Are Lowland Scots, Celts, Picts or Anglo Saxons?
Barry
ancestry. This term is put to good practice in Ulster in a hope of
strengthening ties between the provinces Presbyterians and the
English.
Thanks to modern anthropology, we know that about 80% of Scottish
people belong to Haplogroup 1. Haplogroups are basically a genetic way
of describing ancestry, and they are based on a sequence of genes on
the Y-chromosome. Sons almost always inherit an identical copy of
their fathers Y chromosome, and the same applies for your father's
father and his father etc, etc. Prior to 3000 years ago, all of
Europe's inhabitants belonged to haplogroup 1. This therefore means
that most of Scotland's inhabitants descend form Europe's Stone Age
people.
Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in
Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important bases
in Europe. Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
Briton Celts. These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
form Brittany.
For many years, anthropologist argued about whether Picts were of
Scandinavian or Celtic extraction. It is now known that they are not
related to Scandinavians, but are in fact genetically identical to
both the Britons and the Gaels. In the Irish province of Connacht, 97%
of men with Gaelic surnames belong to haplogroup 1. Ironically Ulster
has a higher HP1 percentage than the Irish province of Leinster
(contains Dublin) - although this is simply explained by the fact that
most of those planted in Ulster were Scottish, while the Irish
midlands was planted by English, Normans and Huguenot.
81% of Cornish people belong to haplogroup 1.
The main haplogroup 1 nations include -
Scotland, Ireland, and the Isle of Man - Gaelic
Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany - Briton
Galicia, and the Basque Country.
Read more -
http://www2.smumn.edu/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Yirish.pdf
http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/
Jackie Mulheron
"Barry" <bg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The term Scotch is used to describe Scottish of an Anglo-Saxon
> ancestry.
First I heard of that definition. Did you just make it up?
> This term is put to good practice in Ulster in a hope of
> strengthening ties between the provinces Presbyterians and the
> English.
Really? Was this before or after 1798 when they got all sectarian again?
> Thanks to modern anthropology, we know that about 80% of Scottish
> people belong to Haplogroup 1.
Oh God! It's Diarmid Logan's Orange twin brother.
>Haplogroups are basically a genetic way
> of describing ancestry, and they are based on a sequence of genes on
> the Y-chromosome. Sons almost always inherit an identical copy of
> their fathers Y chromosome, and the same applies for your father's
> father and his father etc, etc. Prior to 3000 years ago, all of
> Europe's inhabitants belonged to haplogroup 1. This therefore means
> that most of Scotland's inhabitants descend form Europe's Stone Age
> people.
Dead powerful these hippo-low-types. Must career around the body chanting
"must drink whisky, must moan and groan about predestination etc etc". Eh?
> Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
> Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
> Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
> these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
> Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in
> Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important bases
> in Europe. Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> Briton Celts. These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> form Brittany.
So that must mean that the "Scotch" are, eh, only a bit Anglo-Saxon.
--
Jackie
Àine Canby
Anglo-Saxon.
Yes that's his point. There would be an element of Anglo-Saxon in the
South, and Scandinavian in the North and Western Isles. But
fundamentally all of Scotland is Gaelic / Pict, or collectively,
descendants of Europe's first peoples, and as much so as the Irish.
I have read with interest the attempt in N. Ireland to restore the
Scotch dialect / pseudo-language, and personally think its pathetic.
It would be like an Irish American learning to speak with an Irish
accent. How culturally insecure is that? And yes this Scottish
Anglo-Saxon/Aryan notion does exist here in Scotland, but I'm sure its
more rampant in America. Only last week I had this argument with a
group of Rangers and Celtic supporting friends of mine. I made the
point that we were all Celtic, and Celtic Football Club and their
supporters have no monopoly on the word, and are only serving to
divide Scotland into different ancestral groups that don't actually
exist here. The use of the word ‘Hun' to describe people of my
background is insulting and ill informed. The Huns were among the
Aryan groups who attacked the Roman Empire. This word might be
appropriate if you wished to insult an English person, but it doesn't
apply to any Scottish people in my opinion. If Celtic supporters are
so pro republican, then why are they dividing the Scottish people and
reinforcing this imaginary ethnical link between Scotland and England,
by calling us ‘Huns'. They are doing a disservice to the prospects of
a United Independent Scotland, just as the IRA in N. Ireland did a
disservice to the prospects of a United Ireland.
This link has more on this issue:
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/STELLA/STARN/lang/MENZIES/menzie1.htm
Àine Canby
Allan Connochie
"Àine Canby" <aine_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57ed59a.03020...@posting.google.com...
> >> So that must mean that the "Scotch" are, eh, only a bit
> Anglo-Saxon.
>
> Yes that's his point. There would be an element of Anglo-Saxon in the
> South, and Scandinavian in the North and Western Isles. But
> fundamentally all of Scotland is Gaelic / Pict, or collectively,
> descendants of Europe's first peoples, and as much so as the Irish.
Why on earth would "all of Scotland" be Gaelic/Pict when the south of the
country was inhabited by Brittonic peoples?
Allan
Ian O. Morrison
> Why on earth would "all of Scotland" be Gaelic/Pict when the south of the
> country was inhabited by Brittonic peoples?
Because there seems to be a wave of historically ignorant tosh, with
nasty racist undertones, hitting this newsgroup at the moment?
------
Ian O.
Àine Canby
Were the Britons not south of Hadrians Wall?
Allan Connochie
They were both north and south of Hadrian's Wall. The boundary between Pict
and Brittonic was more or less around the area of the Antonine Wall.
Allan
Ian O. Morrison
> Were the Britons not south of Hadrians Wall?
Yes, but they were also north of it. The British kingdom of
Strathclyde extended as far south as the Mersey at one time. Dumbarton
was a British capital at one time - the name probably means
"stronghold of the Britons". A language similar to present day Welsh
was spoken across much of what is now Scotland - for example the
placename Bathgate, in West Lothian, is derived from elements that
have nothing to do with baths or gates, but originated in a place name
very similar to Bettws-y-Coed (a pretty wee place in North Wales).
In fact the indigenous people throughout the British Isles, and
Ireland, are pretty much of muchness when it comes to our mongrel
origins, as all genetic studies to date have shown. The divisions are
mostly of recent invention or, in a few cases, cultural.
------
Ian O.
Barry
I wasn't being racist. On the contrary, I don't believe in races as
they are described by most people, i.e. black, white, and coloured, or
Asian, Polynesian, European, etc. I believe that many white people
would find themselves back in Africa if they tried to find a common
ancestor. In other words, I believe that the ancestors of white people
left Africa at different times, and that the only thing they have in
common is the fact that their skin turned white in order to better
survive in a colder climate. I have seen a lot of racist crap on this
news group, and I'd just thought I'd challenge their core belief that
there is a common white ancestry and culture, thousands of years old,
that we all should be proud of. Most white people only entered Europe
over the last few thousands of years. The ancestors of the Celts and
Picts have lived in Europe for 10's of thousands of years. White
Nationalists generally don't belong to one specific ethnic group, and
therefore search for the lowest common factor, which is the colour of
their skin. Take Nick Griffin for example, he's got Scottish, Irish,
Welsh and English ancestors; that's why he wants a United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland (North and South).
I did neglect to mention the Briton Celts of Scotland...but my point
is that the Britons, Picts and Gaels are different in terms of
civilization, but not in terms of ancestry - one might even consider
the Britons and Gaels as the same civilization, as they are both
Celtic. North and South Koreans have very different ways of life, but
ultimately they are the same people. This contrast applies between
urban and rural inhabitants in all countries. The Irish Gaels were
made up of Briton Celts, Picts and Galician Celts, while the Scottish
were made up of Briton Celts, Picts and Gaels. If you wanted to, you
could consider the Dalcassian Gaels as a civilization in their own
right, as they were quite differently from other Gaels - they used
surnames for hundreds of years before the rest of Ireland, for
example. If you wanted to, you could keep subdividing the people of
Scotland and eventually end up with 8 million different civilizations.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Scottish people should
concentrate on what they have in common. At the end of the day, 80% of
Scottish people descend from Britain and Ireland's first people, but
many people are still convinced to the contrary. Take this website for
example -
http://www.upmj.co.uk/ulster-irish.htm
"Whatever blood may be in the veins of the genuine Scotch-Ulsterman,
one thing is certain, and that is that there is not mingled with it
one drop of the blood of the old Irish or Kelt."
I don't think ancestry should define a country - I'm just trying to
dispel some of the myths that are out there. I think the purpose of a
country should be to safeguard culture. A black person who lives in
Scotland all his life is more Scottish in my eyes than some
Scottish-American who has never set foot in the country.
