"Brit-Am Now"- 461
Contents:
1. More Interesting Points about the Picts
2. Proportions of Native "Celtic" Settlers in Britain Compared to "Anglo"
and Viking "Invaders".
3. More Historical Attacks on the British Refuted
1. More Interesting Points about the Picts
The Scotsman
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1149902004
Sat 2 Oct 2004
First king of the Scots? Actually he was a Pict
IAN JOHNSTON
IN 843AD, the kingdom of Scotland was created when Kenneth MacAlpine led an
army of Scots to victory over the Picts.
There have even been calls for a field near Stirling where the battle is
said to have been fought - which attracts scores of tourists from America
and elsewhere - to be officially recognised by the Scottish Parliament as
the "birthplace of the nation".
But a forthcoming book by St Andrews University historian Alex Woolf will
claim that all the evidence suggests MacAlpine was actually a Pict himself
and stories about him as a great Scottish war leader were made up in later
centuries.
The expert in early Scottish history said contemporary sources referred to
MacAlpine as "king of the Picts" and gave the same title to the four kings
who succeeded him. He also said both Kenneth and Alpine were Pictish rather
than Scottish names.
The first reference to a Scottish Kenneth MacAlpine fighting against the
Picts comes about 400 years after he was alive and the supposed battle of
843AD is believed to be a much later invention.
Mr Woolf, whose book From Pictland to Alba: Scotland 789 to 1070 is due out
next year, admitted there was little contemporary evidence about MacAlpine,
but what there was supported his theory.
"The myth of Kenneth MacAlpine conquering the Picts and killing the King of
the Picts - it's about 1210, 1220 that that's first talked about," he said.
"There's actually no hint at all that he was a Scot. Historians who work on
this still tend to say that [he was a Scot] but add lots of caveats.
"The contemporary evidence does not make this at all clear. There's nothing
at all that says 'King of the Scots' and there's no reference to a conquest
of the Picts by the Scots.
"If you look at contemporary sources people called him King of the Picts
and there are four other Pictish kings after him. So he's the fifth last of
the Pictish kings rather than the first Scottish king."
The 19th-century historian Charles Roger claimed a standing stone at
Airthrey near Stirling marked the site of the 843AD battle, saying it was
"believed that it was reared to commemorate the total defeat of the Picts
by the Scots, under Kenneth MacAlpine, and which led to the destruction of
the Pictish kingdom". He added: "It is beyond doubt that the battle which
finally overthrew the Picts was fought in this vicinity."
But Mr Woolf said the battle was "completely made up". "I don't think
there's even a late medieval account that puts it there. The one place we
know Kenneth MacAlpine is connected to is Forteviot where he died," he said.
In 730, the Venerable Bede's history of Britain spoke of four peoples - the
Gaels, Picts, Welsh and English. But in 1140, Henry of Huntingdon expressed
surprise that the Picts and their language had "disappeared". It is thought
this prompted the idea that they suffered a crushing defeat in battle and
were wiped out.
But historians now believe that a process of integration between the
Gaelic-speaking Scots and Picts, who spoke a language similar to Welsh,
took place over several centuries.
Mr Woolf said: "I'm coming round to the view that the disappearance of the
Picts has been exaggerated. It looks to me that there was a much more
peaceful fusion.
"Henry [of Huntingdon] says 'Isn't it odd the Picts have disappeared and
even their language has disappeared'. But if you look around that period,
the Scottish king lists all go back right the way through all the Pictish
kings. They were clearly thinking in terms of continuity.
"However in the late 12th century, they become more interested in Gaelic
Irish roots and stick them on instead. Had you asked someone in 1200 the
question in the right way, you probably would have got them thinking they
were still Picts."
He said that the country became known as Scotland because this is what it
was called by the English. They had originally used Scotland - an English
word - to refer to Ireland.
"It seems to be an English perception that something [in Scotland] had
changed, maybe in the 12th century. It's what the English say and that
seems to be bought into by the Scots themselves by the end of the 12th
century," he said.
