|
|
Title: Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland
Purchase
Item
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton
List Price: $16.95
Our Price: $9.91
|
|
| Customer Reviews: |
| Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton 4.5 Stars for Included Content - 1.5 Stars for Excluded Content: Leading to Potentially Severe Misconceptions | I read the 2007 US edition of the 2006 UK book aka "Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of Our Tribal History".
The author-scientist chases the matrilineal and patrilineal genes of the UK and Ireland in order to compare his statistics with history books - which are in for a couple of revisions.
I find the results very rewarding to read, no matter of how much expendable information on his field work quest may be appreciated or not. (There are worse books in this aspect.) What bothers me is what he is NOT really indulging in. Because that has dire consequences in the reader's thinking processes. As a few reviewers have pointed out already, there isn't one mother's and one father's line of genetic inheritance only, but many many more. I would like to be more precise: The number of ancestors doubles with every generation. Calculating with some 20-25 years for one generation, no calculator will be able to depict the number of zillions of ancestors for not even the earliest times considered in this book. In fact, all ancestors will feature many times in every person's family tree. For easy counting, any human who produced a surviving line of descendents in the year 0 is a multiple ancestor of EVERY human living today. Not only in "the isles". On earth. In other words, putting individuals in separate units of so-called clans is a new level of racism, which may be called geneticism. Please be aware that this ugly word "racism" doesn't need to have the connotation of intended bad feelings and behavior towards a group of people. (That will follow more or less intense automatically.) Literally, it means the belief in / the doctrine [of the existence] of races. As a geneticist, Bryan Sykes knows perfectly well, that there aren't any races. Yet, he replaces this construct with another: The belief / the doctrine [of the existence] of clans. So maybe it should get called "clanism". That in science language will be "racism" again, as the Arabic/Semitic root word "ras" means head, in this context origin of a group of people. Many well-intended reviews on this site confirm the misleading ways, this book has been written in. Readers easily think, they belong to two clans. In reality, they belong to EVERY genetic clan. But only two are contemporarily measurable. That is indeed racism on a sophisticated 21st century level. Constructed sense of identification not by ethnic looks, but by constructed genes. Brian Sykes even points out, how much people seem to feel to belong to each other out of nowhere after realizing their clan connections. That these are one or even two out of a complete line of re-connection of the entire humanity in by far less than two millennia, is completely not realized. Feeling connected to one particular group means to feel disconnected to all other groups of the same category. And yes, out of hand, I would have to get in a science fiction mood to draw some conclusions, of how that may turn out ugly for society. I don't know yet. But humanity WILL find out, as humanity's meme pool is programmed to turn EVERY constructed line of separation into the ugly parts of history books. Most certainly, already, this construct PREVENTS a feeling of a healing complete belonging to EVERYONE, as we have the respective potential knowledge for that today. Ironically, Bryan Sykes references the 19th century German linguist (Friedrich) Max Müller who was more or less involuntarily responsible for the belief in races, with all its later ugly consequences to this very day. I wonder, wether Bryan Sykes may go down similarly in history...
As for his history revisions based on genetics: Most certainly, his findings merit some attention. However, contrary to popular belief, we cannot be SURE about the absolute validity of the conclusions drawn from the hard genetic facts - again: of two lines of heritage out of all of them, which are virtually indefinite. The only thing, his work is able to say, is which of these two lines were able to dominate all others. In this context, it is important to realize the misconception to say that the others are extinct. For they are all still in us, just not measurable with current science. Bryan Sykes' work may point into a general direction. Or it may not. Or it's a mix of both. Because according to the chaos theory, the smallest events are able to cause the most grave consequences futher down the time, in this case distortions of gene pools. Brian Sykes even makes a special point about the Genghis effect, i.e. one ruler being able to cause millions of descendents even via the single measurable patrilineal line. Only the tip of the iceberg, what may cause those distortions: differing copulation habits (spouse picking) according to e.g. visual ethnicity, social status, cultural customs such as marriage systems, free love, rape society, religious abstinence etc. Add political factors, such as slow or sudden genocide, prohibitive marriage laws based on groups; the average number of kids per family according to peer group. Also consider that absolute numbers and proportion of society may change differently along the centuries. Last not least, the fertility rate of different genes play a role. I wonder, wether different pictures of revised history may emerge, depending on considering representative DNA-samples of human remains of certain centuries. Maybe, a future book with the title "The Bones of the Isles" will tell us a completely different scenario. Don't get me wrong: Bryan Sykes' (and other geneticists') work is important as a step, maybe even a milestone towards an ever better overstanding of history. This book however tells history with a few pieces of the puzzle only, but presents itself as the entire picture. That way, the author gets in line with those historic historians/scientists who are listed by later colleagues as having thought wrongly because of certain respective contemporary thinking.