The Phantom Piper
>The term Scotch is used to describe Scottish of an Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
You use "scotch" as you choose to do,
and I'll use it as I see fit, thank you.
>This term is put to good practice in Ulster in a hope of
>strengthening ties between the provinces Presbyterians
>and the English.
I would very much like to strengthen some Ties about
the Ulster Presbyterians and their C.E. fellows in Merrie
Olde Einglannd. It would make swimming back more
difficult, once we'd flung them off the pier...
>Thanks to modern anthropology, we know that about 80%
>of Scottish people belong to Haplogroup 1.
Thanks to not-so-modern Lysenkoism, we know that
once you've severed an Einglischmann's head, it disnae
grow back!
>Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction,
Ye-e-e-sss - especially that bit between Belgium and Bavaria...
Oops! I Think I Hear Some Of The Scotch Calling Me,
---The Phantom Piper
Allan Connochie
> >>racist undertones
>
> I wasn't being racist.
I think racist undertones was the phrase used and I don't think the other
poster was suggesting that you are anti-black. I'm quite willing to concede
that you may not have meant it, but I too found your posts to have a feeling
of anti-Englishness, or at least anti-Anglo-Saxon. For instance your view
on the two invasions seems to be unbalanced somehow. Seemingly the English
massacred the Britons and it was a great mistake to invite them in - but
Gael and Pict came together because of a shared Christianity and shared
danger from the Norse. Now to me if the Scots did indeed come over from
Ireland to ally with the Picts in attacking Britannia, then wasn't that a
'great mistake' by the Picts too. After all what happened to the Pictish
tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they pushed
west wards, enslaved or massacred?? Was it a good thing that the Celtic
peoples in the north came together or was it a tragedy that the Picts ended
up losing their independence and in the end even their language? You idea
that is was somehow a pan-Celtic north against the Aryans is just not upheld
by the historical facts. You ignore Northumbria when talking about the
relationship between Christian peoples but come on now! The Lindisfarne
Gospels pre-date the Book Of Kells by a complete century!
>
> I did neglect to mention the Briton Celts of Scotland...but my point
> is that the Britons, Picts and Gaels are different in terms of
> civilization, but not in terms of ancestry - one might even consider
> the Britons and Gaels as the same civilization, as they are both
> Celtic. North and South Koreans have very different ways of life, but
> ultimately they are the same people. This contrast applies between
> urban and rural inhabitants in all countries. The Irish Gaels were
> made up of Briton Celts, Picts and Galician Celts, while the Scottish
> were made up of Briton Celts, Picts and Gaels. If you wanted to, you
> could consider the Dalcassian Gaels as a civilization in their own
> right, as they were quite differently from other Gaels - they used
> surnames for hundreds of years before the rest of Ireland, for
> example. If you wanted to, you could keep subdividing the people of
> Scotland and eventually end up with 8 million different civilizations.
>
> Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Scottish people should
> concentrate on what they have in common.
I have to ask the question what the hell are you on about? The vast
majority of Scots share their Scottishness in common, and what percentage of
this blood or that blood they have has little relevance for most people.
What makes you think otherwise?
At the end of the day, 80% of
> Scottish people descend from Britain and Ireland's first people, but
> many people are still convinced to the contrary. Take this website for
> example -
> http://www.upmj.co.uk/ulster-irish.htm
>
> "Whatever blood may be in the veins of the genuine Scotch-Ulsterman,
> one thing is certain, and that is that there is not mingled with it
> one drop of the blood of the old Irish or Kelt."
An absurd claim of course, but no more absurd than your statement that the
Celts of southern England were completely wiped out and the southern English
are completely Anglo-Saxon. Likewise recent genetic research [ ie the UCL
research by Goldstein used in the book Blood Of The Vikings and subsequently
the BBC programme based on the book] has shown that both Scotland and
England had mixed Celtic and Norse/Anglo/Danish markers, and also that
"mainland Scotland was not appreciably more Celtic than southern
England.........Julian Richards author of Blood Of The Vikings". In the
Goldstein research the are of England which had the most Anglo-Danish
markers was the east and north-east, with the area around York having the
highest percentage at 70%. Of course what this shows is that in the area mo
st populated by the non-Celtic type group there were still 30% with the
Celtic marker, and thinking about it sensibly the 70% involved will of
course also have Celtic ancestry as the marker tracked only shows one
ancestor and his male line out of hundreds perhaps thousands of ancestors.
I don't know how much worth it is either but the genetist Cavalli-Sforza's
so called Genetic Distance Marker also shows that the closest people
genetically to the Scottish are the English, closely followed by the Irish.
Though the Welsh were either not included or were included as being English!
Whether the genetic marker is of any value or not I don't know however both
the Goldstein survey and Sforza's work seems to back up the evidence we
have. The population of Britain is descended from the British tribes [the
idea of the Picts was a later development, at the time of the conquest only
geography semed to seperate the northern tribes from the rest] though there
has been an admixture of Anglo/Saxons, Irish and Norse thrown in then later
immigrants too of course. Different parts of the country were affected
differently by these incomers but it seems realistic that the bulk of the
original population remained intact.
> I don't think ancestry should define a country - I'm just trying to
> dispel some of the myths that are out there. I think the purpose of a
> country should be to safeguard culture. A black person who lives in
> Scotland all his life is more Scottish in my eyes than some
> Scottish-American who has never set foot in the country.
I agree with the idea that children of immigrants are Scottish. Of course
they are! However I don't agree that an American born of Scottish parents
should necessarily always be regarded as less Scottish. we should not be so
quick to decide on other people's identity for them. As for dispelling
myths I think you've regurgitated a few old long abandoned myths in some of
your posting.
Allan
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "Barry" <bg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:731cea69.03020...@posting.google.com...
> > >>racist undertones
> >
> > I wasn't being racist.
>
> I think racist undertones was the phrase used and I don't think the other
> poster was suggesting that you are anti-black. I'm quite willing to
concede
> that you may not have meant it, but I too found your posts to have a
feeling
> of anti-Englishness,
You young pups don't know the meaning of the words.
--
The adorable Adam Whyte-Settlar
- destined to be forever in the minority
Honest Nev
>After all what happened to the Pictish
>tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they
pushed
>west wards, enslaved or massacred?
i think the consesus is that the scotch killed them all, seeing as
nothing much of their culture (pre-celtic, natch) survives. Also the
strathclydians were at least bythronic in origin and in no way scotch.
Barry wrote earlier
>Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
>Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
>Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
>these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
>Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived
in
>Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important
bases
>in Europe.
this is very funny: so where were the germanics before the fall of the
roman empire? perhaps they were hiding somewhere? (maybe in modern-day
Holland/Denmark/Germany/Norway/Sweden etc.) just a guess. and by the
way the where angles in scotland before there where scotch people. and
the romans invited more than a few to stop the locals (welsh + any
pre-celtics the welsh hadn`t massacred) getting lippy. which, let`s
face it, they anglos did very well.
>Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
>Briton Celts.
alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
something will remain.
>These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
>and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
>Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
>form Brittany.
many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
my history books. and they ran like girls.
yrs nev
Diarmid Logan
> Allan Connochie wrote
>
> >After all what happened to the Pictish
> >tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they
> pushed
> >west wards, enslaved or massacred?
>
> i think the consesus is that the scotch killed them all, seeing as
> nothing much of their culture (pre-celtic, natch) survives. Also the
> strathclydians were at least bythronic in origin and in no way scotch.
Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
killed the Pictish royal family.
> Barry wrote earlier
>
> >Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
> >Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
> >Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
> >these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
> >Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived
> in
> >Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important
> bases
> >in Europe.
>
> this is very funny: so where were the germanics before the fall of the
> roman empire? perhaps they were hiding somewhere? (maybe in modern-day
> Holland/Denmark/Germany/Norway/Sweden etc.) just a guess.
The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
northern Germany.
> and by the
> way the where angles in scotland before there where scotch people. and
> the romans invited more than a few to stop the locals (welsh + any
> pre-celtics the welsh hadn`t massacred) getting lippy. which, let`s
> face it, they anglos did very well.
Do you have any evidence of this?
> >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> >Briton Celts.
>
> alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
> they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
> traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
> healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> something will remain.
Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
have lived in Britain since Neolithic times. Celtic culture did not
enter Britain through invasion but (most likely) through trade and
commerce.
> >These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> >and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> >Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> >form Brittany.
>
> many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
> my history books. and they ran like girls.
Many Britons fled Britain for Armorica to escape the savage Angles,
Saxons and Jutes. Fleeing from blood-thirsty Germanic barbarians is
nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
Alan Smaill
> Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> killed the Pictish royal family.
Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
between the repective royal families.
This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
School of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-5148
University of Edinburgh
T N Nurse
diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> news:<a5ec705.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> > Allan Connochie wrote
> >
> > >After all what happened to the Pictish
> > >tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they
> > pushed
> > >west wards, enslaved or massacred?
> >
> > i think the consesus is that the scotch killed them all, seeing as
> > nothing much of their culture (pre-celtic, natch) survives. Also the
> > strathclydians were at least bythronic in origin and in no way scotch.
>
> Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> killed the Pictish royal family.
Actually they didn't. The Gaels and the Vikings formed an alliance
to destroy the Picts. After the Gael Kenneth McAlpin murdered the
Pictish king and all the nobility in an act known as McAlpin's
Treason, he then shared out the Pictish lands with his Norse allies
and seized the Pictish throne for himself.
You've been told all this before. Why are you lying about it again?
Honest Nev
> Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> killed the Pictish royal family.
the sick/poor surviving picts would have punished themselves through
inter-marriage i feel certain that they would have drowned these
gaelic babies :->. how else would you explain near-total loss of
pictish culture.
> The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
> northern Germany.
you forget the netherlands + the vandals had got to africa by then.
> > and by the
> > way the where angles in scotland before there where scotch people. and
> > the romans invited more than a few to stop the locals (welsh + any
> > pre-celtics the welsh hadn`t massacred) getting lippy. which, let`s
> > face it, they anglos did very well.
>
> Do you have any evidence of this?
key: welsh: non-romanised bythronic people
pre-celtic: here, i refer mainly to pictish
Angles in scotland before scotch/roman colonists invite angles to
britain:
http://www.celticmist.freeserve.co.uk/saxon.htm
"AD 446 The Britons send to Rome to ask for assistance in defending
the island against the Picts. They received no help. The reason given
is that legions were being deployed against Attila the Hun. The
Britons then request help from the Angles.
AD 449 Vortigern asks for assistance from the Angles. He gives them
land in the south-east in return for their services in fighting the
Picts. They invite further groups to join them, including the Saxons.
The leaders are Hengest and Horsa. Hengest is mentioned in the legend
of Beowulf."
they angles fight the picts in 490+ (in scotland, no?) + angles found
edinburgh in 626. a constant presence of 136 years. scotch start to
settle 500 earliest:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~merle/History/SI-History.htm
"In fact, the Scotti of Roman days were an Irish clan -- from County
Antrim. They later invaded Scotland (500 AD) and won the local
cultural battle with the Picts."
as to how effective anglos were, well they sorted the welsh/romans,
had a bit of trouble with picts (685 ad), but there`s no evidence to
suggest that the anglos were`nt protecting these brave souls from the
gaels/welsh and this battle was merely the paranoid death-throes of a
dying people. in fact this arguement is supported by much evidence of
germanic receptiveness to pre-celtic culture, as i mentioned in
previous post.
> > >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> > >Briton Celts.
> >
> > alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
> > they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> > stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
> > traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
> > healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> > something will remain.
>
> Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
> have lived in Britain since Neolithic times.
http://www.britannia.com/wales/sacred/sacintro.html
"The Bronze Age in Britain lasted a long time, from about 2000 to 700
BC. It was followed by the Iron Age, during which a steady trickle of
people began to enter Britain from the Continent. These were the
Celts, the ancestors of the present-day Welsh. They brought their
Brythonic language with them"
700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
britain.).
> Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most likely)
> through trade and commerce.
alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
the case.
> > >These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> > >and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> > >Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> > >form Brittany.
> >
> > many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
> > my history books. and they ran like girls.
>
> Many Britons fled Britain for Armorica to escape the savage Angles,
> Saxons and Jutes. Fleeing from blood-thirsty Germanic barbarians is
> nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
in what way were the germanics more *barbaric* than the welsh? they
were both *barbarians* in the greek sense, so don`t give me that.
yrs nev
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
>
> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > killed the Pictish royal family.
>
> Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> between the repective royal families.
>
> This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
to claim the Pictish throne.
Séimí mac Liam
news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com:
You make it sound as though the Gaels had no part in the defeat of the
Picts. This history has be cited to you in the past.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Bryn Fraser
>.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
>> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
>>
>> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
>> > killed the Pictish royal family.
>>
>> Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
>> between the repective royal families.
>>
>> This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
>
>
>The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
>Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
>to claim the Pictish throne.
Bollox!
The "betrayal" of Kenneth MacAlpine was putting an end the matrilineal
system whereby young men fought for the hand of their bride and the
associated wealth and honour that this gained them. Note that the
"Viking" incursions started immediately after the "betrayal". The
"Vikings" at this time were the Picts looking for alternatives to the
above...
Geesh!
You're the bloke with the "Germanic" obsession aren't you? That's bollox
as well, you boring twat!
--
Bryn Fraser ?
~~~~~~~~~~~ + +
="=
~
The human lot. - He who considers more deeply knows that, whatever his acts and
judgements may be, he will always be wrong.
Nietzsche [HA 518]
________________________________________
XX XX
XX http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk XX
XX http://www.thefrasers.com XX
XX____________________________________XX
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
>
> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > killed the Pictish royal family.
>
> feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
> while i ackmowledge some of
> the sick/poor surviving picts would have punished themselves through
> inter-marriage i feel certain that they would have drowned these
> gaelic babies :->. how else would you explain near-total loss of
> pictish culture.
Actually the intermarriage between Picts and Gaels began when the the
Gaels were under Pictish rule. If it were not for the Germanic Viking
thugs, it is likely that Gaelic culture would have disappeared from
Scotland as the Picts would have absorbed the Gaels. It was the
anarchy created in Pict society by the destruction of their royal
family by the Vikings that allowed the Gaels to get the upper hand.
> > The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
> > northern Germany.
>
> you forget the netherlands + the vandals had got to africa by then.
So?
I am afraid that you are using a self-serving Anglo-Saxon version of
British history. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came as invaders and
slaughtered much of Britain's indigenous population which included the
Picts and Welsh.
> > > >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> > > >Briton Celts.
> > >
> > > alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
> > > they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> > > stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
> > > traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
> > > healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> > > something will remain.
> >
> > Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
> > have lived in Britain since Neolithic times.
>
> http://www.britannia.com/wales/sacred/sacintro.html
> "The Bronze Age in Britain lasted a long time, from about 2000 to 700
> BC. It was followed by the Iron Age, during which a steady trickle of
> people began to enter Britain from the Continent. These were the
> Celts, the ancestors of the present-day Welsh. They brought their
> Brythonic language with them"
>
> 700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
> cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
> france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
> pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
> britain.).
Actually this is an inaccurate view of British history. The ancestors
of the Welsh and Cornish have been in Britain since the Neolithic.
Here are a couple of websites that you may be interested in checking
out:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078
http://www.geocities.com/gracefiles/weale_etal_mbe3.pdf
> > Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most likely)
> > through trade and commerce.
>
> alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
> the case.
But this is how Celtic culture entered Britain and Ireland. There was
no ethnic cleansing in either Britain or Ireland until the Anglo-Saxon
swine arrived on the scene.
> > > >These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> > > >and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> > > >Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> > > >form Brittany.
> > >
> > > many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
> > > my history books. and they ran like girls.
> >
> > Many Britons fled Britain for Armorica to escape the savage Angles,
> > Saxons and Jutes. Fleeing from blood-thirsty Germanic barbarians is
> > nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
>
> in what way were the germanics more *barbaric* than the welsh? they
> were both *barbarians* in the greek sense, so don`t give me that.
The Welsh never engaged in ethnic cleansing unlike the Germanic thugs
that invaded Britain.
Diarmid Logan
> In article <6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
>
> > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> > news:<a5ec705.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Allan Connochie wrote
> > >
> > > >After all what happened to the Pictish
> > > >tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they
> pushed
> > > >west wards, enslaved or massacred?
> > >
> > > i think the consesus is that the scotch killed them all, seeing as
> > > nothing much of their culture (pre-celtic, natch) survives. Also the
> > > strathclydians were at least bythronic in origin and in no way scotch.
> >
> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > killed the Pictish royal family.
>
> Actually they didn't. The Gaels and the Vikings formed an alliance
> to destroy the Picts.
More pseudo-history.
