Face of Britain - TV

[Robert Vermaat]

Did they actually suggest that on TV? Well, place names are one thing of course but the way of speaking? That's such a load of .. Well, let's put it this way: language is not connected to dna. Linguistics have their own rules. If the population is stable and relatively isolated you might expect that they speak as their ancestors did , but if not, anything goes. You can bring Chinese children to The Netherlands, and they will speak Dutch like any other child.

Agreed "heritage" is not always DNA based but apparently old time Geordies could hold a conversation with Friesian fishing boat skippers. The linguist said that Friesian dialect is the closest we have to old Anglo Saxon (Anglo/Jute/Saxon?).

OK, so that's 'language' vs. 'way of speaking', which I thought of as something different.
Agreed, such dialects/languages differed from 'modern regulated' languages which are taught through the school systems. I can read 14th c. manuscripts from Berlin - they differ very little from modern Dutch, but immensely from modern German.

However, and that's my main reserve with testing modern people for ancient dna too, we don't have access to information when these changes took place.
Could Geordies understand Frisian skippers because their ancestors were Anglo-Saxons and they continued to speak that language? Or had their ancestors come over from the continent during the Middle Ages (like people from Flanders and many others who continued to settle in Britain over the age until this very day)?
Did speakers of Hindi come over when Britain first conquered India, or did they come later from Angola?

Nor are place names, but it wasn't a case of using only one thing to put the probability higher, it was a combination of things (language which included actual Anglo-Saxon words not Viking + DNA + place names) all of which combined to indicate one predominant likelihood. Give them some credit, the programmes researchers didn't just make it up, but a leading expert in linguistics was consulted who himself combined the different types of evidence.

Well, I would not suggest they made anything up, but far too often I have seen documentaries where experts make very acceptable statements, but 'presentors' subsequently make ludicrous statements that in no way reflect what the experts just said! I was merely wondering if that had happened in this case, too. :?

[Conal]

However, and that's my main reserve with testing modern people for ancient dna too, we don't have access to information when these changes took place.

Could Geordies understand Frisian skippers because their ancestors were Anglo-Saxons and they continued to speak that language? Or had their ancestors come over from the continent during the Middle Ages (like people from Flanders and many others who continued to settle in Britain over the age until this very day)?

Did speakers of Hindi come over when Britain first conquered India, or did they come later from Angola?

They only tested people who had 4 grandparents from the same area where families had gone back a few generations. I presume that that they picked areas which did not suffer too much from immigration.

Hindi speakers did not arrive en-masse and clear an area of locals thus imprinting that language and place names on an area that lasted for say a 1000 years.

The change brought with the Saxons was a bit different from the tricle which had not got above 1 to 2% of the whole population until recently. I ama sure the influx from Flanders could not have imprinted itself anywhere but locally in London and other cities.


PS. did you mean Uganda rather than Angola:wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

However, and that's my main reserve with testing modern people for ancient dna too, we don't have access to information when these changes took place.

Could Geordies understand Frisian skippers because their ancestors were Anglo-Saxons and they continued to speak that language? Or had their ancestors come over from the continent during the Middle Ages (like people from Flanders and many others who continued to settle in Britain over the age until this very day)?

Did speakers of Hindi come over when Britain first conquered India, or did they come later from Angola?

They only tested people who had 4 grandparents from the same area where families had gone back a few generations. I presume that that they picked areas which did not suffer too much from immigration.

Hindi speakers did not arrive en-masse and clear an area of locals thus imprinting that language and place names on an area that lasted for say a 1000 years.

That's a bit my point. How does testing someone whose family has been in the area for 5 generations say anything about a past that lies 50 generations (assuming 30 years for each generation, which is the longer one)? I really wonder what they used as test subject in order to base their scientific models on that number of generations. After all, you'd need a thorough research of the whole (modern) family to determine if the test subject did not become 'contaminated' along the way (I mean, adultery can have its influences), or that the family did not arrive in the area, say, 8 generations ago? I never saw the background research for these modern studies, who seem way to 'assuming' for my taste to really be able to make such detailed comments about who moved in where at what time.

I did not mean to compare the migration of Hindi-speakers to English speakers - of course not! I merely wanted to give an example for my doubt about conclusions that are based on observations in the past and present, without thorough research into the background. Hence did I compare the 'speaking habits of the Geordies' with speakers of Hindi. That Geordies could understand Frisian skippers does not mean the ancestors of the Geordies HAD to arrive in the Early Middle Ages (they might have arrived later), in the same way that current speakers of Hindi do not HAVE to be descended from the first ones that entered Britain; their ancestors may have entered only very recently.

I mean to suggest that immigration is a process that goes on and on, basing conclusions on models who see it as a series of restricted waves is in my opinion very dangerous.

The change brought with the Saxons was a bit different from the tricle which had not got above 1 to 2% of the whole population until recently. I ama sure the influx from Flanders could not have imprinted itself anywhere but locally in London and other cities.

Like I said, I did not speak about numbers and actual changes in population or landscape, but at what time such groups came in and continued to come in afterwards. Btw, did not many Flemish immigrants end up in South Wales?

PS. did you mean Uganda rather than Angola:wink:

I did,thanks. Too hasty to remember correctly.

[Conal]

The presumtion on the generation thing is that local populations did not move much or get affected by immigration prior to this century.

