I guess this might help answer the question: https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/international/press-releases/DNA-of-the-nation-revealedand-were-not-as-British-as-we-think

If that is right, then it looks like the average is 37% Anglo-Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% "Western European" (area covered by France and German), 9% Scandinavian, with variations based on region.

I wonder where the Western European comes in then. Is that Normans? Or is it just other Germanic groups like the Jutes and such. Perhaps pre-historic migrations.

So it looks like heavy mixing of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic culture, with practically wholesale replacement of language with Anglo-Saxon. I am not aware of much Celtic influence on English language. With only limited Viking influence.

This is a surprise for you?

Did you think English people were of pure blood?

I find this channel entertaining and informative:

Exactly, the English (or really the British) are the arch-mongrels. They are mongreloids.

...and that, if anything, was their strength.

Yes, and it also seems to be reflected in the remarkable eclecticism of the English language.

The English are almost exclusively the descendants of the Corded Ware Culture. When you call them "mongrels", which you must if you hate them, then you are relying on distinctions where there is no difference.

The English are almost exclusively the descendants of the Corded Ware Culture. — tom

Yep, they are European. Except for those that aren't.

Yep, they are European. Except for those that aren't. — Banno

And you hate them too.

An odd inference. And incorrect.

Italy has a similarly strange mixing of peoples in the past millennia or two. Arguably more diverse than Britain.

You're way off, dude!

Yeah, they were the ancient mongreloids.

My understanding is that Europe has been infused with new populations moving east to west several times. If I remember correctly (and this may not be the case) the Celts were at one time the dominant western European group. They were pushed westward by various early Germanic tribes. By the late years of the Romans, the dominant Celtic areas would have been Gaul and Britain (including Ireland).

Population movements were not, as I understand it, a scorched earth program. Rather, new tribal groups moved into an area. Some of the then native peoples moved westward, and some remained and mixed into the new population.

The Celts remained the ethnic dominant group in parts of France, Ireland and Scotland. There were: Britons (Cornish, English and Welsh), Gaels (Irish, Manx, Scots) and the Bretons.

The Romans probably made some sort of contribution to the genes of England, but that was maybe 60 generations back. After the Romans, there were various groups who moved across the channel and settled. They brought with them several Germanic tongues, Angle, Saxon, Frisian, Old Norse, Old French and so on, which melded together to form Old, then Middle, then Early Modern, and finally Modern English in the 17th Century. The Norman Invasion most affected the Anglo-Saxon land owning elite. William replaced English occupancy of estates with his own people. But this was a change at the top. The much larger population who were ruled by the elite did not experience a major change in their lives, or initially their language. A substantial vocabulary of Anglo Saxon can be found in modern English.

Terms like 'black smith', 'iron', 'anneal', and so on are Germanic terms in Old English. 'Forge', on the other hand, is derived from Latin fabrica through Old French. The core of English is Anglo Saxon. Open Lord of the Rings, and much of the Tolkien's text is derived from Anglo Saxon -- from maybe 75% to 90%. The remaining 10% to 25% is derived mostly from the Norman French contribution. (The words) beef and pork are derived from French. Hog and mutton are Celtic; pig, chicken, and cow are Germanic; grass is Germanic, lawn is Celtic, garden is French. And so on.

The percentage of all words in the language that are Anglo Saxon (more or less) has declined steadily since the Norman invasion. After 1066, French words began to become more common. By Chaucer's time, a lot of French words had been added to the vocabulary. During the 16th and 17th centuries, a lot of new words were added by coining words based on Latin and Greek. Shakespeare coined quite a few words.

English borrowed words from various languages as new products arrived (sugar, chintz, cotton, tomato, maize, coffee, etc.). The process continues up to the moment. But what has stayed the same is the core of the language: grammar, prepositions, articles, and all 6,000 + &/or – a couple thousand AS words which are the most commonly used words in the language.

Yes, really good breakdown. This article also provides some context based on genetic studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

I have a degree in ancient history and archaeology and a Masters in Intellectual History.

This sort of discussion is the scourge of humanity.

It is of no real importance and only serves to disrupt and sunder humanity into disparate groups based on a myth that there are such things as races and that races somehow determine behaviour.
It's like we have learned nothing from the second world war and Martin Luther King.
The primitive urge to shun 'the other' and to form petty human groups has been made into a scientific fetish by people willing to cash in on DNA analysis.
DNA is not coded for nationality. There is one race - the human race. Phenotypical characteristics are superficial and you can find more in common with a person from the other side of the earth who is a different size, shape or colour that you can with your own brother.
Culture is extra-somatic. Being "English" is a myth with arbitrary characteristics not carried by eggs or sperm, it is wholly mythical and learned.

If that is right, then it looks like the average is 37% Anglo-Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% "Western European" (area covered by France and German), 9% Scandinavian, with variations based on region. — schopenhauer1

None of these categories have any genetic meaning, and all arguments about %age are circular.
These are mDNA studies and are not genomic.

Nothing wrong about learning human historical migrations using DNA analysis. I don't get the uproar. If anything DNA tells us how connected we are while at the same time highlighting how complex history can be. Through the DNA analysis from that link, we know that there was little Viking admixture despite a century of rule in the northern regions of Britain. It also seems to indicate that rather than being wiped out, the Briton Celts were integrated more-or-less into Anglo-Saxon society, but the language was replaced fully. This actually raises an interesting question: How is it that the Celtic language was completely replaced even if the people remained. Shouldn't there be some mix of Celt with the Anglo-Saxon? So, I disagree and think DNA as an investigation into the human migrational patterns and historical events can be a very useful tool.

Now, as for DNA determining behavior and all that, and the subtle or overt racism of tribal thinking and us and them, etc. etc. I completely agree. However, that is not at all what molecular anthropology is all about, which essentially what this topic covers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_anthropology

Phenotypical characteristics are superficial and you can find more in common with a person from the other side of the earth who is a different size, shape or colour that you can with your own brother. — charleton

>:O

How is it that the Celtic language was completely replaced even if the people remained — schopenhauer1

I've thought about this one for some time.
France gets its name from the Franks, another Germanic tribe. The consequences for the language were that German words for military ranks and cavalry equipment. They surrendered their language completely
In Britain there is an assumption that before Caesar the country was fully "Celtic", and that after the Romans fled the entire country in a very short time, changed to Anglo-Saxon with Celtic remaining only in place names.
Geoffrey of Monmouth talks about only a handful of invading ships!
I've always entertained the view that Saxon migration started long before the legions left in 401AD. And that Rome purposely invited Saxons to settle in the SE to avoid the problems of raiding along "Saxon Shore". I also made myself unpopular by suggesting that germanic was even spoken in Britain before the Romans invaded. So tribes such as the Belgae and Trinovantes, , Regnenses having Latinised names may well have been Germanic or Celtic speakers. There is simply no evidence as no historical account takes any particular interest in their linguistic origins. The Belgae for example were know to have been recent migrants to Britain and the assumption they spoke Celtic has no basis in evidence.
Languages have no specific boundaries in any event. English is a melange of influences and we have no direct evidence about what the multitude of ethnic groups' influences were.
Early history - protohistory is built on assumptions and those assumptions were largely built on an interest in racialism.

As a side note. Celticism was invented in the 17thC. The Romans never referred to inhabitants of Gaul or Britain as "Celtic". by Contrast early archaeological evidence of so-called "celts" were Germanic. The Halstatt and La Tene cultures were from Germany!
But the contemporary evidence of "Keltoi" (a Greek word BTW) puts Kelts in Massilia southern France, and they are described as Blonde Haired and Blue Eyed.
The idea that the entire continent of Europe was "Celtic" is meaningless.

I have a degree in ancient history and archaeology and a Masters in Intellectual History. — charleton

That reminds me of the National Public Radio satire, Mr. Science: "He knows more than you do. He has a Masters Degree –– in SCIENCE"

a myth that there are such things as races and that races somehow determine behaviour — charleton

You are the only one using the word "race" in this thread, so far. So... why are you belly aching about it?

Being "English" is a myth with arbitrary characteristics not carried by eggs or sperm, it is wholly mythical and learned. — charleton

It will probably surprise millions of people who have been calling themselves "English" that it is really just a myth. Likewise, the French will be annoyed that they are mythic. Also the Icelanders, Russians, Tutsis, Inuit, Koreans, et al.

How droll.
First an ad hominem before your scathing and empty denial.
Ho fucking Hum lol.

Now show me the gene that says "I'm English"

How is it that the Celtic language was completely replaced even if the people remained. — schopenhauer1

The language of a given group of people may disappear IF it is advantageous to abandon one's own language for someone else's. Take the languages spoken by immigrants to the United States in the 19th century: German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Croat, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Greek, Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, French, Czech, and so on. The first generation kept their native language. The second generation tended to be bilingual, the third generation tended to be monolingual in English.

Immigrant groups usually tended to abandon their native languages because the dominant culture in the United States was English speaking.

In reverse, an influx of a new language group which belongs to a dominating/dominant culture may cause the native speakers to abandon their language. In South America, many native Amerindian languages were abandoned in favor of Spanish or Portuguese. Probably the same thing happened over time in the British Isles. There was an advantage for non AS speaking people to learn Anglo-Saxon, and eventually lose their own.

@Charlton: Just so you can classify this properly, I not repeating myth; this is sheer speculation.

Now show me the gene that says "I'm English" — charleton

Don't look at me; I'm not claiming Englishness, Frenchness, or any-thing-else-ness is genetic. Clearly, identity is learned from one's parents, peers, community, and culture. As it happens, intergenerational continuity is sufficient to build and maintain a somewhat consistent national identity over time.

The people of any given place on earth have a history of movement, and those movements (great or small) will be reflected in their genetic inheritance. Genes don't govern culture. They govern the biology of the animal -- human, canine, or insectish. Culture? Not genetic.

So we agree about that.

I see you can't answer the question.
Yawn!!

The language of a given group of people may disappear IF it is advantageous to abandon one's own language for someone else's. Take the languages spoken by immigrants to the United States in the 19th century: German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Croat, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Greek, Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, French, Czech, and so on. The first generation kept their native language. The second generation tended to be bilingual, the third generation tended to be monolingual in English. — Bitter Crank

Good point.

In reverse, an influx of a new language group which belongs to a dominating/dominant culture may cause the native speakers to abandon their language. In South America, many native Amerindian languages were abandoned in favor of Spanish or Portuguese. Probably the same thing happened over time in the British Isles. There was an advantage for non AS speaking people to learn Anglo-Saxon, and eventually lose their own. — Bitter Crank

True, I think that would be an appropriate analogy.

That channel - https://youtu.be/_iVdy0s8ARE - has good stuff. It shows how detailed the genetics is getting and how it can clarify the archaeology.

So what is there left to debate? The interesting point could be the degree to which the mongrel English language may hold a cultural advantage in being in fact "ethnically cleansed".

There is much rightful angst about the loss of indigenous languages as those languages are the living embodiment of a culture. A whole way of life is encoded in a shared language game. So to rob a people of their language is erasing their cultural identity.

But by the same token, the loss of cultural specificity would be an advantage in becoming "modern". English is arguably the best language for developing new cultural and intellectual games because it carries less history. It has less concern for its ethnic purity - as opposed to French, for instance.

Some say German is in fact a better language for thinking really complicated thoughts. And English could also be said to carry an awful lot of cultural baggage in its rich variety of primary sources. Claiming English to be the best vehicle for modern thought is also - I agree - a stretch. We could examine the merits of Esperanto. :)

Anyway, there is a lot of interesting and new stuff here it seems to me in being able to use precise genetics to sharpen the questions we could have of social history.

Those videos made me think why is there so little Roman blood in the British gene pool, and yet one was forced to learn Latin as a kid ... as it improved one's grasp of English, apparently. Or even Greek, as the Romans themselves needed that to have access to their cultural heritage, and a real Englishman ought to recapitulate that.

Amusing really. The Poms maintained their own class divisions by learning how not to speak their native language. And even the languages of their dominant neighbours - frenemies like France and German - were pretty optional. What really defined the dominant class were the languages of their intellectual ancestors.

What really defined the dominant class were the languages of their intellectual ancestors. — apokrisis

If you mean the influence of Latin in English, that was mainly through the influence of Old French brought over by the Normans.

Ah, no. I was talking about its prestigious cultural position, not its influence on English vocabulary.