> After the Gael Kenneth McAlpin murdered the
> Pictish king and all the nobility in an act known as McAlpin's
> Treason, he then shared out the Pictish lands with his Norse allies
> and seized the Pictish throne for himself.
The Vikings killed the Pictish royal family. If you actually knew any
history you would know that "McAlpin's Treason" refers to the way he
killed off other competitors for the Pictish throne.
> You've been told all this before. Why are you lying about it again?
You mean that you have told me this nonsense before? Quite right you
have tried to foist your false history on me before. If you want to
really learn about Scottish history then maybe you should start below:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/trails_darkages_picts.shtml
Alan Smaill
half-Pictish -- ie descended from the Pictish aristocracy, no ???
> to claim the Pictish throne.
We have pointed out before to you the battle that Kenneth MacAlpine
fought against the Picts that decided the future of Scotland.
Not a Viking in sight:
http://www.geocities.com/priority_independence/stirling2.html
But that just doesn't suit your prejudices either, does it ???
AS
Alan Smaill
> Actually the intermarriage between Picts and Gaels began when the the
> Gaels were under Pictish rule. If it were not for the Germanic Viking
> thugs, it is likely that Gaelic culture would have disappeared from
> Scotland as the Picts would have absorbed the Gaels. It was the
> anarchy created in Pict society by the destruction of their royal
> family by the Vikings that allowed the Gaels to get the upper hand.
Priceless.
Truly beyond parody.
AS
Allan Connochie
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com...
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
>
> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > killed the Pictish royal family.
>
> feel free to supply a date for yr claim. while i ackmowledge some of
> the sick/poor surviving picts would have punished themselves through
> inter-marriage i feel certain that they would have drowned these
> gaelic babies :->. how else would you explain near-total loss of
> pictish culture.
Much of the Pictish hierarchy seems to have been destroyed after a battle
with the Norse, and Mcalpan took advantage of this, and it does seem likely
that he used Norse assistance to gain the throne and by tradition he later
purged many of the remaining Pictish nobility.
>
>
> > The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
> > northern Germany.
>
> you forget the netherlands + the vandals had got to africa by then.
>
> > > and by the
> > > way the where angles in scotland before there where scotch people. and
> > > the romans invited more than a few to stop the locals (welsh + any
> > > pre-celtics the welsh hadn`t massacred) getting lippy. which, let`s
> > > face it, they anglos did very well.
> >
> > Do you have any evidence of this?
>
> key: welsh: non-romanised bythronic people
> pre-celtic: here, i refer mainly to pictish
>
> Angles in scotland before scotch/roman colonists invite angles to
> britain:
I'm not sure what you are saying here, and what on earth are "scotch/roman
colonists"? However it's an interesting question as to whether the Angles
or Scots [hint....many Scottish people dislike the term Scotch] were in the
country first. Of course many of the Roman military would have been
Germanic and many would have stayed after their service, but whether we
could regard this as Anglian settlement is something else. If we take the
various old annals [it's not much but it's all the evidence we have] then we
can push the date of the first Angles in Lothian back to the mid-fifth
century when according to the History Brittonum settlers went to the area
bordering the land of the Picts. This is a few decades before Fergus
famously settled in Argyle. However though the old annals don't actually
come out and say it most historians agree that Irish settlers must have been
present in Argyle prior to the arrival of Fergus and they seem to push it
back to late Roman times and possibly even long before that. So although we
have no proof as such I would probably side with the Scots being first -
though what difference it makes evades me. Both were recent newcomers who
later usurped power from the original inhabitants.
>
> http://www.celticmist.freeserve.co.uk/saxon.htm
> "AD 446 The Britons send to Rome to ask for assistance in defending
> the island against the Picts. They received no help. The reason given
> is that legions were being deployed against Attila the Hun. The
> Britons then request help from the Angles.
>
> AD 449 Vortigern asks for assistance from the Angles. He gives them
> land in the south-east in return for their services in fighting the
> Picts. They invite further groups to join them, including the Saxons.
> The leaders are Hengest and Horsa. Hengest is mentioned in the legend
> of Beowulf."
>
> they angles fight the picts in 490+ (in scotland, no?) + angles found
> edinburgh in 626.
This bit is absolute nonsense though. The Angles did not found Edinburgh as
such. They simply took control of it and changed it's name.
a constant presence of 136 years. scotch start to
> settle 500 earliest:
>
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~merle/History/SI-History.htm
> "In fact, the Scotti of Roman days were an Irish clan -- from County
> Antrim. They later invaded Scotland (500 AD) and won the local
> cultural battle with the Picts."
No King Fergus took over control of Dalriada around 500AD, but there is no
[and that is none at all] evidence of an invasion of any kind around this
date.
>
> as to how effective anglos were, well they sorted the welsh/romans,
> had a bit of trouble with picts (685 ad), but there`s no evidence to
> suggest that the anglos were`nt protecting these brave souls from the
> gaels/welsh and this battle was merely the paranoid death-throes of a
> dying people. in fact this arguement is supported by much evidence of
> germanic receptiveness to pre-celtic culture, as i mentioned in
> previous post.
Again I don't understand what you're getting at here! Who do you think the
Angles were protecting from the Welsh??? That doesn't make any kind of
sense. The story is that Germanics were settled in Britain to help defend
against the Scots and Picts but it in the end they instead sided with the
enemy so to speak. This is not only told from the British sources but also
from the Anglian sources [ie Bede and the Anglo-Saxon chronicles] so I don't
think we have any reason to doubt it. What is pretty clear though is that
there is no evidence of mass genocide againt the existing population. The
early British writers suggested this but they also suggested it of the Scots
who Gildas described as a 'vile horde'. All the evidence there is points to
a mixed Germano-Celtic population which gradually merged over the centuries.
>
>
> > > >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> > > >Briton Celts.
> > >
> > > alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
> > > they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> > > stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
> > > traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
> > > healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> > > something will remain.
> >
> > Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
> > have lived in Britain since Neolithic times.
>
> http://www.britannia.com/wales/sacred/sacintro.html
> "The Bronze Age in Britain lasted a long time, from about 2000 to 700
> BC. It was followed by the Iron Age, during which a steady trickle of
> people began to enter Britain from the Continent. These were the
> Celts, the ancestors of the present-day Welsh. They brought their
> Brythonic language with them"
I think you'll find that much of the population of Wales will almost
certainly hark back to the Bronze Age.
>
> 700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
> cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
> france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
> pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
> britain.).
There was a movement to Brittany of what was probably much of the elite
class of southern Britain. The estimated figure I've seen [though how they
get to this I don't know] was no more than around 12000 souls. The
estimated population of our island was seemingly several million at that
time!! Also if all the Cornish were English then why did the Cornish
language survive in Cornwall?
>
> > Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most likely)
> > through trade and commerce.
>
> alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
> the case.
Probably a bit of both, who knows, but there is no evidence of mass
invasions.
>
> > > >These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> > > >and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> > > >Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> > > >form Brittany.
> > >
> > > many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
> > > my history books. and they ran like girls.
> >
> > Many Britons fled Britain for Armorica to escape the savage Angles,
> > Saxons and Jutes. Fleeing from blood-thirsty Germanic barbarians is
> > nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
>
> in what way were the germanics more *barbaric* than the welsh? they
> were both *barbarians* in the greek sense, so don`t give me that.
Logan's logic runs this way! Celtic invader equals someone coming together
with fellow Celt in perfect harmony. Germanic invader equals cruel psycho
bastard. And nothing you can say will change his opinion :-)
Allan
Allan Connochie
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com...
> honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> British history. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came as invaders and
> slaughtered much of Britain's indigenous population which included the
> Picts and Welsh.
Again there is no evidence of mass genocide of substantial amounts of the
population, and certainly we know that there was no such an act by the
Angles against the Picts. It was the Scots who took over Argyle and the
existing Pictish population [ie Epidii and Creones] were wiped off the face
of history. Do I believe they were annihilated? Not really, but if they
were it certainly had nothing to do with the Angles. Likewise Pictish
culture went down in the face of Gaelic just as British culture in
south-east Scotland went down in the face of Northumbrian. The two things
are so similar but your prejudices won't enable you to see that.
> But this is how Celtic culture entered Britain and Ireland. There was
> no ethnic cleansing in either Britain or Ireland until the Anglo-Saxon
> swine arrived on the scene.
The only evidence there is of ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxons comes in
a few sentences
from Gildas and Nennius who were of course rather biased.
However if you must take their anti-Anglo views as gospel then what about
this description of how the Britons were treated by the Scots and Picts?
"They left their cities, abandoned the protection of the wall, and dispersed
themselves more desperately than before. The enemy, on the other hand,
pursued them with more unrelenting cruelty, and butchered our countrymen
like sheep...........by Gildas"
> The Welsh never engaged in ethnic cleansing unlike the Germanic thugs
> that invaded Britain.
The Welsh/British showed they could be just as ruthless and cruel as anyone
else. Two obvious examples are the Boudiccan revolt and the much later and
less known
Cadwalla's murderous rampage through Northumbria.
Allan
Honest Nev
> honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> >
> > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >
> > feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
>
> 839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
you`ll find that bbc history sites are famously unreliable (they still
refer to "the dark ages" for fucks sake). + are very PC when comes to
anglo/celtic antagonism (i.e. "the Angles took Edinburgh from the
Britons and pushed west to Galloway" (yr source) whereas even
Edinburgh Hospital Radio gets it right (despite percieved bias) "626:
Edinburgh founded by Edwin of Northumbria /1018: Edinburgh becomes
Scottish town when Malcolm II defeats the Northumbrians". source:
http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
> > > > > Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
> > > > > Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
> > > > > Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
> > > > > these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
> > > > > Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in
> > > > > Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important bases
> > > > > in Europe.
>
> > > > this is very funny: so where were the germanics before the fall of the
> > > > roman empire? perhaps they were hiding somewhere? (maybe in modern-day
> > > > Holland/Denmark/Germany/Norway/Sweden etc.) just a guess.
>
> > > The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
> > > northern Germany.
> >
> > you forget the netherlands + the vandals had got to africa by then.
>
> So?
I was making you a gift of imformation, as it seemed like you repeated
exactly what i said (having just quoting me directly). shurely shum
mishtake, no? if someone else says it again, say what you said again +
the extra bit, ta-da!! you contributed somethinmg brand new!! :-)
i went to great effort to use anti-germanic/pro-celtic sites, so as
you`d be familiar with them. you are being very ungrateful.
<cuts where you argue that the neolithic age occured later than it
did>
> > > Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most likely)
> > > through trade and commerce.
> >
> > alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
> > the case.
>
> But this is how Celtic culture entered Britain and Ireland. There was
> no ethnic cleansing in either Britain or Ireland until the Anglo-Saxon
> swine arrived on the scene.
don`t let yr prejudices move you to ignore 100% bone-fide
fully-substantiated scientific fact.
> > > > >These people were left defenceless when the Romans left,
> > > > >and the Saxons apparently removed them from the entire south of
> > > > >Britain, bar Wales and Cornwall. Many Britons also fled to France to
> > > > >form Brittany.
> > > >
> > > > many `britons` fled BACK to france, where they came from according to
> > > > my history books. and they ran like girls.
> > >
> > > Many Britons fled Britain for Armorica to escape the savage Angles,
> > > Saxons and Jutes. Fleeing from blood-thirsty Germanic barbarians is
> > > nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion.
> >
> > in what way were the germanics more *barbaric* than the welsh? they
> > were both *barbarians* in the greek sense, so don`t give me that.
>
> The Welsh never engaged in ethnic cleansing unlike the Germanic thugs
> that invaded Britain.
they didn`t? why do you refuse to recognise a pre-celtic britain? even
the bbc does, you know.
yrs nev
T N Nurse
diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> T N Nurse <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tnnurseNOUCE99-8E7...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>...
> > In article <6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> >
> > > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> > > news:<a5ec705.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Allan Connochie wrote
> > > >
> > > > >After all what happened to the Pictish
> > > > >tribes who inhabited the land that the Scots took over? Were they
> > pushed
> > > > >west wards, enslaved or massacred?
> > > >
> > > > i think the consesus is that the scotch killed them all, seeing as
> > > > nothing much of their culture (pre-celtic, natch) survives. Also the
> > > > strathclydians were at least bythronic in origin and in no way scotch.
> > >
> > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >
> > Actually they didn't. The Gaels and the Vikings formed an alliance
> > to destroy the Picts.
>
> More pseudo-history.
No. more correct history, unlike your flights of fantasy.
>
> > After the Gael Kenneth McAlpin murdered the
> > Pictish king and all the nobility in an act known as McAlpin's
> > Treason, he then shared out the Pictish lands with his Norse allies
> > and seized the Pictish throne for himself.
>
> The Vikings killed the Pictish royal family.
If you knew any history, you would know that this is untrue and that
only the Pictish King and his son were killed in battle
with the Vikings, which followed a battle with MacAlpin's Gaels which
left the Pictish Army severly weakened.
>If you actually knew any
> history you would know that "McAlpin's Treason" refers to the way he
> killed off other competitors for the Pictish throne.
If you actually knew any history, you would know that the Pictish throne
was already occupied By King Durst, who was a cousin of the King killed
by the Vikings. If you also knew any history, you'd also be aware that
those killed by MacAlpin in an act of treachery that matched Glencoe,
were not competitors to the throne, but the main Pictish nobility who
controlled Pictish forces. These were the people MacAlpin invited to
his castle for a week of 'friendship and feasting' and then murdered
as they slept.
But then, you don't know any history, do you Dairmid? You just make
it up as you go along and netskim in the hope of cherry picking.
>
>
>
> > You've been told all this before. Why are you lying about it again?
>
>
> You mean that you have told me this nonsense before?
Nope. I mean I've told you these well established historical facts
that are obtainable from any reputable history book, something
that you appear to have an aversion to.
> Quite right you
> have tried to foist your false history on me before.
False history? No dear. The only false history here
is you laughable attempts to cite skimpy English sources for your
silly fantasies.
> If you want to
> really learn about Scottish history then maybe you should start below:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
You mean I should learn Scottish history from an English broadcasting
corporation? No thanks. I prefer reputable detailed sources. But, given
your bigotted view, one can understand your desperation to distance
yourself from the truth.
T N Nurse
> If it were not for the Germanic Viking
> thugs, it is likely that Gaelic culture would have disappeared from
> Scotland as the Picts would have absorbed the Gaels. It was the
> anarchy created in Pict society by the destruction of their royal
> family by the Vikings that allowed the Gaels to get the upper hand.
Good grief!!
T N Nurse
> honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> >
> > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >
> > feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
>
> 839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
..it's an English pop-history source sufficiently lacking in detail to
ensure you don't find out the true nature of events.
Just make sure you don't go here
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/4638/aberlemno.html
..and read this..
It is also well known that the Picts were one of Western culture's rare
matrilineal societies; that is, bloodlines passed through the mother,
and Pictish kings were not succeeded by their sons, but by their
brothers or nephews or cousins as traced by the female line in a
complicated series of intermarriages by seven royal houses.
It was this rare form of succession which in the year 845 A.D. gave the
crown of Alba and the title Rex Pictorum to a Gaelic Scot, son of a
Pictish princess by the name of Kenneth, Son of Alpin. This Kenneth
MacAlpin, whose father's kingship over the Scots had been earlier taken
over by the Pictish king Oengus, who ruled as both king of Picts and
Scots, harbored a deep hatred for the Picts, and in the event known as
"MacAlpin's Treason" murdered the members of the remaining seven royal
houses thus preserving the Scottish line for kingship of Alba and the
eventual erasure from history of the Pictish race, culture and history.
Oh those treacherous, murderous Gaels!
Honest Nev
> > key: welsh: non-romanised bythronic people
> > pre-celtic: here, i refer mainly to pictish
> >
> > Angles in scotland before scotch/roman colonists invite angles to
> > britain:
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here, and what on earth are "scotch/roman
> colonists"?
I was providing sources for Diarmid Logan (as he requested) to show
how,
angles in scotland before scotch/ (+)
roman colonists invite angles to britain
sorry for any confusion
> However it's an interesting question as to whether the Angles
> or Scots [hint....many Scottish people dislike the term Scotch]
honestly? why?
angles/northumbrians same thing, no? Edinburgh Hospital Radio confirms
my date:
http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
there is nothing to suggest it was founded before this date, and
Edinborough is a northumbrian name.
> > as to how effective anglos were, well they sorted the welsh/romans,
> > had a bit of trouble with picts (685 ad), but there`s no evidence to
> > suggest that the anglos were`nt protecting these brave souls from the
> > gaels/welsh and this battle was merely the paranoid death-throes of a
> > dying people. in fact this arguement is supported by much evidence of
> > germanic receptiveness to pre-celtic culture, as i mentioned in
> > previous post.
