavia.

Your post did not require 'more careful' reading, it seemed quite clear. As has been posited, the 'Normans' came over in relatively small numbers, as an 'imperialist' elite, as you quite rightly say. The earlier 'Germanic' invaders seem more characteristic of a 'Folk Movement' in much larger numbers, but still not enough to 'swamp' the people already present, at least in the first generation or so.

I wonder if a formula can be calculated to estimate the numbers which would be needed to permanently alter the genetic composition of a population, and how many generations it would take? Of course, I realise that we are not talking just of numbers here, but also factors of military, political, economic and cultural hegemony, but such a study would be interesting.

[Papewaio]

In answer to your other question, the English are now shorter than the Germans, Dutch and Scandanavians, as well as the Scots. Its the Roman in Romano-British that made then short, the Celts were just as big as the Germans, and still are.


I'm British (Welsh, Irish, Scot, English) plus Swedish... at 6 foot I'm fairly short in my family.

[BDC]

Oddly, a while ago I read an article saying the exact opposite, that hardly any Germanic genes were in Britain and most people were mainly Celtic. Some sort of proper explanation of exactly which genes are being looked at needs to be included. Mitochondrial DNA, Y chormosome, a mixture of nucleac DNA?

[Red Peasant]

Oddly, a while ago I read an article saying the exact opposite, that hardly any Germanic genes were in Britain and most people were mainly Celtic. Some sort of proper explanation of exactly which genes are being looked at needs to be included. Mitochondrial DNA, Y chormosome, a mixture of nucleac DNA?

That's really interesting. Could you provide a link because it contradicts everything else I've seen on the subject. :book:

[Red Peasant]

I'm British (Welsh, Irish, Scot, English) plus Swedish... at 6 foot I'm fairly short in my family.

Similar mix here (mainly Celtic roots, but no Swedish!), and I'm 6ft as well and not particularly tall for my family, kinda average. My sister is above average height.

There seems to be some myth that the Celts were all short guys but a survey of the Roman classical sources shows them consistently to be tall, strong and fair, hardly distinguishable from the Germans in fact. IIRC this seems to be confirmed by the archaeology of burial sites across Gaul and Germany.

[thrashaholic]

Strabo in fact said that the Britons were known to be taller than the Gauls (who themselves were considered tall) -

"The men are taller than the Gauls, with hair less yellow, and are slighter in their persons. As an instance of their height, I myself saw at Rome some youths who were taller by as much as half a foot than the tallest there..."

However, if one were to look at my family (Welsh), most of them are probably on the lower end of average height-wise and I am, at 6' am one of the tallest. This is also reflected in my experience of Welsh people in that they are generally shortish and quite rotund.

Oh, and like BDC said, I've also heard that the population by and large remained 'Celtic' except on the east coast.

EDIT: here's an interesting link from the National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html

[Red Peasant]

Oh, and like BDC said, I've also heard that the population by and large remained 'Celtic' except on the east coast.

EDIT: here's an interesting link from the National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html

That's quite different from saying that there were hardly any Germanic genes. Unique genetic markers would not be in abundance anyway.

The article is very interesting, but mainly seems to rely on archaeological evidence of burial findings which show Celts and incomers living side by side. This makes sense as this is the the same habitation and settlement model that was found in the aftermath of the Viking/Danish invasions commencing at the end of the 8thC in the North-East/East of England.

It does not surprise me that the genetic material is mostly the same, as all humans share far more than 80% of genetic material. However, remember that geneticists try to identify unique genetic markers and they previously found certain markers that the English and Scots share with Danes and Germans, but which the Welsh and Irish do not. Now, how much is Celt and how much is Germanic? It would seem to be a mix, which would make sense when you consider that some of the early English kings/war-leaders had Celtic names (Cerdic, etc.). Factor also into this the rapid dissemination (in historical terms) of the English language and the almost complete disappearance of Celtic names from the landscape and you get a really confused picture of post-Roman Britain which no historical model has yet convincingly explained.

