The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Our British Ancestors Options
Posted: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:13:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,707
Neurons: 155,758
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Enough DNA has been recovered from the skeleton of the earliest Briton yet found to reconstruct his general appearance - and, with his skull, this allows for a rather detailed model.

It appears that "European" characteristics (as found from DNA analysis of bodies found in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary as well as this most recent British one) were not quite what one might expect.

Relatively short - about 5' 5" (165 cm) tall
Dark hair, wavy to curly, brown to black.
Fine, quite sparse facial hair.
Dark brown to black skin.
Blue eyes.

It appears that the pale skin and brown eyes syndrome was probably the result of vitamin deficiency in immigrants from the Middle East, due to their high-cereal diet.
Maybe the Aryan concept has some truth . . .

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Posted: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 2:30:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,781
Neurons: 42,205
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Drago - I don't think there has ever been any secret about the fact that the first "Britons" were small, dark people, with blue eyes. In any case, this is what we were taught back in the day when I went to Uni the first time doing anthropology and sociology. (To this day I have no idea what I imagined i was going to do with an Anthrop/Soc. degree!!)

I think it's wonderful that this theory has been translated into visuals; but the fact has certainly not been unknown until now.

What I find exciting in the past decade, however, is that it is the "landbridge" theory of entry that is being reviewed. There is considerable geological evidence in the North of England to suggest that these people did not arrive on the much-discussed land-bridge; but that they were already here BEFORE that last ice-age.

Enormous ditched droveways confounded the existing narrative of settlement only AFTER the last Ice Age and has put the time of settlement in the UK back by a few thousand years.

As technology has advanced and more and more evidence piles up that we have never had access to before, the whole comfortably accepted calendar of humanities rise to 'civillisation' is being revised to include places, mysteries, and evidence, that have hitherto been thought of as anomalies: and the "Timeline" that has appeared on so many TV sets, in so many classrooms, and in hundreds of books is becoming generally accepted as way out of date.

It's a very exciting time to be involved in archaeology!!
almo 1
Posted: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:53:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,244
Neurons: 5,678
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan

Prospect is a monthly British general interest magazine
( )

Myths of British ancestry

by Stephen Oppenheimer / October 21, 2006

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities.

Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, February 08, 2018 3:25:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 40,806
Neurons: 337,657
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Who were the Picts, I wonder.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Posted: Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:16:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 27,707
Neurons: 155,758
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thanks Almo, for those articles - I'll spend some time reading them later. They look very interesting.

Hi Romany.

Maybe I had the wrong idea.
My understanding of the old Brit "general appearance" was more "swarthy" (tanned, weathered) than "swart" (dark-skinned).

I had the idea of this

As opposed to the red- or bond-haired pale-skinned 'celt' look:

This is definitely swart (svartaelfe - black elf). The dark, little people who had lived here for thousands of years before the Celts, Gaels and Picts arrived.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.