>
> Again I don't understand what you're getting at here! Who do you think the
> Angles were protecting from the Welsh???
the roman colonists (inc. romanised welsh). plus, as i say, there is
no evidence to suggest that they weren`t protecting the pictish + any
other pockets of pre-celtic resistence (in the hills of northern
england esp). in fact some claims have been made that `well-dressing`
(old pre-celtic tradition still upheld in english county of derbyshire
+ some of staffodshire) was a tribute to the english for saving them
from the welsh.
> The story is that Germanics were settled in Britain to help defend
> against the Scots and Picts but it in the end they instead sided with the
> enemy so to speak.
with the scotch against the picts?
> This is not only told from the British sources but also
> from the Anglian sources [ie Bede and the Anglo-Saxon chronicles] so I don't
> think we have any reason to doubt it. What is pretty clear though is that
> there is no evidence of mass genocide againt the existing population. The
> early British writers suggested this but they also suggested it of the Scots
> who Gildas described as a 'vile horde'. All the evidence there is points to
> a mixed Germano-Celtic population which gradually merged over the centuries.
of course nowadays the lowlands scotch/northumbrians+cumberlanders are
virtually the same people (genetically not culturally of course).
Indeed many scandanavian names are considered `scotch` by the scotch
themselves (e.g. davidson, anderson etc.).
> > > > >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> > > > >Briton Celts.
> > > >
> > > > alas there were many others before, but we do not know there names, as
> > > > they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> > > > stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and pre-celtic
> > > > traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the english: a
> > > > healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> > > > something will remain.
> > >
> > > Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
> > > have lived in Britain since Neolithic times.
> >
> > http://www.britannia.com/wales/sacred/sacintro.html
> > "The Bronze Age in Britain lasted a long time, from about 2000 to 700
> > BC. It was followed by the Iron Age, during which a steady trickle of
> > people began to enter Britain from the Continent. These were the
> > Celts, the ancestors of the present-day Welsh. They brought their
> > Brythonic language with them"
>
>
> I think you'll find that much of the population of Wales will almost
> certainly hark back to the Bronze Age.
of course you must allow some room for error. not pre-800bc though,
eh? unless yr going to go the whole hog and tell me the celts built
stonehenge. ;-)
> > 700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
> > cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
> > france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
> > pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
> > britain.).
>
> There was a movement to Brittany of what was probably much of the elite
> class of southern Britain. The estimated figure I've seen [though how they
> get to this I don't know] was no more than around 12000 souls. The
> estimated population of our island was seemingly several million at that
> time!! Also if all the Cornish were English then why did the Cornish
> language survive in Cornwall?
a very small cornish-speaking group remained, and was happily
tolerated by the english for years until it died out. an interesting
comparison could be made with pictish, of course.
>
> >
> > > Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most likely)
> > > through trade and commerce.
> >
> > alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
> > the case.
>
> Probably a bit of both, who knows, but there is no evidence of mass
> invasions.
For that matter there is no `evidence` of trade. circumstantial
evidence (i feel)supports the `mass invasions`.
yrs nev
Barry
The Germanics, and other Aryans, are decendants of the Huns etc, who
first invaded Europe in the form of the Roman Empire. The Aryans were
never ruled by the Romans who ruled over most of Europe before their
arrival. Where were the Aryans before that? Asia.
Read more here:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/Huns.html
T N Nurse
honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote:
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
> news:<6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> > news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> > >
> > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > >
> > > feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
> >
> > 839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
>
> you`ll find that bbc history sites are famously unreliable (they still
> refer to "the dark ages" for fucks sake).
Indeed. But reliable sources are not Dairmid's forte.
T N Nurse
> "Allan Connochie" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > > they angles fight the picts in 490+ (in scotland, no?) + angles found
> > > edinburgh in 626.
> >
> > This bit is absolute nonsense though. The Angles did not found Edinburgh as
> > such. They simply took control of it and changed it's name.
>
> angles/northumbrians same thing, no? Edinburgh Hospital Radio confirms
> my date:
> http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
> there is nothing to suggest it was founded before this date, and
> Edinborough is a northumbrian name.
It is certainly true that Edwin's borough didn't exist in name prior to
the Angles taking control of it - hardly surprising! - but there's
plenty evidence that a sizeable town existed long before that and
back into Roman times. The defensive vantage point the rock offers
would seem like an obvious place for earlier settlements than that.
Certainly the Votadinii had already established a town where the
castle now stands when the Romans arrived in Ad79 and they settled
there too, planting vinyards the remains of which can still be seen.
(But alas it is now too cold to grow grapes there.) and building a
number of villas. It appears that the Romans and the Votadinii got
on fairly well - not entirely surprising as much of the Roman army
in Scotland was made up of Celts from Gaul.
Allan Connochie
"scotch/roman
> > colonists"?
>
> I was providing sources for Diarmid Logan (as he requested) to show
> how,
> angles in scotland before scotch/ (+)
> roman colonists invite angles to britain
>
> sorry for any confusion
I'm still a bit confused by what exactly you mean, but never mind :-)
>
> > However it's an interesting question as to whether the Angles
> > or Scots [hint....many Scottish people dislike the term Scotch]
>
> honestly? why?
Scotch was originally an English contraction for the traditional Scots or
Scottish. It became used in Scotland too but has fallen out of general use
for a while now and is disliked by most Scots and is genrally regarded as
almost mildly abusive. The term Scotch tends to be used exclusively as an
adjective for whisky, tape etc. People in the UK generally know this but of
course often people from elsewhere have no idea that they may be irritating
people by using it.
> > >
> > > they angles fight the picts in 490+ (in scotland, no?) + angles found
> > > edinburgh in 626.
> >
> > This bit is absolute nonsense though. The Angles did not found
Edinburgh as
> > such. They simply took control of it and changed it's name.
>
> angles/northumbrians same thing, no? Edinburgh Hospital Radio confirms
> my date:
> http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
> there is nothing to suggest it was founded before this date, and
> Edinborough is a northumbrian name.
It is well known that it was founded before this date! The place was called
Din Eidyn and was the capital of the Gododdin [Votadini] tribe. The poem 'Y
Gododdin' is an elegy describing how the British warriors feasted in
Edinburgh before riding down to Catterick to their defeat against the
Anglian warriors of Deira. This is well attested and any reasonable history
of the region, or web search will show you that. Edinburgh is an Anglian
name but really it is simply an anglicisation of the original name Din
Eidyn. Pretty much the same as the Anglian kingdom 'Bernicia' which was
only an adaption of the original British name for the region around the
border.
> > > as to how effective anglos were, well they sorted the welsh/romans,
> > > had a bit of trouble with picts (685 ad), but there`s no evidence to
> > > suggest that the anglos were`nt protecting these brave souls from the
> > > gaels/welsh and this battle was merely the paranoid death-throes of a
> > > dying people. in fact this arguement is supported by much evidence of
> > > germanic receptiveness to pre-celtic culture, as i mentioned in
> > > previous post.
> >
> > Again I don't understand what you're getting at here! Who do you think
the
> > Angles were protecting from the Welsh???
>
> the roman colonists (inc. romanised welsh).
plus, as i say, there is
> no evidence to suggest that they weren`t protecting the pictish + any
> other pockets of pre-celtic resistence (in the hills of northern
> england esp).
There were no Picts in the hills of northern England though!! And why would
the Angles be protecting them even if they were? And who would they be
protecting them from? All the early annals confirm that the British brought
Germanic mercenaries in to help fend off the Picts and Scots but after a
while they [the Germanics] carved out kingdoms for themselves instead. That
is not to say
that a substantial proportion of the Northumbrian population wasn't British.
It almost certainly was, but the Anglian elite were ruling the kingdom.
in fact some claims have been made that `well-dressing`
> (old pre-celtic tradition still upheld in english county of derbyshire
> + some of staffodshire) was a tribute to the english for saving them
> from the welsh.
But the Welsh in those days did not mean Welsh as in from Wales. Welsh was
the Old English name for foreigners and meant the existing British
population.
>
>
> > The story is that Germanics were settled in Britain to help defend
> > against the Scots and Picts but it in the end they instead sided with
the
> > enemy so to speak.
>
> with the scotch against the picts?
What I was speaking about there was the fact that the British had sought
help against both the Picts and the Scots. The Angles supposedly helped but
then turned against their employers so to speak. In Scotland the British
kingdom of the Gododdin fell to the Angles in the early to mid 7thC. This
new Anglian kingdom of Bernicia, or later called Northumbria after uniting
with the Deirans, then came into conflict with the Picts north of the Forth.
The British kingdom of Strathclyde in the western Lowlands survived intact
and the Scots of Dalriada had carved out a small kingdom in the north west.