"It seems that the educated and elite classes started to adopt English
customs and began to see the people of Alba as Scots."
Mr Woolf believes that the Picts did not disappear but gradually adopted
Gaelic words and by the 12th century were speaking a version of Pictish -
which was like Welsh but without the Latin influences - "with a massive
interference from Gaelic".
This reached the point where the English "cannot distinguish between them
[the Picts and Scots]", accounting for Henry of Huntingdon's belief they
had disappeared and subsequent theories they were destroyed in battle.
Professor Ted Cowan, of Glasgow University's Scottish history department,
said: "When medieval minds were looking at the disappearance of a people,
they thought it must be to do with military conquest.
"Whereas we'd probably say now that we're talking much more about
assimilation. The Picts and the Scots probably had peaceful relations and
marital relations for several centuries before Kenneth MacAlpine's time.
"The later traditions are definitely manufactured because they've got to
tell a story."
Prof Cowan said Mr Woolf's theory sounded "ingenuous" but also
"speculative" saying little was known about Kenneth MacAlpine. However he
agreed it was "probably right that Kenneth and Alpine are Pictish names".
Robbie the Pict, who changed his name from Brian Robertson, said he had
campaigned to raise awareness of the Picts for years and welcomed the new
research.
"Robbie the Pict was the name given to me and I adopted it because nobody
would let me lose it. I started a Pictish High Commission and staged
concerts at Pictish battle sites to make people conscious of the very
existence of our forefathers," he said.
"The Picts got a rough deal in history. There does seem to have been unfair
treatment. Their name, history and traditions have been usurped by the Scots."
Relative "Celtic" versus "Anglo" population proportions in British Isles.
Grant South prepared the following comparative figures
based on a DNA paper by Capelli
These figures are of interest and conform with what we said in the past
(in The Tribes) concerning the relative proportions of
native ("Celtic") peoples versus Anglo-Saxon and Viking input into the
British Population. Therse is however an exception and that is Mercia (in
Central England)
which we believed had a relative high proportion of "Celts" whereas the
figures below
indicate the opposite.
2. Proportions of Native "Celtic" Settlers in Britain Compared to "Anglo"
and Viking "Invaders".
From: Palden <Palden@austarnet.com.au>
Subject:
"The information is not mine, but rather that which is found in Capelli et
al. [2003], 'A Y-Chromosome Census of the British Isles'.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf
Estimates are found via comparison with Fig 3. & Fig 4. I have included
this paper for your consideration."
All the best.
Grant South
Atlantic Celt and the Invaders
by Grant Smith (based on Capelli et al
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf):
In not wishing to be pass , I have used 'Atlantic Celt' as both Cunliffe
and McEvoy et al. have done recently.
I believe that out of the 'Blood of the Vikings' study, an estimated 70%
of mainland Y-DNA was found to be Indigenous.
I think it has been suggested that 95% is the estimate for Indigenous
mt-DNA survival in mainland Britain.
Recently McEvoy et al.[2004] found that the mt-DNA lineages in Ireland
were most similar to those in mainland Britain, this was a surprise.
As mt-DNA represents 75% of the DNA contribution to a given population
at any time. The implications are that we would have to re-consider the
mainland population of Britain to be predominately 'Atlantic Celt' with
regional 'Invader' admixture.
Further the line of our surname-holders may differ to the origins of the
name itself. Their 'otherness', is limited to the first generation of
their genetic
assimilation with the indigenous population itself.
According to Capelli et al. [2003], these are the Y-DNA percentages
derived from regional testing;
A. Danish Viking, Anglo-Saxon/ Atlantic Celt admixture.
York is 60% 'Invader', 40% Indigenous. [11]
Norfolk- 60% 'Invader', 40% Indigenous. [18]
Southwell [Mid Eng] 60% 'Invader', 40% Indigenous [12]
B. Norwegian Viking/Atlantic Celt
Orkney 60% 'Invader', 40% Indigenous. [2]
Shetland 60% 'Invader', 40% Indigenous [1]
C. Atlantic Celt/Anglo-Saxon,Danish admixture.
Morpeth [Northumberland] 50% 'Invader', 50% Indigenous [8]
Penrith [Cumberland] 50% 'Invader', 50% Indigenous. [9]
Uttoxeter [Mid Eng.] 50% 'Invader', 50% Indigenous [13]
Llanidloes [ East Wales] 50% 'Invader", 50% Indigenous [14]
Chippenham 50% Invader, 50% Indigenous [20]
D. Atlantic Celt/Mixed Invader
The Western Isles 60% Indigenous, 40% Invader. [4]
Durness [NW Scot.] 70% Indigenous, 30% 'Invader' .[3]
Cornwall [SW Eng.] 70% Indigenous, 30% 'Invader'. [24]
Dorchester [SE Eng.] 70% Indigenous, 30% 'Invader'. [23]
Faversham [SE Eng.] 80% Indigenous, 20% 'Invader'. [21]
Midhurst [SE Eng.] 80% Indigenous, 20% 'Invader' [22]
Oban [W. Scot] 80% Indigenous, 20% 'Invader'.[7]
Stonehaven [Mid. E-Coast Scot.] 80% Indigenous, 20% Invader [5]
Pitlochry [Mid Scot] 80% Indigenous, 20% Invader [6]
Rush [Dublin] 80% Indigenous, 20% 'Invader'.[16]
Haverfordwest [W. Wales] greater than 90%plus Indigenous [19]
Llangefni [NW. Wales] greater than 90% Indigenous. [15]
Castlerea [W Eire] greater than 90% Indigenous. [17]
******************************************************************
In looking at DNA survival and corresponding areas of known migration,
only two areas of the UK are associated with a predominate 60% contribution
of Invader DNA.
1. Central to North East Coast England
It would seem that the area once contained in the old Kingdom of
Northumbria and East Anglia was possibly a 60% Invader, 40% Atlantic Celt
admixture.
The old Kingdom of Mercia, being a 50% Invader, 50% Atlantic Celt
admixture.
2. Orkney & Shetland Isles
60% Invader, 40% Indigenous
A further 5 group's are predominately Indigenous
Southern England
The old Kingdoms of Kent, Sussex, Wessex and Cornubia
[Cornwall/Devon] 70-80% Atlantic Celt, 20-30% Invader admixture.
Wales
East: Llanidioes 50% Indigenous, 50%
West and North West Wales: 90% + Indigenous
Eire
East Coast: 80% Indigenous, 20% Invader
West Coast: 90% plus Indigenous
Central Scotland
Oban [W-Coast Scot] [7] 80% Indigenous, 20% Invader. Pitlochry [Mid.
Scot] [6] 80% Indigenous, 20% Invader. Stonehaven [E Coast Scotland] 80%
Indigenous, 20% Invader.
North Western Scotland.
The Western Isles, 60% Indigenous, 40% Invader, and Durness [SW Scot]
70% Indigenous, 30% Invader.
All the best.
Grant South.
3. More Historical Attacks on the British Refuted
Gary S wrote:
>Firstly , I never mentioned Ben Hecht's disgraceful rag Perfidy , which is
>indeed just an anti-Zionist screed.
>Hecht's garbage has been cited by anti-Zionists as part of their poison ,
>and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
>
>As for proof that the British did turn back Jews to Hitler's ovens see
>http://aishbaltimore.com/zz/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_64_-_The_British_Mandate.asp
>Written by renowned Rabbi and authority on Jewish history Ken Spiro :
>DEATH SENTENCE
>
>The British did not keep the promise contained in the Balfour Declaration
>and neither did they keep the promise contained in the Peel Commission report.
>
>They did enforce one aspect of the Peel Commission report -- that which
>limited Jewish migration to the land to only 12,000 a year for the next
>five years (1939-1943). By doing so the British doomed the Jews under the
>control of Nazis -- they would no longer be able to find refuge in their
>homeland.
