Ancient skeletons bury a popular right-wing talking point

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/ancient-skeletons-bury-popular-right-wing-talking-point/

sad backdrop to this story

[aligern]

It is, but the story itself is too politically motivated to be trusted and is highly dangerous. Right wing extremism feeds off the feeling that people have that their group , with which they self identify, is under threat, so articles that deny the existence of a grouping that peopke feel they belong too risks encouraging the very nationalism that the writers are trying to deny. A recent book on the phenomenon of Trump and Brexit voting postulated the the theory that the population could be split into Somewheres and Nowheres. Somewheres feeling the need for a defined licalised identity, Nowheres having a supranational allegiance. Very Henry II and Thomas Beckett?
Anyway what modern peopke mean when they describe themselves as Anglo Saxon is doubtless a constuct of modern attributes ( all nationalisms are) , but that does not mean that the inhabitants of England in the seventh to eleventh centuries did not have similar constructs that they identified with .
When Harold II went north to pacify the rebellious inhabitants of York and to exile his own brother he agreed to let the men of York live under Danish law. Its a moot point as to whether they thought of themselves as English in the sense of being under the king of England and Danish in law abd lijely language or as Anglo Danes...but they must have had some idea of what they were. Parsing people's genetic make up does not mean that they had no identities. I buy into the idea that identity is multilayered and voluntary in the sense that one can attempt to have multilayered identities at the same time and that ancient peoples likely did this as well, so someone might be Roman, Mithraist, member of sixth legion and Illyrian. 
WithnAnglo Saxon its clearly a created identity, back in Bede's time they were likely already buying into English as a descriptor, along with Northumbrian etc.  The 'Germanics' who came to England came in small groups, perhaps three ships a time, might already have  mixed genetic heritage before crossing the sea, and the groups included Sueves, Heruls, Franks and of course adopting Britons as well as Saxons ( already a confederation, Angles and Jutes.

[Jim Webster]

It is, but the story itself is too politically motivated to be trusted and is highly dangerous. Right wing extremism feeds off the feeling that people have that their group , with which they self identify, is under threat, so articles that deny the existence of a grouping that peopke feel they belong too risks encouraging the very nationalism that the writers are trying to deny. A recent book on the phenomenon of Trump and Brexit voting postulated the the theory that the population could be split into Somewheres and Nowheres. Somewheres feeling the need for a defined licalised identity, Nowheres having a supranational allegiance. Very Henry II and Thomas Beckett?
Anyway what modern peopke mean when they describe themselves as Anglo Saxon is doubtless a constuct of modern attributes ( all nationalisms are) , but that does not mean that the inhabitants of England in the seventh to eleventh centuries did not have similar constructs that they identified with .
When Harold II went north to pacify the rebellious inhabitants of York and to exile his own brother he agreed to let the men of York live under Danish law. Its a moot point as to whether they thought of themselves as English in the sense of being under the king of England and Danish in law abd lijely language or as Anglo Danes...but they must have had some idea of what they were. Parsing people's genetic make up does not mean that they had no identities. I buy into the idea that identity is multilayered and voluntary in the sense that one can attempt to have multilayered identities at the same time and that ancient peoples likely did this as well, so someone might be Roman, Mithraist, member of sixth legion and Illyrian. 
WithnAnglo Saxon its clearly a created identity, back in Bede's time they were likely already buying into English as a descriptor, along with Northumbrian etc.  The 'Germanics' who came to England came in small groups, perhaps three ships a time, might already have  mixed genetic heritage before crossing the sea, and the groups included Sueves, Heruls, Franks and of course adopting Britons as well as Saxons ( already a confederation, Angles and Jutes.

Very pertinent points. Articles written about this discussion are normally written by those who are players in the game. As an ancients wargamer the idea of historians having their own agenda isn't new to me :-)
Identity is a very interesting concept and to an extent people buy into one. I have close friends who have no difficulty in seeing themselves as Nigerians and British. They are perfectly happy to sign up to the classic British values, but bring with them Nigerian values such as the importance of family and community the need for families to support each other.  Also a very wide view of family. When one had to go to the caterers to organise his daughter's wedding, he told them that somewhere between 200 and 600 would sit down at the wedding breakfast.
Basically he hadn't a clue because every Nigerian who vaguely knew the family and who happened to be passing through the UK or nearby would of course come to the wedding whether he invited them or not. (It's pretty much the same as the old village weddings we used to get in Rural areas here, where everybody turns up at the church service, and the village provided the catering with a bring and share meal in the village hall.) And of course only the English people invited actually RSVP'ed, all Nigerians 'knew' absolutely that the father of the bride would know that they would do everything possible to make the big day.
It's interesting to see how this works out in their lives, and perhaps because of the people they are, they have tried live up to the best of each identity
But yes, identity can be multilayered and also it can be a refuge for groups who feel put down

[Patrick Waterson]

One persistent cultural factor across many races and places which makes DNA analysis highly questionable as a measure of culture or ethnicity is the habit of tracing descent and cultural identity via the male line irrespective of female ethnicity.  This is most noticeable (because best catalogued) in Hebrew scriptural tradition, where until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah Hebrew men are marrying Canaanite, Syrian, Moabite and Midinaite women and the resultant children are usually considered fully-fledged Hebrews.

This kind of practice, applied to the Anglo-Saxon scene, would provide a high level of apparent Britonic ethnicity in Anglo-Saxon settlements as Saxon raiders took local wives and concubines, had children by them, and these children, raised as Saxons, moved further inland to conquer lands and seize wives of their own.  The invaders would retain their cultural continuity and quite probably their outward appearance but their DNA would be seriously diluted, much to the confusion of later academics and scientists.

Roy and Jim both make excellent cultural points to which I happily subscribe.

[Jim Webster]

One persistent cultural factor across many races and places which makes DNA analysis highly questionable as a measure of culture or ethnicity is the habit of tracing descent and cultural identity via the male line irrespective of female ethnicity.  This is most noticeable (because best catalogued) in Hebrew scriptural tradition, where until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah Hebrew men are marrying Canaanite, Syrian, Moabite and Midinaite women and the resultant children are usually considered fully-fledged Hebrews.

The old Testament can be read as a beautiful example of a people trying to maintain their identity and the tensions it creates.
So when (some of) the exiles return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, we have Ezra in chapter 9 saying "After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Yet in an earlier and more confident age we have the Book of Ruth, and Ruth herself, a Moabite, was admitted into the ancestors of no less a person that King David.

My guess is that confident, aggressive, domineering people don't worry too much about their cultural identity, it is what they will it to be.
It's those who feel themselves to be under attack and in some way disadvantaged who make a big thing of it.
How about that for a huge and wild generalisation 

[Patrick Waterson]

And I think a by no means inaccurate one.

[Justin Swanton]

G K Chesterton has some interesting input on being Anglo-Saxon. He maintained that the British always took pride in being mongrels. Having a shipwrecked Spaniard from the Armada in the family tree was an especial cause for delight. The English people, like the language, is about as kaapie as you can get.

He makes the point that what constituted the English identity were the institutions: the monarchy, aristocracy, class system, government, legal system, church and the particular social order they helped create. Get rid of those and 'English' becomes a meaningless word. My impression is that they are by-and-large gone anyway, hence the reaction that tries to reaffirm what they once stood for. Flogging a dead horse.

I've watched the social identity of Whites get wiped from the map twice, in Zimbabwe and South Africa. One gets over it.

[Erpingham]

I'm sure I don't need to remind us that we are in risky territory politically.  One of the nice things about being here is we can chat about military history even when we know our politics is different.  I'd like to keep it that way.

Going back to the original study, I like the idea of sampling ancient material to look at DNA make up at the time rather than now, but this one has a tiny sample size - even smaller than the Beaker one.  Is it too early to call for a meta-study to collate these small sample surveys and see what that tells us?

[Justin Swanton]

I'm sure I don't need to remind us that we are in risky territory politically.  One of the nice things about being here is we can chat about military history even when we know our politics is different.  I'd like to keep it that way.

Going back to the original study, I like the idea of sampling ancient material to look at DNA make up at the time rather than now, but this one has a tiny sample size - even smaller than the Beaker one.  Is it too early to call for a meta-study to collate these small sample surveys and see what that tells us?

That's fine. I'm not really into politics myself. We gave that up here decades ago. One thing about the article that intrigues me is the idea that the English are a homogeneous race. That had been laughed out of court a long time ago (as Chesterton pointed out*). Is there a resurgence of the idea of Anglo-Saxon racial purity?

*I remember an article by him on the promoters of the Nordic race idea - the superior men of the North - which idea was rather compromised when the Germans took it up. He suggested they use a different term - Borealic - which could be shortened to 'Bores'.

[Imperial Dave]

no politics from my perspective but I did think it was an interesting piece and really wish people wouldnt use studies for political ends but thats the modern world which ironically seems worse in some respects than 1500 years ago

[Patrick Waterson]

Justin's point about English identity being tied to institutions is an important one for understanding certain cultures, especially Romans, particularly in the Imperial period.  Trying to map the Roman Empire through DNA studies alone would be enough to make strong men weep.

[Imperial Dave]

Justin's point about English identity being tied to institutions is an important one for understanding certain cultures, especially Romans, particularly in the Imperial period.  Trying to map the Roman Empire through DNA studies alone would be enough to make strong men weep.

exactly, the Romans didnt really care for DNA, they wanted loyalty to the Pax Romana!

[Mark G]

I do worry that this misses the point for the nut jobs out there

Sane people talk about this and say things like the above.

Lunatics simply hear more proof of whatever stupidity they have latched on to.

And the fact that people who would be horrified to be associated with the lunatics are talking seriously about something the lunatics want to hear just reinforces the lunatics belief that everyone is with them

It's like mildly racist jokes.  The point is not whether it is funny to not, "it's just a joke" is the after excuse to defuse the consequence.
The real point is so the racist can reinforce his belief by finding other people to laugh with him.

It is very hard to talk about this sort of biological nationalistic determinism nonsense without falling into the trap, and frankly, there is no gain worth the effort.  Proceed with extreme caution.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am hoping we shall not worry to much about political correctness here.  What I would hope for is a sensible,  thinking treatment of any given subject, and if this of necessity abrades a few present-day sacred cows, I am not too bothered.

[Imperial Dave]

we have to be careful and also conscientious about stuff like this but with clear filters in place we should be able to discuss meaningful information from a wider context of population dynamics