This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there anybody who can tell me that when this Genology report or the book was published ? Also, I want e-mail no. of Mr. Stephen Oppenheimer who is author of this report / book.
WIN 06:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Me too. I do not find this individual on the list of Green College fellows, nor anywhere else at Oxford. The article does not meet wiki biographical standards, and in fact appears to be an advertisment.
LinguisticDemographer 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article does not say he is a fellow of Green College. Membership of the common room in Greens is not restricted to fellows. [1]. The book "Out of Eden" states he is a member of Greens College in the publishers short cover biography. By doing a google search I see he has had articles published by several journals including Nature. There seems no good reason to impugn the integrity of the man so I will remove the citation request since it appears to be based on a false assumption. GoldenMeadows 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mhardcastle and have removed that and (yet again) the misleading statement that he carries out genetic research. As far as I am aware he does not. He makes use of already available data from genetic studies by others.-- Genie ( talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well, but I have moved the relationship further down the page to clearly separate it from his popular science writing, which until recently was not related to his academic research or teaching. Unfortunately his academic position has been used to suggest that his popular work is academically respectable and based on genetic research published in peer-reviewed journals, which was far from being the case for his book on Britain.-- Genie ( talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "Out of Eden" and "The Real Eve" were the same book under different titles. T@nn 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So it's just a different edition of the same book. I see that the article now indicates that. T@nn 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The book "The Real Eve" or "Out of Eden" had a documentary based upon it, also called "The Real Eve". There a wikipedia entry for the documentary, but that does not indicate the connection between it and the book. The documentary entry is a stub anyway, so I'm suggesting merging the two articles. T@nn 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why an editor reverted my description of Eden in the East with a description that is completely inaccurate:
In his book "Eden in the East", Oppenheimer hypothesizes that Eurasians have South Asian origins, with the founding population of Caucasoids (Western Eurasians) originating in northwest India, while the founding population of Mongoloids (Eastern Eurasians) originated in northeast India/Nepal. Caucasoids spread north and west into Central Asia, West Asia, North Africa and Europe, as well as south into southern India and Sri Lanka, while Mongoloids spread north and east into Siberia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, the Americas and Greenland.
The population movements described above happened at an earlier time:about 80,000-15,000 years before present. Eden of the East covers the period 14,000-7,000 years before present. At first I thought that the editor who inserted this had inadvertently characterized Oppenheimer's later book. But it's also not a completely accurate characterization of that book. TimidGuy 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I see now what the problem was. It stemmed from an earlier confusion between two similarly named books: Out of Eden and Eden in the East. The description above was a vestige of this conflation. Someone came in and corrected the confusion regarding the titles of the various books, but the description of Out of Eden was inadvertently retained as the description of Eden in the East. I had put in a correct description of Eden in the East and, inexplicably, an editor reverted back to the earlier incorrect description. Now that I've reverted to my correct description, I do hope he'll leave it intact. TimidGuy 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I both saw the Discovery Channel's documentary of The Real Eve and have and read the book with the above title. I'm a Caucasian, peach-colored skin, male who believes this book because IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! Homo Sapien humans originated in Africa, after evolving from apes there, spread to different continents, where over thousands of years, the melanin in their bodies made their skin change color according to the amount of sunlight hitting that area of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.129.10 ( talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppenheimer is brilliant in assessing the pre-Roman constitution of the peoples of Britain, and concludes that Germanic as well as Celtic peoples inhabited the island and possibly non-Indo-European Picts. However it is a pity that he follows Colin Renfrew's idea that Indo-European was spread in the Neolithic. His genetic arguments to match that idea are weak as a consequence and he tries to fit a 6000BC date on everything. David Anthony's book The Horse, The Wheel and language compellingly states that Indo-European was spread by Kurgans starting around 3300BC. This is a real shame as I believe that with Oppenheimer's brilliant knowledge of DNA he could have made a better match to that date, when drawing up DNA spread maps. As a consequence, about half the book has to be read by ignoring his bias against Kurganisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.191.166 ( talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
the phrasing of this paragraph is highly dubious: "Celtic origins derive from southern France and northern Spain. The Central European theory for Celtic origins has no basis." I would like to see a verbatim quote substantiating that this is exactly how Oppenheimer phrases his view, and to make sure that he indeed is talking about Celtic-speaking culture, as opposed to the genetic origin of the people that happen to participate in Insular Celtic speaking culture today. Otherwise, take great care to not confuse " Celtic" and " Insular Celtic". -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to remove this good faith addition to this article, but it clearly violates the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR.
=== Problems of misrepresentation ===
I was led to this book after real enjoyment of Brian Skye’s 'Seven Daughters of Eve' and 'Blood of the Isles'. Exploration of who we are and how we got here is an exciting journey, and nothing is more thrilling than the cutting edge of genetic detective work. It's a fascinating and interesting read from cover to cover, and I have recommended it to friends and family. However, I have to admit; from the moment I picked it up I've had a problem with it. I know, Mr. Oppenheimer has inserted a foot note stating that he realises that many Irish people don’t consider themselves British, but for reasons of avoiding repetitive printing(?), he is going to use the 'traditional' term British Isles. That's the problem, it has been 'traditional', however over the last few years, that out of date incorrect and offensive term is being challenged by academics, authors, sporting bodies, and governments alike. Just because something is traditional does not mean it cannot be challenged and corrected if found to be problematic. This is problematic. Mr. Oppenheimer has published a scientific book that documents the origins of people from five separate nations, who populate a group of geographically placed islands. He cannot knowingly isolate and risk offending a percentage of his target, subject matter. Is this a study of a people defined by political borders? I don’t think so, its a study of a people defined by their geographic habitation, those that live on the island of Britain, Ireland, and the thousands of smaller politically dependent islands of the UK and ROI. That being the case, use of the term British or British Isles is politically, ethnically and geographically incorrect. The British govt realises this; 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland', they make a geographic distinction to politically unify peoples from two distinctly different geographic regions. The British Lions became the British and Irish Lions, a move made to correct the misrepresentation of players from the ROI. Closer to the authors field, two authors, geneticist Brian Sykes, and British historian Norman Davies both intentionally named their books, 'Blood of the Isles' and 'The Isles; a History', know that to use the outdated term British Isles, or Britishness, might alienate and offend a percentage of their subject matter. Would it have been so difficult to use the term 'The Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland' instead of 'British Isles' I read this book and enjoyed it, but the naming convention throughout mired that enjoyment repeatedly, and misrepresented me.
I would urge the author to correct this mistake on the books next print.
It's never appropriate to insert one's opinion into the article. If information about this misrepresentation has been published in a reliable source, then it can be added to the article and cited. But one would use proper encyclopedia style, not first person. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I did also place it on Amazon, thanks for the suggestion. Some comments and corrections in your statements; The author has not dispelled any myths, he has presented evidence suggesting alternative historical events than those that are traditionally held. Also, Anglo-Saxons did not replace/conflict with Gaelic speaking tribes, the British tribes in the are that were 'celtic' would have spoken a brythonic tongue, similar to cornish and welsh. This indeed is the very essence of the argument. The 'celtic' tribes on the island of Ireland differed from those on Britain, in that they spoke very different branches of the celtic languages. Hence my point, that it is ethnically incorrect to address Ireland and Irish peoples as British. I must admit, I'm not familiar with the term 'Small Britain' The Roman's had seperate names for both islands, Hibernia for Ireland, and Britannica for Britain. A lot of the origins are now so shrowded in the mists of time, it makes investigation extremely difficult. But heres the thing; it does not matter where the term originated, or why, what matters is that it incorrectly misrepresents an entire nation, and it should be discouraged from use in favour of finding a more modern term. I am surprised by its use in a book investigating the very contested and sensitive world of identity, particularly when the author sets out that he knows a percentage of his subject matter may find it problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.143.193 ( talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out in the sake of clarity, that as far as I know, Little Britain, referred to Brittany, the peninsula jutting out of mainland France, just South of the Island of Great Britain, whether it was referred to that way during the Roman period of not, I can not say... Kurogawa ( talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Changing the lead to " a British paediatrician, now best known as a popular science writer" was I think misleading considering the amount of work he has done in other fields. He's been a co-author of a number of publications on genetices, 3 are here [4] and there are others. He's currently working within the Human Evolution and Ecology Group, Institute of Human Sciences, Department of Anthropology at Oxford. The lead needs improving, but Genie's edits didn't make it less misleading so far as I can tell. Dougweller ( talk) 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I know i'm not the only one who thinks his origins of the British is total crap. I mean "were all the same", yeah we'd be the first country in the world where everyone is exactly the same ethnicity. Seems a little coincidental that this suddenly crops up when English (yes ANGLO-SAXON) natioinalism is on the rise and the lefty labour government is trying in vain to combat it (not PC to be English). I also resent how Wikipedia uses it as fact despite the fact its ONE theory in many others. English Bobby ( talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pterre. I'll try to remember WP:Soap in future. I was just annoyed at what i've so far seen on wikipedia about our people. Also for what its worth as an English Nationalist (though i don't speak for all of us) one of the points of pride i and the many i know have in being English is our Saxon roots, though i'm not saying we're 100% nordic just that it's our general heritage and that we should be proud of that. Also 1600 years is a long time, older than any nation in Europe. English Bobby ( talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppenheimer's theories are not universally accepted. For example, in its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' The National Museum of Wales note
here
here (updated 18/12/2015) "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Should this be added to the article? It does not refer explicitly to Oppenheimer. Thoughts?
Daicaregos (
talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Other editors might like to be aware that there was subsequently an animated discussion of Oppenheimer's reliability at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The National Museum of Wales article, pointed to by Daicaregos' post of 29 September 2009 now takes you to a 'page not found' page. I know neither the correct markup syntax for the 'deadlink' flag nor the protocol of whether Editor B can treat Editor A's talkpage comments in such a manner, other than I wouldn't like it done to me, so I won't do it to someone else. EatYerGreens ( talk) 08:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit defines Stephen Oppenheimer as an 'archeo-geneticist'. Please provide a citation for this. Thank you. Daicaregos ( talk) 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I realize is it unintentional and the result of efforts to expand the article, but it looks like an advertisement now, especially with the link to his company. This has not delivered on its promises as a search of the genetic genealogy forums will show, and many purchasers are quite unhappy. DinDraithou ( talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess what I haven't mentioned yet is that there are a few papers challenging the archaism of the Basque population and its alleged closeness to other European populations. I will look for these papers. Their high concentration of R1b may be the result of peculiar factors and apparent closeness to the so-called Insular Celts based on comparable concentrations accidental. DinDraithou ( talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is one from 2005. Just ignore the persistence of the Paleolithic argument, which is not central to the paper. Oppenheimer should not have ignored this article but again he wasn't alone. They list it at ISOGG.
Unfortunately I can only find the abstract for you at the moment, but it says what it needs to.
DinDraithou (
talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I just found the full text, now accessible from the same blue title. DinDraithou ( talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is really silly. The template is obviously useless, since people have no idea what it is supposed to refer to. I have replaced it by a normal POV template. I will remove that as well unless those insisting on tagging the article can come up with something concrete that they don't like and that can't be flagged individually. Hans Adler 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a small stubby article at The Real Eve. I propose it be merged into the relevant section in this article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Do not merge this with The Real Eve and make new page for The Origins of the British —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrt2349876 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a neutrality tag on this article? It merely gives a description of Oppenheimer ideas, it does not say if they are right or wrong (Because that is something that no one could know, at least not yet). I will remove the tag in one week if nobody says me otherwise. I have seen that some people does not give credit to his theories, but that does not change the fact that those are his theories. Leirus ( talk) 09:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed it. I guess an "opposing views" could be added, but as his theories are exposed just like theories, I think the lack of it does not harm the article. Leirus ( talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can this be re-written?
"He uses the evidence that the Germanic genetic contribution to eastern England originated before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of much of England incursion to suggest that the possibility that some inhabitants of the isle of Britain spoke English well before the so-called "Dark Ages"."
It does not seem to make sense. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten it. Ngio ( talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, with science moving ever onwards it was inevitable that the extended quotes and discussions about Stephen Oppenheimer would eventually be reduced on the Genetic history of the British Isles article. Here however is a handy record of the three biggest deletions, in case any of that material is useful on this or any other article: [5], [6], [7]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Professor David Goldstein of University College London (UCL) told BBC News. He and his colleagues looked at Y-chromosomes, passed from father to son, of Celtic and Norwegian populations. They found them to be quite different...To try to work out where the Celtic population originally came from, the team from UCL, the University of Oxford and the University of California at Davis also looked at Basques..."On the Y-chromosome the Celtic populations turn out to be statistically indistinguishable from the Basques," Professor Goldstein said... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
...Beaker culture is defined by the common use of a pottery style — a beaker with a distinctive inverted bell-shaped profile found across the western part of Europe during the late 3rd millennium BC.Many theories of the origins of the Bell Beakers have been put forward and subsequently challenged,however a recent overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that the Bell Beaker Culture was Original from Iberia which showed that the earliest dates for Bell Beaker were 2900 BC in Iberia... British and American archaeology since the 1960s has been sceptical about prehistoric migration in general, so the idea of "Bell Beaker Folk" lost ground. Neither Mallory nor Anthony proposed mass migrations.Many archaeologists believe that the Beaker 'people' did not exist as a group, and that the beakers and other new artefacts and practices found across Europe at the time that are attributed to the Beaker people are indicative of the development of particular manufacturing skills. This new knowledge may have come about by any combination of population movements and cultural contact.But investigations in the 'Mediterranean' and France recently questioned the nature of the phenomenon,of 86 people from Bell Beaker graves in Bavaria suggests that between 18-25% of all graves were occupied by people who came from a considerable distance outside the area. This was true of children as well as adults, indicative of some significant migration wave. Given the similarities with readings from people living on loess soils, the general direction of the local movement according to Price et al., is from the northeast to the southwest... Beakers arrived in Ireland around 2500BC and fell out of use around 1700BC (Needham 1996)and Beakers arrived in Britain around 2500BC, declined in use around 2200-2100BC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
English is a Germanic language, having the grammar and 33% vocabulary inherited from Proto-Germanic,It has been estimated that between 60 and 70% of our English words are derived from Latin. Some words, such as area, circus, and animal, are spelled the same in both languages. Others, like people, space, and peace (populus, spatium, pax), come indirectly from Latin. Indeed, because Latin has been the language of learned men and women, it became the basis for the vocabulary of the sciences, law, technology, music, and medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3 Should this be added to the article, since it is different from the one currently showing? EatYerGreens ( talk) 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The various discussions here about what to call Oppenheimer and debates about mDNA are interesting but are appropriate to a later stage of revision. What needs to happen now is a rewrite from the ground up. As it stands, the article does not provide a neutral assessment of his work or his place in the scholarly community—or the pop science community, for that matter. None of the critiques of his work are in evidence here. As a result the article is more misleading than informative. It would be better to remove it than to let it stand as it is now.
Is there nobody conversant in the field who is willing to take this on and provide a judicious assessment of Oppenheimer's works, both in what they add to our knowledge and where they fall short? KC 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
A follow-up: It seems to me that his major contribution to the study of human origins is his interdisciplinarity, his ability to draw on the work of more than one field and effectively combine their insights. That's something that is very hard for scholars doing original research in a single field to do, for understandable reasons. But Oppenheimer, because he is not expert in those fields, makes mistakes, misinterprets data, draws untenable conclusions, etc. Some of that is inevitable and gets corrected in the ongoing debate among scholars. It becomes a problem when the nonexpert builds a book and video empire around such theories, and the empire serves as a defense against any criticism. That's what seems to have happened here—as was the case with Thor Hyerdahl, another interdisciplinary nonexpert whose interesting theories turned out to be totally wrong (as has now been firmly proven by DNA evidence).
The establishment of reliable scientific insights emerges from the conversation among experts and, yes, the occasional brilliant insight of an outsider. But it's the conversation that's the key to producing knowledge in any field. Anyone who disdains the conversation is sure to go astray. Ego is the great enemy. KC 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The article says that Oppenheimer has the position that Scandinavian genetics are underestimated in Britain, but from his work's I've read, including his DNA studies, the opposite is his viewpoint, isn't it?
Also, a lot of his work seems to say that Celtic is somehow a race? But surely it's a group of connected cultures. There's a lot of ambiguity here and he seems to be taking strange conclusions from his tests (DNA tests etc.). 86.2.213.86 ( talk) 21:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stephen Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there anybody who can tell me that when this Genology report or the book was published ? Also, I want e-mail no. of Mr. Stephen Oppenheimer who is author of this report / book.
WIN 06:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Me too. I do not find this individual on the list of Green College fellows, nor anywhere else at Oxford. The article does not meet wiki biographical standards, and in fact appears to be an advertisment.
LinguisticDemographer 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article does not say he is a fellow of Green College. Membership of the common room in Greens is not restricted to fellows. [1]. The book "Out of Eden" states he is a member of Greens College in the publishers short cover biography. By doing a google search I see he has had articles published by several journals including Nature. There seems no good reason to impugn the integrity of the man so I will remove the citation request since it appears to be based on a false assumption. GoldenMeadows 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mhardcastle and have removed that and (yet again) the misleading statement that he carries out genetic research. As far as I am aware he does not. He makes use of already available data from genetic studies by others.-- Genie ( talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well, but I have moved the relationship further down the page to clearly separate it from his popular science writing, which until recently was not related to his academic research or teaching. Unfortunately his academic position has been used to suggest that his popular work is academically respectable and based on genetic research published in peer-reviewed journals, which was far from being the case for his book on Britain.-- Genie ( talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "Out of Eden" and "The Real Eve" were the same book under different titles. T@nn 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So it's just a different edition of the same book. I see that the article now indicates that. T@nn 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The book "The Real Eve" or "Out of Eden" had a documentary based upon it, also called "The Real Eve". There a wikipedia entry for the documentary, but that does not indicate the connection between it and the book. The documentary entry is a stub anyway, so I'm suggesting merging the two articles. T@nn 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why an editor reverted my description of Eden in the East with a description that is completely inaccurate:
In his book "Eden in the East", Oppenheimer hypothesizes that Eurasians have South Asian origins, with the founding population of Caucasoids (Western Eurasians) originating in northwest India, while the founding population of Mongoloids (Eastern Eurasians) originated in northeast India/Nepal. Caucasoids spread north and west into Central Asia, West Asia, North Africa and Europe, as well as south into southern India and Sri Lanka, while Mongoloids spread north and east into Siberia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, the Americas and Greenland.
The population movements described above happened at an earlier time:about 80,000-15,000 years before present. Eden of the East covers the period 14,000-7,000 years before present. At first I thought that the editor who inserted this had inadvertently characterized Oppenheimer's later book. But it's also not a completely accurate characterization of that book. TimidGuy 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I see now what the problem was. It stemmed from an earlier confusion between two similarly named books: Out of Eden and Eden in the East. The description above was a vestige of this conflation. Someone came in and corrected the confusion regarding the titles of the various books, but the description of Out of Eden was inadvertently retained as the description of Eden in the East. I had put in a correct description of Eden in the East and, inexplicably, an editor reverted back to the earlier incorrect description. Now that I've reverted to my correct description, I do hope he'll leave it intact. TimidGuy 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I both saw the Discovery Channel's documentary of The Real Eve and have and read the book with the above title. I'm a Caucasian, peach-colored skin, male who believes this book because IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! Homo Sapien humans originated in Africa, after evolving from apes there, spread to different continents, where over thousands of years, the melanin in their bodies made their skin change color according to the amount of sunlight hitting that area of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.129.10 ( talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppenheimer is brilliant in assessing the pre-Roman constitution of the peoples of Britain, and concludes that Germanic as well as Celtic peoples inhabited the island and possibly non-Indo-European Picts. However it is a pity that he follows Colin Renfrew's idea that Indo-European was spread in the Neolithic. His genetic arguments to match that idea are weak as a consequence and he tries to fit a 6000BC date on everything. David Anthony's book The Horse, The Wheel and language compellingly states that Indo-European was spread by Kurgans starting around 3300BC. This is a real shame as I believe that with Oppenheimer's brilliant knowledge of DNA he could have made a better match to that date, when drawing up DNA spread maps. As a consequence, about half the book has to be read by ignoring his bias against Kurganisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.191.166 ( talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
the phrasing of this paragraph is highly dubious: "Celtic origins derive from southern France and northern Spain. The Central European theory for Celtic origins has no basis." I would like to see a verbatim quote substantiating that this is exactly how Oppenheimer phrases his view, and to make sure that he indeed is talking about Celtic-speaking culture, as opposed to the genetic origin of the people that happen to participate in Insular Celtic speaking culture today. Otherwise, take great care to not confuse " Celtic" and " Insular Celtic". -- dab (𒁳) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to remove this good faith addition to this article, but it clearly violates the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR.
=== Problems of misrepresentation ===
I was led to this book after real enjoyment of Brian Skye’s 'Seven Daughters of Eve' and 'Blood of the Isles'. Exploration of who we are and how we got here is an exciting journey, and nothing is more thrilling than the cutting edge of genetic detective work. It's a fascinating and interesting read from cover to cover, and I have recommended it to friends and family. However, I have to admit; from the moment I picked it up I've had a problem with it. I know, Mr. Oppenheimer has inserted a foot note stating that he realises that many Irish people don’t consider themselves British, but for reasons of avoiding repetitive printing(?), he is going to use the 'traditional' term British Isles. That's the problem, it has been 'traditional', however over the last few years, that out of date incorrect and offensive term is being challenged by academics, authors, sporting bodies, and governments alike. Just because something is traditional does not mean it cannot be challenged and corrected if found to be problematic. This is problematic. Mr. Oppenheimer has published a scientific book that documents the origins of people from five separate nations, who populate a group of geographically placed islands. He cannot knowingly isolate and risk offending a percentage of his target, subject matter. Is this a study of a people defined by political borders? I don’t think so, its a study of a people defined by their geographic habitation, those that live on the island of Britain, Ireland, and the thousands of smaller politically dependent islands of the UK and ROI. That being the case, use of the term British or British Isles is politically, ethnically and geographically incorrect. The British govt realises this; 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland', they make a geographic distinction to politically unify peoples from two distinctly different geographic regions. The British Lions became the British and Irish Lions, a move made to correct the misrepresentation of players from the ROI. Closer to the authors field, two authors, geneticist Brian Sykes, and British historian Norman Davies both intentionally named their books, 'Blood of the Isles' and 'The Isles; a History', know that to use the outdated term British Isles, or Britishness, might alienate and offend a percentage of their subject matter. Would it have been so difficult to use the term 'The Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland' instead of 'British Isles' I read this book and enjoyed it, but the naming convention throughout mired that enjoyment repeatedly, and misrepresented me.
I would urge the author to correct this mistake on the books next print.
It's never appropriate to insert one's opinion into the article. If information about this misrepresentation has been published in a reliable source, then it can be added to the article and cited. But one would use proper encyclopedia style, not first person. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I did also place it on Amazon, thanks for the suggestion. Some comments and corrections in your statements; The author has not dispelled any myths, he has presented evidence suggesting alternative historical events than those that are traditionally held. Also, Anglo-Saxons did not replace/conflict with Gaelic speaking tribes, the British tribes in the are that were 'celtic' would have spoken a brythonic tongue, similar to cornish and welsh. This indeed is the very essence of the argument. The 'celtic' tribes on the island of Ireland differed from those on Britain, in that they spoke very different branches of the celtic languages. Hence my point, that it is ethnically incorrect to address Ireland and Irish peoples as British. I must admit, I'm not familiar with the term 'Small Britain' The Roman's had seperate names for both islands, Hibernia for Ireland, and Britannica for Britain. A lot of the origins are now so shrowded in the mists of time, it makes investigation extremely difficult. But heres the thing; it does not matter where the term originated, or why, what matters is that it incorrectly misrepresents an entire nation, and it should be discouraged from use in favour of finding a more modern term. I am surprised by its use in a book investigating the very contested and sensitive world of identity, particularly when the author sets out that he knows a percentage of his subject matter may find it problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.143.193 ( talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out in the sake of clarity, that as far as I know, Little Britain, referred to Brittany, the peninsula jutting out of mainland France, just South of the Island of Great Britain, whether it was referred to that way during the Roman period of not, I can not say... Kurogawa ( talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Changing the lead to " a British paediatrician, now best known as a popular science writer" was I think misleading considering the amount of work he has done in other fields. He's been a co-author of a number of publications on genetices, 3 are here [4] and there are others. He's currently working within the Human Evolution and Ecology Group, Institute of Human Sciences, Department of Anthropology at Oxford. The lead needs improving, but Genie's edits didn't make it less misleading so far as I can tell. Dougweller ( talk) 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I know i'm not the only one who thinks his origins of the British is total crap. I mean "were all the same", yeah we'd be the first country in the world where everyone is exactly the same ethnicity. Seems a little coincidental that this suddenly crops up when English (yes ANGLO-SAXON) natioinalism is on the rise and the lefty labour government is trying in vain to combat it (not PC to be English). I also resent how Wikipedia uses it as fact despite the fact its ONE theory in many others. English Bobby ( talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pterre. I'll try to remember WP:Soap in future. I was just annoyed at what i've so far seen on wikipedia about our people. Also for what its worth as an English Nationalist (though i don't speak for all of us) one of the points of pride i and the many i know have in being English is our Saxon roots, though i'm not saying we're 100% nordic just that it's our general heritage and that we should be proud of that. Also 1600 years is a long time, older than any nation in Europe. English Bobby ( talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppenheimer's theories are not universally accepted. For example, in its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' The National Museum of Wales note
here
here (updated 18/12/2015) "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Should this be added to the article? It does not refer explicitly to Oppenheimer. Thoughts?