I've got a feeling that the geneticists are going to confuse us even more!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I said the Celts were tall, but they got mixed up with the Romans and be the time the Saxons arrived they were on average a few inches shorter than the invaders.

I English, Swedish and Welsh and I'm 5' 9".

[Vladimir]

The height issue was mainly affected by nutrition. I’m not sure exactly how it was during the Dark Ages but if it was similar to the high Middle Ages, “Britons” consumed fewer calories than continentals. Therefore naturally the Romano-British would be shorter than their continental cousins. After all, it took them longer to adopt heavy plow techniques used to harvest the more fertile low areas. A cooler, cloudier climate didn’t help as well.

Americans used to be the tallest on average in the world. Now our lousy diet has let the title slip.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I once read that prior to Bill the Bastard the English were about as tall as anyone, although there were only a million people in England at the time. Half the population the Romano-British at the start of the Dark Ages.

After that the Normans came in and, as you know, England became poverty central.

[Strike For The South]

Im :england: and :italy: and :germany: and Im 6' but my uncle who is mostly :england: and :germany: is 6'4 so Im hoping

[Papewaio]

The height issue was mainly affected by nutrition. I’m not sure exactly how it was during the Dark Ages but if it was similar to the high Middle Ages, “Britons” consumed fewer calories than continentals. Therefore naturally the Romano-British would be shorter than their continental cousins. After all, it took them longer to adopt heavy plow techniques used to harvest the more fertile low areas. A cooler, cloudier climate didn’t help as well.


Cooler climates lead to on the whole to larger organisms while warmer climates smaller... its to do with the ability to retain heat. Larger (rotund) have less surface area for their weight which is an advantage in cooler land areas (also applies to ocean going populations due to the specific heat of water), while smaller people will have and advantage in hot areas getting rid of heat... equatorial people tend to be shorter and/or more slender, while people from cooler regions (or ocean going) tend to be taller or more chubby.

Of course having a cultural suite of tools and food will beat size adapatations so the picture is a bit blurred nowadays.

[Vladimir]

So by your definition all people from Africa and the Middle East should be pigmies? The weather affects how much food you can produce. More food equals more people and you don't have the natural selection effect of harsher climates. Back during the discovery of the "hobbits" in the Pacific Island region, they discussed how small land mass = less food = small stature, nothing about the weather. The mammoths were huge but now they're dead while elephants are still alive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Africans usually mass less than Europeans relative to height and Arabians are not that tall, plus they had an advanced culture and high-tech irrigation.

[thrashaholic]

...the almost complete disappearance of Celtic names from the landscape...

Hmmm, I don't know if I agree with that. One would be surprised at the number of Celtic (especially Cymric) origin names around the place: Cumbria, Kent, the river Avon (Afon), the river Derwent (Derwennydd), Glastonbury (Glastenig) anything with 'Combe' (cwm - valley) in the name to name but a few.

This website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/fab/fab012.htm) gives a few more: Kyle in Ayrshire is named after King Cole (Coel), Carrick after Caradawg his nephew, Edinburgh (or Caeredin in Welsh) is named after Clyddno Eiddyn a relative of Urien of Rheged...

[Red Peasant]

Hmmm, I don't know if I agree with that. One would be surprised at the number of Celtic (especially Cymric) origin names around the place: Cumbria, Kent, the river Avon (Afon), the river Derwent (Derwennydd), Glastonbury (Glastenig) anything with 'Combe' (cwm - valley) in the name to name but a few.

This website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/fab/fab012.htm) gives a few more: Kyle in Ayrshire is named after King Cole (Coel), Carrick after Caradawg his nephew, Edinburgh (or Caeredin in Welsh) is named after Clyddno Eiddyn a relative of Urien of Rheged...

Thanks, yes there are some, but considering the thousands of names that exist from the period they are very few indeed.

[Incongruous]

You lucky buggers, my Magyar blood has completely phased out my English side, im only 5,9, hard too believe but my grandad (english side) was 7 feet tall, my uncle 6,5. Damn! but at least im not some stragly beanpole.