In the 8thC Northumbria often found itself allied with the Picts against the
Dalriadan Scots, however in the following century the Scots and Picts united
to form the kingdom of Alba. This kingdom spread south in the 10th and 11th
centuries to incorporate the northern parts of both Northumbrian Bernicia
and Strathclyde/Cumbria to become Scotland.
> of course nowadays the lowlands scotch/northumbrians+cumberlanders are
> virtually the same people (genetically not culturally of course).
> Indeed many scandanavian names are considered `scotch` by the scotch
> themselves (e.g. davidson, anderson etc.).
They are pretty similar culturally as well as genetically!
>
> > > > > >Prior to this date, the people of southern Britain were
> > > > > >Briton Celts.
> > > > >
> > > > > alas there were many others before, but we do not know there
names, as
> > > > > they welsh wiped them of the face of the earth. however pre-celtic
> > > > > stone circles can be seen all over england to this day and
pre-celtic
> > > > > traditions such as well-dressing` are still enacted (by the
english: a
> > > > > healthy reminder that however brutally a people are cut down,
> > > > > something will remain.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from people who
> > > > have lived in Britain since Neolithic times.
> > >
> > > http://www.britannia.com/wales/sacred/sacintro.html
> > > "The Bronze Age in Britain lasted a long time, from about 2000 to 700
> > > BC. It was followed by the Iron Age, during which a steady trickle of
> > > people began to enter Britain from the Continent. These were the
> > > Celts, the ancestors of the present-day Welsh. They brought their
> > > Brythonic language with them"
> >
> >
> > I think you'll find that much of the population of Wales will almost
> > certainly hark back to the Bronze Age.
>
> of course you must allow some room for error. not pre-800bc though,
> eh? unless yr going to go the whole hog and tell me the celts built
> stonehenge. ;-)
The population around Salisbury Plain probably built Stonehenge and many of
the population around there at the time of the Romans were likely to be
descended from the megalith builders. Celtic is not so much a genetic thing
really it was a cultural/linguistic thing.
>
>
> > > 700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
> > > cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
> > > france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
> > > pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
> > > britain.).
> >
> > There was a movement to Brittany of what was probably much of the elite
> > class of southern Britain. The estimated figure I've seen [though how
they
> > get to this I don't know] was no more than around 12000 souls. The
> > estimated population of our island was seemingly several million at that
> > time!! Also if all the Cornish were English then why did the Cornish
> > language survive in Cornwall?
>
> a very small cornish-speaking group remained, and was happily
> tolerated by the english for years until it died out. an interesting
> comparison could be made with pictish, of course.
Simply incorrect though. The Cornish language did not go into serious
decline until the 17thC which was well over a millenium after the English
invasions. I repeat why did Cornish survive so long if the population was
all English?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Celtic culture did not enter Britain through invasion but (most
likely)
> > > > through trade and commerce.
> > >
> > > alas from what we know of celtic expansion this would not have been
> > > the case.
> >
> > Probably a bit of both, who knows, but there is no evidence of mass
> > invasions.
>
> For that matter there is no `evidence` of trade. circumstantial
> evidence (i feel)supports the `mass invasions`.
If we don't know we simply don't know! Anyhing else is a guess. What
circumstantial evidence are you referring to?
cheers
Allan
Honest Nev
> > >Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction, which includes
> > >Haplogroups 2, 3, and 4. HP2 being Germanic, HP3 being
> > >Scandinavian/Slavic, and HP4 being described as Finnish. The bulk of
> > >these people (particularly Germanic tribes) arrived in Europe as the
> > >Roman Empire began to falter. For example, the Anglo-Saxons arrived
> in
> > >Britain when the Romans abandoned it to safeguard more important
> bases
> > >in Europe.
> >
> > this is very funny: so where were the germanics before the fall of the
> > roman empire? perhaps they were hiding somewhere? (maybe in modern-day
> > Holland/Denmark/Germany/Norway/Sweden etc.) just a guess.
> >
<cuts>>
>
> The Germanics, and other Aryans, are decendants of the Huns etc, who
> first invaded Europe in the form of the Roman Empire.
the romans were huns? how so?
> The Aryans were
> never ruled by the Romans
i though you said aryans were huns? who were also romans?
> who ruled over most of Europe before their
> arrival. Where were the Aryans before that? Asia.
well no-one knows for sure perhaps persia, perhaps south russia (see
site below). however celts are just as much `aryan` as the germanics
in that they both speak languages from the `aryan` family.
(incidentally i think you should be careful of using a term that is
used to denote language as an ethnic term).
> Read more here:
> http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/Huns.html
i read this at yr site:
"It was at this time that the Huns swept out of central Asia westward
until they encountered two Germanic nations of Visigoths and
Ostrogoths."
it seems to make a distinction between germanics and huns, no?
> The Germanics, and other Aryans, are decendants of the Huns etc
aryans are not descended from huns. to repeat mysen:
aryan/indo-euopean is a term to describe all groups who speak an
indo-europeon language (which includes of course the goidelic and
bythronic celtic sub-groups as well as the germanic group, but not
you`ll be fascinated to note the ural-altiac family language
(hungarian) that the huns spoke.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_269.html
---"After World War II nobody wanted to have anything to do with
Aryans and the term was dropped in favor of "Indo-European." But the
search for the original Aryans/Indo-Europeans wasn't completely
abandoned. The leading candidate at the moment, I gather, is the
"kurgan" people of what is now south Russia, so named because they
built mounds called kurgans. From 4000 to 3000 BC, some researchers
believe, they migrated in all directions, bringing their language with
them."----
to sum up: celts and germanics speak `aryan` languages. pretty much
everyone in europe/india does. the germanics have been in europe since
pre-history. the huns did not use an `aryan` language although
hungarian is spoken in europe (in hungary, funnily enough).
hope you find this useful, nev
Diarmid Logan
You have an amazing grasp of pseudo-history. In the real world, it was
the Vikings who slaughtered the Pictish royaly, not MacAlpine.
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message news:<6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> > >
> > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > >
> > > feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
> >
> > 839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
>
> you`ll find that bbc history sites are famously unreliable (they still
> refer to "the dark ages" for fucks sake). + are very PC when comes to
> anglo/celtic antagonism (i.e. "the Angles took Edinburgh from the
> Britons and pushed west to Galloway" (yr source) whereas even
> Edinburgh Hospital Radio gets it right (despite percieved bias) "626:
> Edinburgh founded by Edwin of Northumbria /1018: Edinburgh becomes
> Scottish town when Malcolm II defeats the Northumbrians". source:
> http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
So basically you are a troll who is only interested in pro-Germanic,
anti-Celtic propaganda. Well that's fine by me but don't expect me to
answer any more of your posts. I am only interested in dealing with
people who are want to discuss actual events, not spout pro-Germanic
propaganda.
Diarmid Logan
> "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> > I am afraid that you are using a self-serving Anglo-Saxon version of
> > British history. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came as invaders and
> > slaughtered much of Britain's indigenous population which included the
> > Picts and Welsh.
>
> Again there is no evidence of mass genocide of substantial amounts of the
> population, and certainly we know that there was no such an act by the
> Angles against the Picts. It was the Scots who took over Argyle and the
> existing Pictish population [ie Epidii and Creones] were wiped off the face
> of history. Do I believe they were annihilated? Not really, but if they
> were it certainly had nothing to do with the Angles. Likewise Pictish
> culture went down in the face of Gaelic just as British culture in
> south-east Scotland went down in the face of Northumbrian. The two things
> are so similar but your prejudices won't enable you to see that.
Actually genetic research shows that much of Britain was cleansed of
its indigenous population by Germanic invaders.
> > But this is how Celtic culture entered Britain and Ireland. There was
> > no ethnic cleansing in either Britain or Ireland until the Anglo-Saxon
> > swine arrived on the scene.
>
> The only evidence there is of ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxons comes in
> a few sentences
> from Gildas and Nennius who were of course rather biased.
> However if you must take their anti-Anglo views as gospel then what about
> this description of how the Britons were treated by the Scots and Picts?
>
> "They left their cities, abandoned the protection of the wall, and dispersed
> themselves more desperately than before. The enemy, on the other hand,
> pursued them with more unrelenting cruelty, and butchered our countrymen
> like sheep...........by Gildas"
No, genetic research backs up the position that much of Britain was
cleansed of its indigenous population by the invading Germanics.
> > The Welsh never engaged in ethnic cleansing unlike the Germanic thugs
> > that invaded Britain.