In addition, I was a bit disappointed, as I thought, this book would use hard evidence genetics to enlighten certain controversial issues. Such as: Were the early "Britons" really black skinned and some of these derived from Egypt? Books suggesting one and/or the other include David MacRitchie's 1880s two-volume classic Ancient and Modern Britons: Volume One (Ancient & Modern Britons), Ivan Van Sertima's 1980s African Presence in Early Europe (Journal of African Civilizations) and Ralph Ellis' 2006 Cleopatra to Christ (Jesus was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra) / Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots (Ireland and Scotland were founded by an Egyptian Queen) [Two Books in One]. Though I find the last of these three generally not that good a book, Bryan Sykes actually confirms at least the part of heritage from northern Iberia. (Ellis suggests northern Spain as the stepping stone of migration from Egypt.) Sykes goes a bit into the issue of phenotype, but only very tentatively. Briefly mentioning a rare sub-saharan clan in the UK (not by more recent migration). Ultimately, he shies away from this hot potatoe. Speaking of more recent migrations: Obviously, he leaves out supposedly visually distinctive more recent migrants. Why can't they have ancient British genes as well? Do they HAVE to be more recent migrants? May there be common clans among ancient and more recent migrants on the next larger level? Arbitrarily, he stops with the borders of Europe to identify clans. That is HIS artificial parameters, not the one of the genes, which don't care about constructed political boundaries. And is the focus on the countryside genes really adequately representative?
Last not least, either the Celts or the Picts may have managed to dominate the other via these two measurable gene lines, as is visually and/or genetically obvious in other instances, e.g. with one genetic line in the Black Jews called the Lemba in southern Africa. Most certainly, it will help to read the previous books by the author, in which he attempts to describe his clan mothers and fathers visually. (The Seven Daughters of Eve and Adam's Curse: A Future without Men). In one aspect, he seems to be completely mistaken: He avers, the megalith culture would be "a purely Atlantic phenomenon, owing nothing at all to the Mediterranean world." At least, he is mentioning Atlantic Africa as well, which other books studiously ignore. However, even the very orthodox history book of 1977 Megalith Builders devotes entire chapters to Maltese megalith temples and other megalithic structures of pre-dynastic Egypt, Syria and elsewhere in the Mediterranean.
The bottom line is: This book is worthy to read, but please don't get pulled in by the construction of yet another separation, the so-called genetic clans. | | Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton Wonderful blending of science and history | _Saxons, Vikings, and Celts_ by Bryan Sykes is the author notes on page one the first book of its type, one on the genetic history of Britain and Ireland (which he refers to as the Isles throughout the book), using DNA as the main source of information. Having looked at much larger issues in the human past he wanted to "dissect the intimate genetic make-up of a smaller region," to look at the truth behind some of the popularly held ideas and myths about the Isles.
Throughout the centuries monarchs have used myths and legends about the origins of various peoples to justify their leadership and to bolster their policies. Several kings used Arthurian legends to justify their reign, believing the Britons, personified by Arthur, to be the truly indigenous people of the whole of Britain and the later Saxons "treacherous imposters," despite evidence for Arthur's very existence being on shaky archaeological ground (questions about him were raised at least as far back as the early 1500s by Renaissance scholar Polydore Vergil). Edward I said he was merely fulfilling Merlin's prophecies in his campaigns in Wales and Henry VII used Arthurian myth effectively in his defeat of Richard III.
In a complete about face, Henry VIII, after his bitter break with Rome, instead pushed forward the idea that the original Britons had been wiped out and the English were in fact the linear descent of Saxons, who of course now were no longer vilified but lionized as "strong, self-confident, and adventurous," who had triumphed over the weak Britons and who possessed the stout spirit of Protestant independence of the Teutonic Germans.
What began as part of a declaration of religious independence from Rome transformed into a "virulent doctrine of Saxon/Teutonic racial superiority over the other inhabitants of the Isles," one that was to have far-reaching consequences. The Teutonic Myth and "Teutomaniacs" encouraged racist and divisive policies against the Welsh, Scots, and Irish, a mind-set that only began to fade with Germany's enthusiastic embrace of the myth themselves.
The pendulum seems to have swung the other way again - albeit with considerably less racist overtones -with a virtual Celtic Renaissance and the rise of the "Celtic brand," as people throughout Scotland, Wales, and Ireland but also among those of British descent in America enthusiastically buy "Celtic" jewelry, play "Celtic" music, and celebrate "Celtic" holidays, all this despite the fact that the notion of the Celts as separate people and the idea of any similarities between the Welsh, Scots, and Irish didn't really arise until the 1700s. Nevertheless, this hasn't stopped concepts of being Celtic from serving as both political rallying cry and tapping into feelings of displacement and affinity with aboriginal peoples.
