Is Survive the Jive correct in his "What does it mean to be English...

Is Survive the Jive correct in his "What does it mean to be English?" video when he claims after the Bell-Beaker and Cordedware cultural migration replaced the majority of North Europe's population?

I think it's a well established fact the British Isles population of Iberian Celts were replaced but this would mean the the Belgians, the Jutes, the Vikings, the Angles, the later Celtic tribes, the Saxons and the Normans were all from the same peoples. There is evidence to support this such as homogeneity in genes found in East England.

Link to video
youtube.com/watch?v=_iVdy0s8ARE&ab_channel=SurvivetheJive

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962
youtube.com/watch?v=06wjyQG9ZUE
youtube.com/watch?v=JIE6Y7s1AOw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He's biased towars his own people. What's new?

He is not.

BB were more a trading phenomenon than one tribe conquering others. And a big part of it were PRE-INDO-EUROPEANS OF DINARIC RACIAL TYPE.

While CWC was completely about R1a Nordics migrating and outnumbering natives.

He has a weird Indo-European obsession but he links to studies that I've read over the past few hours and this is an established theory that existed before he made a video on it.

It is a fact that the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons when they met that they had only been seperated by about 2000 years, but what about the rest of North Europe is what I'm inquiring about, like the Normans and the Vikings for example.

I'm not sure the Normans left much in terms of genetic heritage, a ton of cultural heritage, but the Vikings certainly did after Cnut.

Link to study and some notable points
>nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

>Although there is only a slight genetic cline from north to south at a coarse level2,3, recent analyses have revealed considerable fine-scale genetic structure in the Northern and Western parts of Great Britain, alongside striking homogeneity in Southern and Eastern England4 in the regions where archaeologists identify early Anglo-Saxon artifacts, cemeteries and communities. A variety of estimates of the fraction of Anglo-Saxon genetic ancestry in England have been given5,6,7,8, with the recent fine structure analysis suggesting most likely 10–40% (ref. 4).

What about the Iberian Celtic population on the British Isles that were replaced mostly between 2500BC-2300BC? Was this purely done through settlement as opposed to conquest? I really can't find much on the topic.

Were the Anglo-Saxon people specifically descended from the BB and Cordedware cultures or at all related to the Celts of the British Isles?

This theory in general comes mainly from homogeneity in the Southern and Eastern parts of England which I linked where the Anglo-Saxon presence was strongest.

>It is a fact
It is claimed as a fact*

WE

>he claims after the Bell-Beaker and Cordedware cultural migration replaced the majority of North Europe's population?
>I think it's a well established fact the British Isles population of Iberian Celts were replaced
What are you talking about? For a start the "Iberian Celts" in the British Isles thing is still just a theory, and even if it were correct, they would not have been "replaced" by Bell-Beakers since Iberian Celts are post-BB.

And yes, what he says is right. The Belgians, the Jutes, the Vikings, the Angles, the later Celtic tribes, the Saxons and the Normans were all from the same people. They just developed different cultures over thousands of years and due to mixing with different native populations they became genetically distinguishable, although still very genetically close.

This isn't black people claiming to be Egyptians or Aztecs. It is a fact that English people are descended from Anglo-Saxons and Celtic people.

I'm inquiring on where those two groups descend from and specifically the theory of the Bell-Beaker and Cordedware migration, which the Celtic people of the British Isles were descended from, but also perhaps the Jutes, the Frisians, the Saxons or the Angles.

>For a start the "Iberian Celts" in the British Isles thing is still just a theory, and even if it were correct, they would not have been "replaced" by Bell-Beakers since Iberian Celts are post-BB.

I thought that those that built stonehenge were from the Megalith culture which was Iberian? I apologise if I was wrong in that.

But thank you for answering the latter. I know this is touching into genetics more than history as I'm talking about genetic distinction as opposed to cultural distinction which, obviously, were massive.

The Normans and Vikings is what I was most intrigued by. I thought that they were seperate people to the Anglo-Saxons simply due to the interactions between those three groups throughout history.

The were no Iberian Celts in 2500BC

Celts originated in the Halstatt culture in 800 BC and Iberia was still in the process of being Celticized by the Roman conquest 200 BC.

>I thought that those that built stonehenge were from the Megalith culture which was Iberian?
Perhaps they were Iberian in origin (I'm not too sure) but yeah they weren't Iberian Celts since as I said Celts are a fairly recent development.

>The Normans and Vikings is what I was most intrigued by. I thought that they were seperate people to the Anglo-Saxons simply due to the interactions between those three groups throughout history.
I think you're taking his "were all from the same peoples" comment a bit too literally. Normans are definitely different from the Anglo-Saxons, both linguistically, culturally and genetically. The same goes for the rest of the peoples that you listed in the OP.

All he is saying is that these peoples share a common ORIGIN, that is, North-Western Bell Beaker Culture which is thousands of years old. He isn't saying they're actually the same, although genetically they are very close.

biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962

>Beginning with the Beaker period, and continuing through the Bronze Age, all British individuals harboured high proportions of Steppe ancestry and were genetically closely related to Beaker-associated individuals from the Lower Rhine area. We use these observations to show that the spread of the Beaker Complex to Britain was mediated by migration from the continent that replaced >90% of Britain's Neolithic gene pool within a few hundred years, continuing the process that brought Steppe ancestry into central and northern Europe 400 years earlier

I think it's my own misuse of the word 'Celt', apologies. Those from the Megalith culture were perhaps Iberian? The people whom built stonehenge is basically what I mean.

That is central to this since it is claimed they were replaced by the BB and CW culture replaced those who inhabited Britain and the later groups who came to Britain.

It's definitely my misuse of the word Celtic then. I shall not make the same mistake when discussing this in future.

>Normans are definitely different from the Anglo-Saxons, both linguistically, culturally and genetically. The same goes for the rest of the peoples that you listed in the OP.
No, I'm aware of the massive cultural distinction which is why I said in a previous comment that I'm aware this is drifting away from history to genetics.

For example, the Norman invasion, there is absolutely no doubt that this irreversibly effected the culture of the British Isles. Many upper class Brits still have Norman surnames. But it's interesting to see that they were genetically similar to each other.

I

>No, I'm aware of the massive cultural distinction which is why I said in a previous comment that I'm aware this is drifting away from history to genetics.
>But it's interesting to see that they were genetically similar to each other.
Fair enough, I misunderstood.

No problem mate, cheers for your answers.

Not completely as CWC had about 1/4 local admixture from these Dinarics of yours

>I think it's a well established fact the British Isles population of Iberian Celts were replaced
It is well established that the English are just Welsh larping as Germanics

Only about as much as the French are Neolithic farmers LARPing as Yamna.

>BB were more a trading phenomenon than one tribe conquering others

BBs(R1b carriers) replaced 80-90% of the PIEs(I + G carriers) meanwhile CWs replaced 40-60% of the population. Western Euros are more IE than Eastern Euros.

CWs fit more the merchant-type than the conqueror-type unlike BBs

The argument is that the Welsh were the same as the Germanics who made up the English. Most places in Britain have a higher 'Celtic' population than Anglo-Saxon (not all, average is 10%-40% but some are as high as 70%) but those Celts were genetically similar to the Germanic waves of tribes.

That picture is the same study I linked to further up that Survive the Jive links in his video. It literally proves this theory correct and you're using it to try and prove the English are Britons?

>English people are 38% Anglo-Saxon
>this means that they must be Celts
So you'd agree then that Northern Italians aren't Italic, South Slavs aren't Slavic, Turks aren't Turks, Spaniards aren't Hispanic and so on? Or does this ridiculous notion only apply to the English?

It's pretty obvious that the English are neither Britons or Anglo-Saxons, but rather their own people. And their culture, language and identity is derived from the Anglo-Saxons, so calling them anthing but Anglo-Saxon or Germanic would be stupid.

70-80% R1b :)

EAST ENGLISH are 38% Germanic and 62% Celtic
The others are 10-20%% Germanic and 80-90% Celtic

>So you'd agree then that Northern Italians aren't Italic
They are ou Gaulish cousins, i've never considered Northern Italians as "Italians"

>South Slavs aren't Slavic, Turks aren't Turks, Spaniards aren't Hispanic and so on?
Yes

Y-DNA haplogroups don't tell us about French maternal heritage and the cucked G-men that spawned you.

At least Scots and Irish have a lot of Yamna autosomal DNA comparable to other Northern and Eastern Europeans.

I'll accept your retarded theory if from here on you call yourself a Gaul and never again a French.

>surrenders in WW2

What did the pre-Indo-European French males mean by this?

>French maternal heritage
The IE race is patriarchal so mtdna is irrelevant.

>G-men that spawned you.
You wish
G is around 1-3% in France

The huge EEF input made them cowards

>The IE race is patriarchal so mtdna is irrelevant
You probably view niggers with R1b as Indo-European in that case

>WW2

This little set back doesn't matter to the Great R1b Race, and in the end we took back our territory


We lost due to strategic stupdity


Meanwhile you can't even protect your own children and you lower your head when pakis rape them and impregnate them

Niggers aren't R1b-M269

Many are, if patrilineal descent is all that matters you should embrace them as your Indo-European brothers

There are no Pakis in my country

>we took back our territory
Yeah, from another R1b country lmao.

These are sinners, their dark skin represents the sin of "race-mixing"

Turks and Churkas have the greatest ammount of Yamna admixture, go ahead and embrace them as your brothers first

wrong pic

What a shitty choice of countries to test, was there any reason for this?

According to Survive the Jive, steppe admixture comes from Corded Ware not Yamna.

It's Eupediashit

Corded Ware came from Yamna

Khvalynsk is more of a candidate for that. Yamna were gypsies in terms of pigmentation.

it is just Maciamo falsifying data again

Pic related are the actual results from Haak et al.(2015)

Khvalynsk was more of a candidate for what?

For being the father of Indo-European people, it has both R1a and R1b, unlike Yamna gypsies.

No it just means that R1a isn't Indo-European.

He is pretty much just saying that MOST(not all) of British ethnogenesis was completed with the formation of central European bell beakers and their spread. Later migrations and splits into different families didn't particularly alter this basic stock.

All of those people you are mentioning, like the Celts, would not be much different from others.

There he goes again with his autistic spergs out.

So you don't think Yamnaya had any migratory influence in Europe?

Both R1a and R1b are found among European hunter gatherers, without specifying subclades they have no particular link with Indo-Euros.
What is important for R1a and IE for instance is M417.

>For being the father of Indo-European people, it has both R1a and R1b, unlike Yamna gypsies.


Khvalynsk R1b had 80% of the copper objects meanwhile R1ancillas had almost no wealth

Khvalynsk is just another proof of Indo-R1bean domination

First recorded chariots with spoked wheels come from Sintashta 2200 BC. I don't care about your nonsense, nor will I reply to it.

Please don't turn this into another R1b/R1a shitflinging fest

CWC has higher steppe admixture than BB. This also correlates with BB racial type, it's either Dinaric, Nordic, Keltic (mix of the two), or Alpine. While CWC was almost completely Nordic, with some CM and Pontic Mediterrenean minority.

Also Cordeds completely made the OE languages extinct, while BB preserved many non-IE languages like Basque (Aquitanian).

Remember that Eastern and Central Europe is a plain, so population changes more dynamically.

BB had extremely broad skulls. I don't think there's anything Dinarid about that. I imagine Dinarids as being the opposite of the BB type.

>preserved many non-IE languages like Basque (Aquitanian)
True, but don't forget that R1a lost large swathes of land to Turkics and Finno-Ugrics.

Dinarids are one of the major broad skulled types in Europe mate along with Alpines.

>many non-IE languages like Basque
Basque is the only language that survived the BB expansion but the Basque people didn't survive themselves, patrilinearly Modern "Basques" are R1b-M269. Furthermore, several Non-IE languages survived the CW expansion like Sami, Finnish, and Estonian.

CW in Estonia/Finland/Sweden - 2800 BC

Uralic languages aren't that old and not from Northern Europe.

Even worse, R1a got beaten outright and lost land to them.

There he goes again with his AMWF

That's the French guy. Funny how you're always wrong with your identification of posters.

Maybe you should go back to /int/

Wrong


I'm
This guy is not me

Just another proof that Finnshit should go back to /int/

and are me.

Regards, Other.

If I left nobody would have any clue.

You don't have any clue either. Like I said earlier, you're nowhere on the Davidski's level, yet you act like hot shit. And now you fucked up another thread with your nonsense.

I think the destruction of the thread can be traced back to

Davidski would agree with me about almost everything so I don't see why that matters. I've talked to him a few times about some things.

Iberians were never pure Indo-Europeans. Even in the ancient times they were predominantly Mediterrenean.

Anglo-Saxons were mostly from Jutland, which had very late R1b influence. They were more Pre-IE I haplogroup Tronder Nordids and Borreby/Brunns. R1 people were the elite, and they were either Corded Nordids, or Hallstatt "Germanic" Nordids.
Beakers had still lower steppe admixture than CWC.
CWC had no Dinaric at all. They had some Mediterrenean and Cro-Magnon though.
Bell-Beakers didn't replace shit because R1b might have been there before IE migrations too.