I have heard tales of wagons having different axel diameters in different counties so that they would not fit the ruts in the next county :? roll:

My uncle has traced the family branch in Ireland back to and beyond Earl Strongbow and they still have the farm now hock:

[Tarbicus]

That's a bit my point. How does testing someone whose family has been in the area for 5 generations say anything about a past that lies 50 generations (assuming 30 years for each generation, which is the longer one)? I really wonder what they used as test subject in order to base their scientific models on that number of generations.

The test subject grandparents also had to come from rural areas, where there is less immigration. Their surnames also said a lot, generally being traditional names for the area (in one 19th C census one subject's surname existed in ONLY that smaller area of the entire country, nowhere else).

At the end of the day, it's a TV programme documenting and interacting with the work being done at Oxford University by some very reputable people. Why not give them a call if you doubt it that much? I'm sure they'd love to talk about it :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

At the end of the day, it's a TV programme documenting and interacting with the work being done at Oxford University by some very reputable people. Why not give them a call if you doubt it that much? I'm sure they'd love to talk about it :wink:

hey, isn't it their job to convince me by answering questions, not my job to be convinced without asking questions?
Like you said elsewhere, everybody is entitled to their opinion.

But give me their numbers, I'll make the call... :wink:

[Conal]

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsi ... /face.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Face-Britain-Ge ... 0743295293

Get in there Robert and ruffle a few feathers

[Peroni]

Breton, of course, is a later import from Britain.

It is a very similar language to Cornish.

[Caballo]

And my Welsh-speaking realtives found that they could converse in Brittany as well.

There are also a number of Latin loan-words in Welsh that survived from Romano-British times e.g. pont=bridge, llurig= body armour (lorica), ffenestr (fenetre in French) = window, cleddyf= sword (gladius), cant= hundred. tarw= bull (taurus) etc etc.

Cheers


Caballo

[Robert Vermaat]

Get in there Robert and ruffle a few feathers

Oh I'm sure that all i could say is something they already know.. :wink:
But sometimes it's easier to ingone party-pooper like me and pretend you did not hear anything. :wink:

[Chariovalda]

I haven't seen any of the programs, but I am intrigued enough to get the DVD's

I have one major objection to what I have read: they combine existing faces to come up with "composites", then compare them between, say modern Orcadians and Norwegians.

The problem is this: how your face looks depends on the skull, plus a few other factors (diet etc.). However, the skull, like the rest of your skeleton, is shaped not just by genetics, but also by diet, climate, lifestyle etc. And some features are hereditary, but require certain circumstances to manifest themselves.
Now, I am not sure, but I suspect that modern Orcadians and Norwegians do not exactly share the same diet or lifestyle, never mind the climate.

As for Vorty's sceptical attitude, well, fact is, archaeogenetics is still a slippery new science subject to frequent revision. While I am not as critical as him, I would like to caution people not to quickly jump to conclusions just based on a documentary or two. The genetic evidence is still sufficiently open to debate and differences of interpretation that it'll be a few years yet before the picture gets clearer. The case of Orkney is relatively straightforward compared to England... 8)

[Tarbicus]

However, the skull, like the rest of your skeleton, is shaped not just by genetics, but also by diet, climate, lifestyle etc. And some features are hereditary, but require certain circumstances to manifest themselves.
Now, I am not sure, but I suspect that modern Orcadians and Norwegians do not exactly share the same diet or lifestyle, never mind the climate.

A forensic facial reconstruction expert pointed out that there was an identical trait in the skulls of one set of peoples in Britain, and those in their DNA matched Euorpean counterparts. It's a split in the nasal bone that gives a distinctive look to the nose, a groove at the tip. Is that a diet thing? She was very, very sure that was a sign they were related. I didn't record the programme so can't check which peoples they were. I think it was Anglo-Saxon (East coast England and Friesland?), and she may have also reconstructed an ancient Anglo-Saxon face from a found skull.

[Arthes]

Now we just need to find some Sarmatian DNA & lingusitic imprint in the Cumbrian region :twisted:

See here....Border Reivers and Alani-Sarmatians
:wink: :wink:

and DNA project

It's a split in the nasal bone that gives a distinctive look to the nose, a groove at the tip.

I know somebody with a nose like that, they are originally from the West Country...think it is Cornwall...

[Tarbicus]

It's a split in the nasal bone that gives a distinctive look to the nose, a groove at the tip.

I know somebody with a nose like that, they are originally from the West Country...think it is Cornwall...

Definitely wasn't Cornwall and celtic. The typical celtic nose was finer than that IIRC.

[Chariovalda]

However, the skull, like the rest of your skeleton, is shaped not just by genetics, but also by diet, climate, lifestyle etc. And some features are hereditary, but require certain circumstances to manifest themselves.
Now, I am not sure, but I suspect that modern Orcadians and Norwegians do not exactly share the same diet or lifestyle, never mind the climate.

A forensic facial reconstruction expert pointed out that there was an identical trait in the skulls of one set of peoples in Britain, and those in their DNA matched Euorpean counterparts. It's a split in the nasal bone that gives a distinctive look to the nose, a groove at the tip. Is that a diet thing? She was very, very sure that was a sign they were related. I didn't record the programme so can't check which peoples they were. I think it was Anglo-Saxon (East coast England and Friesland?), and she may have also reconstructed an ancient Anglo-Saxon face from a found skull.

Jim,

I saw that bit in one of the videoclips. Interesting, but all it means that this is probably a hereditary trait that is visible no matter what. There are others that need certain environmental triggers and other traits are determined by non-hereditary factors. What I meant is that this complicates relying on face composites. Sure, hereditary traits may lead to strong facial similarities, but that is not always the case.

Anyway, Orkney is a “simpleâ€