>[]
>The British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of
>Jewish lives. []
>[]
>
>They did this, knowing full well what the Germans were doing to the Jews
>-- this was after the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht (see Part 60). And
>still the British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of
>Jewish lives.
>
>The Jews were desperate and they tried to come illegally. In response, the
>British set up a blockade to keep them out.
>
>Many Jews managed to circumvent the blockade and it is estimated that
>115,000 Jews got through. But 115,000 is a very small number compared to
>the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust and who could not find refuge
>in the land of Israel.
>
>DEATH SENTENCE
>
>The British did not keep the promise contained in the Balfour Declaration
>and neither did they keep the promise contained in the Peel Commission report.
>
>They did enforce one aspect of the Peel Commission report -- that which
>limited Jewish migration to the land to only 12,000 a year for the next
>five years (1939-1943). By doing so the British doomed the Jews under the
>control of Nazis -- they would no longer be able to find refuge in their
>homeland.
>[]
>The British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of
>Jewish lives. []
>[]
>
>They did this, knowing full well what the Germans were doing to the Jews
>-- this was after the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht (see Part 60). And
>still the British closed an escape route that would have saved millions of
>Jewish lives.
>
>The Jews were desperate and they tried to come illegally. In response, the
>British set up a blockade to keep them out.
>
>Many Jews managed to circumvent the blockade and it is estimated that
>115,000 Jews got through. But 115,000 is a very small number compared to
>the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust and who could not find refuge
>in the land of Israel. "
>
>Also see pg 503 of a History of the Jews by British Catholic historian
>Paul Johnson
>
>I am certainly interested in answers as I do believe that at least part of
>your thesis is right , and that descendants of the lost tribes can be
>partly found in Western Europe, particularly in Italy , Spain and Ireland.
>
>Also you put Irish resentment of Britain down to Simeon's resentment of Yosef
>Don't you think that it would be natural for the Irish to resent those who
>occupied their land for centuries , deliberately caused the potato famine
>, and treated them worse than dogs
>
>As they also did to the Boers , people of India and Jews in Eretz Yisrael etc
>
>Gary Selikow
>
Answer:
I should have known from the beginning that you would not really be
interested in what we had to say on behalf of the
British even though we wrote at length on the subject (in our answer to you
and in our web site article we referred you to
with relevant references). I do not know if Spiro is a Rabbi or not but
maybe he is, if you say so. His article is worth
looking at but contains gross inaccuracies.
On our list we have Gentiles and Jewish subscribers. Our non-Jewish
supporters are usually Bible-believers and often
patriots of the lands they live in. Some of them belong to
Nationalistic-type organizations. In these organizations they will
admit will be found some anti-Semites. They may be a minority but they are
there.
So too amongst the Jews you get a type of extremist who tends to exaggerate
the anti-Jewish sentiment amongst others.
This attitude is, "If you are not for me you are against me". In some parts
of Europe this attitude would historically have been justified.
It is not however justified in every case and certainly not regarding
peoples we identify as being Lost Israelites.
Historically
The British should have been more pro-Jewish. I agree with this. We repeat
it all the time. There were also anti-Semites and Arab lovers among the British
as we admit constantly. We are however dealing with history and an overall
perspective is needed.
Similarly, The USA at present should be much more pro-Jewish than it is. In
the USA amongst the American public, Establishment, Media, and
Administration there
are many powerful individuals who will attempt to do what they, if and when
they can, to make the State of Israel disappear.
Nevertheless it must also be admitted that the USA today is the
best and perhaps the ONLY friend the Jews of Israel has.
This is the bottom line.
These two realities have to be remembered.
Spiro appears to say that 115,000 Jews came to "Palestine" in the War
years. This I think is inaccurate and he meant to say
that they came after the war while the British were still in control of
Palestine up to 1948.
Whatever the case, those Jews who reached Palestine could only have been
because
the British officially or unofficially (on the individual level) let them come.
Check it out. Another historical secret that neither the British or the
Jews would want to admit.
The six million that did not come during WW11 could not have done so since
the Germans were not letting them move ANYWHERE.
Do you deny this?
Britain also took into Britain 40,000 Jewish refugees, transported another
ca 40,000 to safety in different branches of her
Dominions and colonies and also facilitated the movement to safety in the
USA of another ca 40,000.
Britain more than any other nation fought the Germans from the
beginning of the war till its end
and was responsible for the defeat of Germany and saving those Jews who
were saved.
Read the article on our web site once more (assuming you have done so
already) for further discussion of this matter.
http://www.britam.org/3rd-Edition/tribes-prologue.html
You mentioned the Irish and South Africans who the British also treated
unjustly.
In the history of every nation exist dark spots. It is the overall picture
that must be looked for.
Apart from that,
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY JEWS the anti-Semitic pro-Nazi Republic of Ireland
saved in WW11?
Answer: Seven dentists of which there existed a shortage.
The Boers of South Africa were also dominated by anti-Jewish elements and
prevented South Africa from being used
as a place to which Jewish refugees could be directed for safe-keeping.
I personally like Irish people, Dutch people, Italians, and most people. ON
a personal level I may not like all
"Anglos" but if we dealing with groups from a communal historical
Bible-based perspective
then the "Anglos" have been better for the world and better for the Jews
than the others have.
What can you do?
Plumbers, dentists, policemen, cooks, carpenters, builders, scientists,
bankers, etc: Everyone has their own task in this life.
Some are more suited for one job than another.
By way of analogy: The cop on the corner may (or may not) be an uncouth
lout but if he puts his life on the line for me and my family
and for others for my point of view he is worth more than his weight in gold.
On the other hand the brain surgeon who lives on the corner if he sees me
being attacked by hoodlums is liable to look the other way and cross the
street.
I hope I never need the brain surgeon but if I do that he does his job. He
can forget about learning Kung-fu.
As individuals we all have our task in life and so do nations.
The peoples we identify as Joseph on the whole fulfilled their task as such.
The Bible says that the Lost Ten Tribes are in the west and that the
Anglo-Saxon nations are dominated by the
Tribes of Joseph. This is the truth. This is what we believe in and
knowledge of which we are bound to let others
know.
Beyond this historical discussions etc are pertinent and interesting and
part of our message but not our main theme.
The Bible and Rabbinical commentaries on the Bible remain our source of
authority.
Spreading the Brit-Am message is our task.
We do this full time and God willing will continue to do so
as long as necessary.
Your purchases and offerings enable us to work for our peoples.
If possible please send us an offering along with an order for our
publications.
Books offered:
SPECIAL FOR LIMITED TIME ONLY:
PRE-PUBLICATION ORDER OF
"THE TRIBES" plus BIBLICAL TRUTH
for only $25 for both books together.
[the books for this offer will be sent out when THE TRIBES
is published which should be soon].
AVAILABLE NOW:
"Origin. You too are from Israel! You too are the People"
[A Summary of Most of the Major Biblical and Historical Research
Until Now]
"Biblical Truth. The Lost Ten Tribes in the West "
"Ephraim. The Gentile Children of Israel"
"Joseph. The Israelite Destiny of America",
PLUS a sample issue of our
magazine BRIT-AM Truth
Any two books plus an issue of the magazine for $30
All four books plus an issue of the magazine for $50
Magazine "Brit-Am Truth" usual price $15 one issue
5 issues $40
12 issues $80
20 issues for $120
Upon subscribing (for five issues or more) you will receive an official
membership certificate
with the Brit-Am symbol in colors of red, white, and blue.
The prices include postage by air-mail.
Send a personal check to the address below:
Yair Davidiy
POB 595
Jerusalem 91004
Israel
http://www.britam.org
http://www.geocities.com/hiberi
"And I will bless them that bless you" (Genesis 12:15).
PayPal
http://www.britam.org/order.html