Daicaregos (
talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Other editors might like to be aware that there was subsequently an animated discussion of Oppenheimer's reliability at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The National Museum of Wales article, pointed to by Daicaregos' post of 29 September 2009 now takes you to a 'page not found' page. I know neither the correct markup syntax for the 'deadlink' flag nor the protocol of whether Editor B can treat Editor A's talkpage comments in such a manner, other than I wouldn't like it done to me, so I won't do it to someone else. EatYerGreens ( talk) 08:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit defines Stephen Oppenheimer as an 'archeo-geneticist'. Please provide a citation for this. Thank you. Daicaregos ( talk) 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I realize is it unintentional and the result of efforts to expand the article, but it looks like an advertisement now, especially with the link to his company. This has not delivered on its promises as a search of the genetic genealogy forums will show, and many purchasers are quite unhappy. DinDraithou ( talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess what I haven't mentioned yet is that there are a few papers challenging the archaism of the Basque population and its alleged closeness to other European populations. I will look for these papers. Their high concentration of R1b may be the result of peculiar factors and apparent closeness to the so-called Insular Celts based on comparable concentrations accidental. DinDraithou ( talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is one from 2005. Just ignore the persistence of the Paleolithic argument, which is not central to the paper. Oppenheimer should not have ignored this article but again he wasn't alone. They list it at ISOGG.
Unfortunately I can only find the abstract for you at the moment, but it says what it needs to.
DinDraithou (
talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I just found the full text, now accessible from the same blue title. DinDraithou ( talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is really silly. The template is obviously useless, since people have no idea what it is supposed to refer to. I have replaced it by a normal POV template. I will remove that as well unless those insisting on tagging the article can come up with something concrete that they don't like and that can't be flagged individually. Hans Adler 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a small stubby article at The Real Eve. I propose it be merged into the relevant section in this article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Do not merge this with The Real Eve and make new page for The Origins of the British —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrt2349876 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a neutrality tag on this article? It merely gives a description of Oppenheimer ideas, it does not say if they are right or wrong (Because that is something that no one could know, at least not yet). I will remove the tag in one week if nobody says me otherwise. I have seen that some people does not give credit to his theories, but that does not change the fact that those are his theories. Leirus ( talk) 09:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed it. I guess an "opposing views" could be added, but as his theories are exposed just like theories, I think the lack of it does not harm the article. Leirus ( talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can this be re-written?
"He uses the evidence that the Germanic genetic contribution to eastern England originated before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of much of England incursion to suggest that the possibility that some inhabitants of the isle of Britain spoke English well before the so-called "Dark Ages"."
It does not seem to make sense. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten it. Ngio ( talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, with science moving ever onwards it was inevitable that the extended quotes and discussions about Stephen Oppenheimer would eventually be reduced on the Genetic history of the British Isles article. Here however is a handy record of the three biggest deletions, in case any of that material is useful on this or any other article: [5], [6], [7]-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Professor David Goldstein of University College London (UCL) told BBC News. He and his colleagues looked at Y-chromosomes, passed from father to son, of Celtic and Norwegian populations. They found them to be quite different...To try to work out where the Celtic population originally came from, the team from UCL, the University of Oxford and the University of California at Davis also looked at Basques..."On the Y-chromosome the Celtic populations turn out to be statistically indistinguishable from the Basques," Professor Goldstein said... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
...Beaker culture is defined by the common use of a pottery style — a beaker with a distinctive inverted bell-shaped profile found across the western part of Europe during the late 3rd millennium BC.Many theories of the origins of the Bell Beakers have been put forward and subsequently challenged,however a recent overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that the Bell Beaker Culture was Original from Iberia which showed that the earliest dates for Bell Beaker were 2900 BC in Iberia... British and American archaeology since the 1960s has been sceptical about prehistoric migration in general, so the idea of "Bell Beaker Folk" lost ground. Neither Mallory nor Anthony proposed mass migrations.Many archaeologists believe that the Beaker 'people' did not exist as a group, and that the beakers and other new artefacts and practices found across Europe at the time that are attributed to the Beaker people are indicative of the development of particular manufacturing skills. This new knowledge may have come about by any combination of population movements and cultural contact.But investigations in the 'Mediterranean' and France recently questioned the nature of the phenomenon,of 86 people from Bell Beaker graves in Bavaria suggests that between 18-25% of all graves were occupied by people who came from a considerable distance outside the area. This was true of children as well as adults, indicative of some significant migration wave. Given the similarities with readings from people living on loess soils, the general direction of the local movement according to Price et al., is from the northeast to the southwest... Beakers arrived in Ireland around 2500BC and fell out of use around 1700BC (Needham 1996)and Beakers arrived in Britain around 2500BC, declined in use around 2200-2100BC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
English is a Germanic language, having the grammar and 33% vocabulary inherited from Proto-Germanic,It has been estimated that between 60 and 70% of our English words are derived from Latin. Some words, such as area, circus, and animal, are spelled the same in both languages. Others, like people, space, and peace (populus, spatium, pax), come indirectly from Latin. Indeed, because Latin has been the language of learned men and women, it became the basis for the vocabulary of the sciences, law, technology, music, and medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.247.201 ( talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3 Should this be added to the article, since it is different from the one currently showing? EatYerGreens ( talk) 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The various discussions here about what to call Oppenheimer and debates about mDNA are interesting but are appropriate to a later stage of revision. What needs to happen now is a rewrite from the ground up. As it stands, the article does not provide a neutral assessment of his work or his place in the scholarly community—or the pop science community, for that matter. None of the critiques of his work are in evidence here. As a result the article is more misleading than informative. It would be better to remove it than to let it stand as it is now.
Is there nobody conversant in the field who is willing to take this on and provide a judicious assessment of Oppenheimer's works, both in what they add to our knowledge and where they fall short? KC 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
A follow-up: It seems to me that his major contribution to the study of human origins is his interdisciplinarity, his ability to draw on the work of more than one field and effectively combine their insights. That's something that is very hard for scholars doing original research in a single field to do, for understandable reasons. But Oppenheimer, because he is not expert in those fields, makes mistakes, misinterprets data, draws untenable conclusions, etc. Some of that is inevitable and gets corrected in the ongoing debate among scholars. It becomes a problem when the nonexpert builds a book and video empire around such theories, and the empire serves as a defense against any criticism. That's what seems to have happened here—as was the case with Thor Hyerdahl, another interdisciplinary nonexpert whose interesting theories turned out to be totally wrong (as has now been firmly proven by DNA evidence).
The establishment of reliable scientific insights emerges from the conversation among experts and, yes, the occasional brilliant insight of an outsider. But it's the conversation that's the key to producing knowledge in any field. Anyone who disdains the conversation is sure to go astray. Ego is the great enemy. KC 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The article says that Oppenheimer has the position that Scandinavian genetics are underestimated in Britain, but from his work's I've read, including his DNA studies, the opposite is his viewpoint, isn't it?
Also, a lot of his work seems to say that Celtic is somehow a race? But surely it's a group of connected cultures. There's a lot of ambiguity here and he seems to be taking strange conclusions from his tests (DNA tests etc.). 86.2.213.86 ( talk) 21:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stephen Oppenheimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)