Celto- Germanic Heritage! British blood at its best!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armstrong

:bow00002:

I wonder where that Celto-Germanic peaks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

I wonder where that Celto-Germanic peaks?

The good ol' Gaelish blood of course! :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armstrong

The good ol' Gaelish blood of course! :p

The blood of the Gael is where you will find Celto- Germanic at its highest levels. :thumb001:

Celtic is the new Germanic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neon Knight

Celtic is the new Germanic.

Evidently, but wait.. either Germanic or Nordic will come along and it'll be it's turn to be cool for awhile.

East_European 15.45%
Paleo_Mediterranean 15.55%
Iberian 12.03%
Caucasian 5.40%
Uralic_Permic 3.33%
Balto_Finnic 5.74%
Paleo_Balkanic 1.70%
Celto_Germanic 37.43%
Paleo_North_European 1.47%
South_Central_Asian 1.33%
Volga_Uralic 0.57%
Altaic_Turkic -

Celto_Germanic 30.79%

Barely made it, i think the bouncer of this club begins to look at you funny under 30% ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

I wonder where that Celto-Germanic peaks?

Credits to Graham :

Celto_Germanic

41.51% -- Anglo Saxon Ave, East England
41.33% -- Unetice Culture
40.26% -- Iron Age Briton, East England
37.54% -- Denmark 2196-2023 BC
36.81% -- Sintashta Culture

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neon Knight

Yeah, it's pretty mysterious. They went all the way up to Orkney but did not touch Wales. It looks unnatural, as if there was something political involved. I suggested to Grace that this NE French element might represent the Beaker People but then Beaker culture was in Wales, so I don't know. Any ideas?

I think now that the NE French DNA which is in Britain but not Wales came from one or more Celtic migrations - Urnfield or Halstatt/La Tène. Whoever they were it looks like the Welsh successfully resisted them, just as they would later resist the Anglo-Saxons. Only the Romans conquered the Welsh before Norman/Angevin England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

Bumping this conversation up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson

Been reading quite a bit about the Iron Age (also some bits about the Bronze age) recently, lots going on. One interesting thing in particular is that the divide between the south, east and central areas (lowlands mostly) and the upland Atlantic west and north - that arguably you can also see in the modern genetic clusters, which follow it very well actually, big red blob of the south-east in particular - goes back a fair way, and is in significant part due to landscape & environment. In particular the climate and altitude of many areas in the north and west makes arable agriculture very risky - ie it's possible in lots of places but small fluctuations in climate that might go fairly unnoticed (or only be a minor problem) in the south-east would cause crop failures in north and west making it risky business to rely on a grain-based economy in those areas, but in the southern, central and eastern lowlands it was the norm (although it was a 'mixed economy'). There's little evidence for large scale grain cultivation in those northern and western areas but you do find some evidence for the consumption of those products, so probably people practiced small-scale arable agriculture but relied primarily on a pastoral economy (generally sheep and cattle, although in many areas cattle made up the vast majority of the diet, for example in some parts of Wales). Also many of these areas were 'aceramic' in contrast to the south-eastern regions and also interestingly to the northern and western isles. Although in certain conditions well made wooden and leather objects have been found, so no reason to assume they were more technologically primitive, but that it wasn't necessary or viable.

Also interesting are the different modes of settlement from the middle to late iron age in particular, f.e in the east it was mostly open farmsteads, small settlements or enclosures with the occasional 'hillfort', while in the south-centre, south-west and west there were many 'traditional' hillforts, while in the far south-west of what's now England and in the south-west of Wales 'rounds' (small enclosed farmsteads) were extremely common, but not so much larger settlements. Up in Scotland Brochs and Wheelhouses were common in particularly on the Isles from the middle of the Iron Age onwards, as well as crannogs (lake/marsh settlements) and duns.

I suppose it chimes really with ancient accounts saying those near the coast (in the south-eastern lowland zone mostly) were more grain cultivators and had close links with northern Gaulish groups, while those further inland survived 'on meat and milk' (suggests a pastoral or heavily animal-based economy anyway).

A lot of the enclosures in southern areas in particular were roundhouses within rectangular or sub-rectangular enclosures, and iirc many sites had rectangular grain storage buildings (four post granaries), so the choice of round architecture throughout the isles at least for the central building of the homestead must have been a cultural preference i would have thought, rather than a purely technological thing, a building tradition.

Also was interesting reading about how the elite were thought to have used chariots - more as utility vehicles - ie they would ride them into battle, dismount and fight and foot and then if they got into a particularly dangerous situation or needed to move along elsewhere or take a break - they would retreat to the chariot and move on.

And apparently they were fond of wearing lots of bright clothing (and jewellery if they had it), but that's not surprising.

Just splurging out some random bits i read recently, can't remember all of it though.

The use of chariots in ancient Britain was always intriguing. Apparently Britain was one of the last holdouts in Eurasia to continue the use of chariots all the way into the late Iron Age and Classical era. Most other places had totally replaced battle chariots with more practical regular cavalry. It supports the idea that there were historical anachronisms that may have persisted in Britian for longer than the rest of antiquity. From what I know, there were places (in the west and north most likely) where they didn't even make (significant) use of iron until after the Roman era. Basically tribes stuck in the Bronze Age. Though I'm sure there were some other areas of Europe that were equally "stuck in time", in places like Fennoscandia etc.

The pastoralist/agriculturalist distinction was definitely there too. The southeast was seeing constant waves of conquest and settlement, while areas past the midlands were relatively untouched for a long time. People think it started with the Anglo-Saxons, but that's just not true. Before them there were Gauls, Belgae, and many others before them arriving in significant numbers. From what I read, southeast Britain likely had a solid Belgic upper-stratum for a time. Groups like the Catuvellauni were most likely Belgic, among others.

Most likely, this is the reason the hillforts increase once you get into the Midlands and beyond. They built those because they were constantly fighting off continental invaders that had gotten a foothold in the southeast.