Disagree !
|
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !
|
|
|
An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots.
|
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.
The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.
|
|
|
Celtic confusions
|
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.
The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?
From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.
The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.
A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
|
|
Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!
|
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.
Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.
If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!
I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.
That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!
|
|
Good content, lousy execution
|
I like books on popular science. I like books on prehistory. I like books on linguistics. I should be the perfect audience for this book but instead I am giving up reading it half way in. Why? It is boring because it is so poorly written... not in the language or in the proofreading but how it is put together. There is no structure to the chapters- it is just like being forced to sit next to someone who reels huge lists of facts at you (laden with a good few "but I'll explain that later" and "we'll come back to that") with so little scene setting or argument-construction, or even scientific background/context behind the facts mentioned. This gets so very very dull.
I am a professional scientist who reads the academic literature as a part of his job but this is mighty tough going- certainly not popular science. I can't imagine who this book is aimed at (though they will have to like be constantly referred to diagrams in utterly different chapters).
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada