Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-03 > 1236301065

From: Daniel Jenkins <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Into Netherlands?
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 00:57:45 +0000
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Mike ,

Thanks so much for your reply and interest .

If you read that part of my mails properly , you will see that after 50 plus years of research, my personal take is that oversimplication and a less surgical definition of events is usually closer to the actuallity.

The fact is the Viking imprint in Southern , England , [ door mat for centuries ] is about nill . I will continue to take the general approach to the march of history over

so called exactitudes . Take linquistics for example ; who alive today talked with a Viking,

Celt . or anyone 1000 years ago? How does anyone know how they spoke ?

The written word is not always representative of the culture , only those who recorded same , luckily their work , survived but actually may be incorrect.

The years 750bc-750 ad are the key to many events in the British Isles with no

unequivacle provable data .

My own personal opinion is that we shall never be able to make anything much clearer

than we can know , at this time . Nor do we need to . Yet the thrill is in the chase as


The Normans are a very diffuse people , but their main cultural identity is of the same stock

as the Lowland folks .

At the time of the Doggerland , I would think , whoever was there , are the ancient ancestors of Westernmost Europe and the British Isles .

The best thing is we will really never know , if we don't by now .

A permanent puzzle to be solved . Not . <(;-)

Dan J.

> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:19:38 -0600
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Into Netherlands?
> --------> My response:
> Dan,
> I think it is a bit of an oversimplification to say "When the Normans came
> they only added more of the same peoples for the most part". The Normans
> did include "Norse-men", although I don't think they were from the Low
> Countries. The Norman invaders also included Flemish people, which very
> well could be related to the folks you are talking about. They also
> included Bretons which could be viewed as Brythonic exiles returning home.
> I think it is also a bit of stretch to say "I consider the British Isles
> just a separated extension of Belgium and Lowland Countries." I agree that
> the North Sea was an exchange and migration network just as the Irish Sea
> was on the other side of Great Britain. Of course, the eastern side of
> Britain is probably most like the Low Countries, but still, the Isles have a
> different mix of peoples. I guess the significance of the differences is
> subjective and relative, but in my opinion I think it is fair to say the
> British Isles and Low Countries have some significant differences in mix.
> ---------------> Dan Jenkins (on 4 Mar 2009) wrote:
> Ken,
> What your saying is in harmony with known immigrations into England , mostly
> into London environs , and southern areas , particularly , Kent.
> Some historians have Frisian Sandbank people trickling in as early as 250ad
> due to changing coastline problems .
> The important migration followed, starting 449 with a mainly Jutish takeover
> in Kent, and rapidly by 480s with Angle-Saxon cousins. Outside of some
> Viking imput around the 800s , Southern England was now almost totally
> populated by No. Germanic , Lowland Country descendants . The new natives .
> When the Normans came they only added more of the same peoples for the most
> part .
> The 1400s saw major movements of Flemish weavers into Kent , Sussex, Isle
> of Wight, and Wales borderlands . Eventually these Continental Euorpeans
> would be a big replacement factor in Wales , squeezing the native Welsh up
> into the Anglesea areas .
> In general , I consider the British Isles just a separated extension of
> Belgium and Lowland Countries . In terms of time, 5,000 +- is a drop in a
> very large bucket .
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

HotmailĀ® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.

This thread: