Divided "British"

[digitS']

The size of the entire island is somewhere between the total areas of the US states of Oregon and Idaho. In other words, Oregon is larger than 40 of the states; it is also larger than Great Britain.

No US state has as large a population as Great Britain although including all of the people in the western States would top 'em, 72 million to 61 million.

So, who are these people? We already know about England, Scotland and Wales. What about the rest of 'em? One people? Divided? A melting pot?

Britain as tribes or, we could also say as a united people (LINK)

Steve

 

[Ridgerunner]

This article is a link in your link.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/feb/25/viking-ancestors-astrology

A couple of years back I went to a talk by an archeologist that's doing a major dig in Texas. In it he gave some of his thoughts about how the Americas were originally settled in antiquity, plus he showed several other theories of other archeologists. One of his points was that they sure can't all agree what happened. There is evidence for all of them. He did not say that his theories were right, that they needed more study, but he would really like to be able to archeologically explore the continental shelf on the Atlantic side. Sea level used to be a lot lower than it is now so a lot of evidence could be buried under water. His thoughts were that people came to this continent by all of the possible ways, some routes more used than others. He thought the early Europeans used the Viking route, across the top through Iceland and Greenland and on down the East Coast, that this route had more influence than many people give it credit. But as a true scientist should, he remained skeptical.

During the question and answer section after the talk someone asked him about just using DNA to test this theory. His comments were pretty much in line with your article. Yes, you can get some trends by testing ancient DNA but testing anywhere near modern DNA was pretty useless from an archeological viewpoint. There has been way too much mixing. Even back then there was more mixing than many people believe.

 

[so lucky]

Excuse me for picking at nits here, but the first part of the article said the guy met him with a gun and a mastiff. I thought ownership of guns was outlawed in England? Or is that a myth?

 

[Smart Red]

I believe gun ownership in England was guaranteed to the titled class by the Magna Carta. While highly regulated, it is still possible for Lords, Earls, Dukes, Etc. to possess and use guns. Only the commoners are totally forbidden from having guns unless needed for work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is often a lot of difference in myth and reality.

This article might help. Shotguns are not technically considered firearms so they are in a different class, as are handguns. Being in the nobility is not a requirement, but you have to have permission and a reason to own a weapon. I'll copy a summary excerpt from the article for those that don't want to open it and read it.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/greatbritain.php

Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons. Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

 

[digitS']

The author of the newspaper article argues that only using modern humans' DNA with ancestry traced back to the late 19th century isn't good enough. That's fine but I imagine that testing 2,000 Britons from medieval times and earlier would not be easy. What could be found from Stonehenge would be even more difficult.

Populations tend to be complex. I find it surprising that the most diverse groups were what we would call Celtic. It's likely that the further back the original generation is, the more likely the isolation, although that may not necessarily follow.

Of course, those folks didn't want to see their descendants disappear. I'm pleased to see evidence that they probably did not . My pleasure is probably not shared by everyone in Great Britain. Or, that defensive posture is just a tribalism ...

The Magna Carta is from 1215 and may have had to do with weapons but the Mongols appear to be the only ones using firearms in Europe during the 13th century.

Steve

 

[so lucky]

Hmmmm......