Look at the Basques. They are neither racially nor linguistically Indo-European. Yet one of the most R1b people in the world.
Dinarics are BROAD-SKULLED (brachycephalic). Pic related: example of a Dinarid skull. Notice the nose and flat occiput.
youtube.com/watch?v=06wjyQG9ZUE

Corded Indo-European skulls for a comparison. All Nordic.
youtube.com/watch?v=JIE6Y7s1AOw

>Mediterrenean
>Tronder
>Nordid
>borreby/brunns
>Dinaric
>brachycephalic
the 19th century called, they want their pseudoscience back.

I base my knowledge on a book written by a Proffesor from a Harvard University. I bet he knew better than you.

>Bell-Beakers didn't replace shit because R1b might have been there before IE migrations too.

But so far it hasn't turned up in ancient DNA except for the African subclade.

It looks all but 100% certain it came from eastern Europe, most likely the steppe.

>falling for the population replacement meme

>Bell-Beakers didn't replace shit because R1b might have been there before IE migrations too.
>Look at the Basques. They are neither racially nor linguistically Indo-European. Yet one of the most R1b people in the world.
Congratulations, you're literally years behind the current findings on Bell Beaker. Please go away and come back when your knowledge is actually up to date.

Also I'd like to see some proof of these supposed Tronder/Borreby/Brunn-dominated Anglo-Saxons, skulls would be preferable.

see >We use these observations to show that the spread of the Beaker Complex to Britain was mediated by migration from the continent that replaced >90% of Britain's Neolithic gene pool within a few hundred years, continuing the process that brought Steppe ancestry into central and northern Europe 400 years earlier

Heh, yeah, pots not people right?

Turkics mostly contributed to the diffusion of R1a though, Osman dynasty was R1a for example

Yeah but Basques are R1b, so same difference.

You both misunderstood me. Some R1b subclades there were brought by Indo-Europeans, some were not. The Basque "Iberian" subclade is definitely not IE.

As I said before, BB were mixed, and many of them were racially Dinaric and Alpine, so non-IE. Compare Bell-Beaker with predominantly Nordic Corded Ware. Also much of this "Yamna" vibe is caused by pre-IE Caucasian migrations.

Turkics were originally C3 and Q. Ottomans were turkified Iranians.

Also their subclade or R1a is rare in Europe.

Basque R1b is not some weird old R1b like the one found in mesolithic Balkans or Italy, it's the same as other Iberians
moreover, Basques do have some rather significant steppe input, even more than most Italians

Turkics were originally C3 and Q. Ottomans were turkified Iranians.

Also their subclade of R1a is rare in Europe.

Iberians are R-M269 so yes they are.

>Basques do have some rather significant steppe input
That's because for some strange reason Caucasian DNA is counted as "Yamna". And Basques were very likely Caucasian, pre-Indo-European immigrants.

Otzi was also "Indo-European admixed" for the same reason.

This. They're 1/4 Yamna That's enough I think.

Nope, they are DF27.

Which is part of the M269 branch.

Otzi is near noise level though, Basques have significant input and even in other tests they pick up eastern hunter gatherer admixture not present in middle/late neolithic Iberian farmers, which, in fact, plot more west than them

and the fact that their R1b is similar to generic IE R1b pretty much confirms they have been visited by steppe related people

... DF27 is downstream of M269

Why does this supposed "Nordicness" even matter, anyway?

So what, they are still not of the same M269 subclade as the real Indo-Europeans, like Germanics.

As an American, and I suppose you are an American because of this post, you will not be able to understand how heritage is important to an European man, or even more, to a Nordic man.

U106 ancestor and DF27 ancestor had a common ancestor L151 about 10 generations earlier

REAL Iberians were I + G + some R1b-V88 there , but not R1b-M269(DF27) who came came with the Celts + Lusitanians

Not American, but not European either. And my comment was mainly directed at your post here .

Not only are you wrong about R1b Indo-Europeans replacing the natives, but I also don't see why bringing up taxonomy was relevant. Why is the phenotype of Bell Beaker and CWC relevant? And ironically the nordic phenotype is far less common in core CWC lands today than it is in the borderland CWC lands like Scandinavia.

>borderland CWC lands like Scandinavia

What difference does that make? People in borderlands could stay purer than people in metropolitan, globalized areas.

DF27 predates Celts, faggot.