Sykes wanted to cut through all of these myths. To what degree are the people of the Isles really Saxon or Celtic (or in the north Viking)? Are these purely cultural movements, myths put forward by kings to serve political ambitions, or is there some grain of truth to these eagerly embraced (and exploited) beliefs?
Sykes wasn't the first to begin delving into the origins of the British people in a scientific manner. Even at the height of Saxon mania in the Victoria era, one individual, a barrister by the name of Luke Owen Pike, was questioning notions of racial superiority and purity and the very idea of the complete extermination of native peoples by invaders, putting forth the way-ahead-of-his-time notion that what would result would be the creation of a hybridized racial mixture, one in which the indigenous component would generally predominate. Although amateur naturalist John Beddoe struggled to come up with an impartial system of classifying physical appearance into different groups and early work with human blood groups (the famous types A, B, O, and AB) went a long way towards removing prejudice and human error from investigating the origins of various populations in the Isles, it took the discovery and analysis of DNA to make real strides. The blood groups studies were a "blunt instrument," lacking the finesse of the detailed findings of later DNA work and unfortunately tempted researchers to either fabricate arguments to explain their findings or were often so broad in outcome as to justify preconceived notions.
Sykes and his team used two tools. One was mitochondrial DNA (or mDNA), which has two outstanding properties for its use to analyze the human past. First, it mutates twenty times faster than regular DNA (by comparison the rate of nuclear DNA mutation is so low that we are virtually all the same), and second all mDNA comes only from the mother, who got it from her mother (men do not pass down mDNA). Amazingly, at any time in the past, be it 100 or 10,000 years ago, there was only one woman alive at the time from which you have inherited your mDNA from.
This of course only tells the female side, what about the male? For that Sykes looked at the Y-chromosome, found of course only in men. It is a mirror image of the inheritance pattern for mDNA and fortunately does vary enough genetically over time to be useful in a study.
So what did the study reveal? Is evidence of Saxon, Viking, and Celtic culture in the Isles the consequence of large-scale immigration or instead the result of indigenous people copying and adapting new styles, perhaps imposed by a small conquering minority? To vastly oversimplify this wonderful book, overall the genetic structure of the Isles is "stubbornly" Celtic, if by Celtic one means the people who were here before the Romans and who spoke a Celtic language. While the people of the Shetland and Orkney Islands do have a substantial Viking genetic presence (40% and 30% respectively), surprisingly 10% in the east and 5% in the north of England owe their genetic heritage to Saxons, Danes, or Normans, "only denting the Celtic substructure." There is also no genetic evidence of any large-scale Celtic immigration from central Europe to the Isles either.
| | Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton Interesting, if not compelling reading | | This is in general an interesting book, thoroughly researched and presented mostly in an concise, easy to follow format. Occasionally Sykes tends to over-explain his methodology in research and the prose becomes a bit tdeious. Personally, I find the stories of the people more compelling than the science of DNA study and while there is some of that you must slog through a fair amount of data to get to the human story. All in all I'd recommend this book although I am still waiting for an author who can better make the lives of our ancestors come to life in a compelling and thoughtful manner. Sykes research results offer few surprises from the genetic makeup of the people of the United Kingdom, and serves primarily to substantiate the history we all learned in school. As my own heritage is English, Scottish & Irish I found some insight into my background but little new. The WASP appellation is now supported not only by conventional history but by genetics as well. | | Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton ralfbythesea | | Although there was some very interesting information in this book, there was not nearly as much as I had hoped for. Not an easy read. Perhaps it's the subject, not the author. | | Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland | | The book, "Saxons, Vikings, and Celts," is a fantastic "read," and not just for quasi-amateur genealogists or DNA-obsessed readers like me. Because it is down-to-earth and includes just the right amount of technical vocabulary, usually well-defined, it will suit the popular taste and those who love a taste of mystery, science, and suspense. As a member of the Hawley Society, a group dedicated to researching the Hawley surname and the descendents of one Joseph Hawley who left England and arrived in America possibly around 1630, I found the answers to some nagging questions about the movements of my ancestors, where they came from and how they dispersed. The "story" was enlightening, exciting, and exhilerting--but informative, most of all. | | Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by W. W. Norton Product Description | From the best-selling author of The Seven Daughters of Eve, an illuminating guide to the genetic history of the British Isles.
One of the world's leading geneticists, Bryan Sykes has helped thousands find their ancestry in the British Isles. Saxons, Vikings, and Celts, which resulted from a systematic ten-year DNA survey of more than 10,000 volunteers, traces the true genetic makeup of the British Isles and its descendants, taking readers from the Pontnewydd cave in North Wales to the resting place of "The Red Lady" of Paviland and the tomb of King Arthur. Genealogy has become a popular pastime of Americans interested in their heritage, and this is the perfect work for anyone interested in finding their heritage in England, Scotland, or Ireland. |
| |