>
> The Welsh/British showed they could be just as ruthless and cruel as anyone
> else. Two obvious examples are the Boudiccan revolt and the much later and
> less known
> Cadwalla's murderous rampage through Northumbria.
You are equating an indigenous population fighting against foreign
invaders with foreign invaders killing an indigenous population. The
native Britons were perfectly entitled to fight against foreign
invaders whether those invaders were Romans or Germanics. The
Germanics and the Romans were not justified in conquering and killing
the native British population.
Diarmid Logan
> news:a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> >
> > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >
> > feel free to supply a date for yr claim. while i ackmowledge some of
> > the sick/poor surviving picts would have punished themselves through
> > inter-marriage i feel certain that they would have drowned these
> > gaelic babies :->. how else would you explain near-total loss of
> > pictish culture.
>
>
>
> Much of the Pictish hierarchy seems to have been destroyed after a battle
> with the Norse, and Mcalpan took advantage of this, and it does seem likely
> that he used Norse assistance to gain the throne and by tradition he later
> purged many of the remaining Pictish nobility.
What evidence is there to back this up?
> > > The Germanics would have most likely have been in Scandinavia and
> > > northern Germany.
> >
> > you forget the netherlands + the vandals had got to africa by then.
> >
> > > > and by the
> > > > way the where angles in scotland before there where scotch people. and
> > > > the romans invited more than a few to stop the locals (welsh + any
> > > > pre-celtics the welsh hadn`t massacred) getting lippy. which, let`s
> > > > face it, they anglos did very well.
> > >
> > > Do you have any evidence of this?
> >
> > key: welsh: non-romanised bythronic people
> > pre-celtic: here, i refer mainly to pictish
> >
> > Angles in scotland before scotch/roman colonists invite angles to
> > britain:
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here, and what on earth are "scotch/roman
> colonists"? However it's an interesting question as to whether the Angles
> or Scots [hint....many Scottish people dislike the term Scotch] were in the
> country first.
Since the Gaels and the Picts eventually merged together to form the
Scots it is obvious that the ancestors of the Scots were in Britain
long before the Angles invaded.
> Of course many of the Roman military would have been
> Germanic and many would have stayed after their service, but whether we
> could regard this as Anglian settlement is something else.
Actually we should include them amongst the Roman invaders and
colonists.
> If we take the
> various old annals [it's not much but it's all the evidence we have] then we
> can push the date of the first Angles in Lothian back to the mid-fifth
> century when according to the History Brittonum settlers went to the area
> bordering the land of the Picts. This is a few decades before Fergus
> famously settled in Argyle. However though the old annals don't actually
> come out and say it most historians agree that Irish settlers must have been
> present in Argyle prior to the arrival of Fergus and they seem to push it
> back to late Roman times and possibly even long before that. So although we
> have no proof as such I would probably side with the Scots being first -
> though what difference it makes evades me. Both were recent newcomers who
> later usurped power from the original inhabitants.
The Scots, as you call them, were descended from the Gaels and Picts
and so are descended from Scotland's indigenous population. The Angles
were descended from the Germanic invaders and therefore are not
descended from the indigenous population.
Sorry, the genetic evidence shows that ethnic cleansing of the
indigenous population took place in the regions settled by the
Germanics.
Please show me where I have said the above.
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
>
> > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > >
> > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > >
> > > Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> > > between the repective royal families.
> > >
> > > This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> >
> >
> > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> > Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
>
> half-Pictish -- ie descended from the Pictish aristocracy, no ???
Actually MacAlpine was part of the Gaelic aristocracy. It is very
unlikely that he would have ever succeeded to the Pictish throne if it
wasn't for the fact that the Vikings had slaughtered the Pictish royal
family.
> > to claim the Pictish throne.
>
> We have pointed out before to you the battle that Kenneth MacAlpine
> fought against the Picts that decided the future of Scotland.
>
> Not a Viking in sight:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/priority_independence/stirling2.html
>
> But that just doesn't suit your prejudices either, does it ???
Nothing to do with my prejudices, but with recorded history. As much
as you find it difficult to believe the Germanic Vikings engaged in
acts of violence and one of those acts was the slaughter of the
Pictish royalty. Without their royalty, the Picts were essentially
leaderless which gave MacAlpine the opportunity to seize power.
Diarmid Logan
> Diarmid Logan <diarmi...@yahoo.com> writes
> >Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<fwe4r7cj9pp.fsf@tippins
> >.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> >> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> >>
> >> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> >> > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >>
> >> Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> >> between the repective royal families.
> >>
> >> This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> >
> >
> >The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> >Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
> >to claim the Pictish throne.
>
> Bollox!
>
> The "betrayal" of Kenneth MacAlpine was putting an end the matrilineal
> system whereby young men fought for the hand of their bride and the
> associated wealth and honour that this gained them. Note that the
> "Viking" incursions started immediately after the "betrayal". The
> "Vikings" at this time were the Picts looking for alternatives to the
> above...
>
> Geesh!
>
> You're the bloke with the "Germanic" obsession aren't you? That's bollox
> as well, you boring twat!
The above post shows that you are as knowledgeable as you are
intelligent. The realty is that the Gaels lived under Pictish
domination until the Vikings slaughtered the Pictish royalty which
gave MacAlpine the opportunity to seize power and put the Gaelic
royalty in control of the Picts.
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in
> news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> >> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> >>
> >> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> >> > killed the Pictish royal family.
> >>
> >> Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> >> between the repective royal families.
> >>
> >> This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> >
> >
> > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> > Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
> > to claim the Pictish throne.
> >
>
> You make it sound as though the Gaels had no part in the defeat of the
> Picts. This history has be cited to you in the past.
It was the Vikings, not the Gaels, that slaughtered the Pictish
royalty. MacAlpine, and other Gaels, used the chaos created by the
Viking violence to seize power.
T N Nurse
> intelligent. The realty is that..
..you know nothing of this and simply make it up.
Yes, we know.
T N Nurse
> Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:<fwe7kc6...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> >
> > > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> > > > between the repective royal families.
> > > >
> > > > This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> > > Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
> >
> > half-Pictish -- ie descended from the Pictish aristocracy, no ???
>
> Actually MacAlpine was part of the Gaelic aristocracy. It is very
> unlikely that he would have ever succeeded to the Pictish throne if it
> wasn't for the fact that the Vikings had slaughtered the Pictish royal
> family.
Nope, it was unlikely he'd have succeeded to the throne if *he*
hadn't murdered them all. MacAlpin's Treason refers.
>
>
>
> > > to claim the Pictish throne.
> >
> > We have pointed out before to you the battle that Kenneth MacAlpine
> > fought against the Picts that decided the future of Scotland.
> >
> > Not a Viking in sight:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/priority_independence/stirling2.html
> >
> > But that just doesn't suit your prejudices either, does it ???
>
>
> Nothing to do with my prejudices, but with recorded history.
And recorded history says you're wrong.
T N Nurse
> T N Nurse <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tnnurseNOUCE99-4B7...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>...
> > Scots, harbored a deep hatred for the Picts, and in the event known as
> > "MacAlpin's Treason" murdered the members of the remaining seven royal
> > houses thus preserving the Scottish line for kingship of Alba and the
> > eventual erasure from history of the Pictish race, culture and history.
> >
> > Oh those treacherous, murderous Gaels!
>
>
> You have an amazing grasp of pseudo-history.
Nope. I have a reasonable grasp of well established recorded history,
complete with references, whilst you have...well nothing but
prejudice and a bunch of fairy tales you made up yourself, really.
> In the real world, it was
> the Vikings who slaughtered the Pictish royaly, not MacAlpine.
So the Vikings killed King Durst and the members of the 7 remaining
royal houses of the Pictish line? Please present your evidence
complete with referenced sources as this runs contrary to all
established historical references say.
T N Nurse
diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
Actually genetic research shows no such thing. That's just another
of your fairy tales.
T N Nurse
diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
> > news:<6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message
> > > news:<a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > > >
> > > > feel free to supply a date for yr claim.
> > >
> > > 839 A.D. You can check it out at the link below:
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/darkages/intro_darkages.shtml
> >
> > you`ll find that bbc history sites are famously unreliable (they still
> > refer to "the dark ages" for fucks sake). + are very PC when comes to
> > anglo/celtic antagonism (i.e. "the Angles took Edinburgh from the
> > Britons and pushed west to Galloway" (yr source) whereas even
> > Edinburgh Hospital Radio gets it right (despite percieved bias) "626:
> > Edinburgh founded by Edwin of Northumbria /1018: Edinburgh becomes
> > Scottish town when Malcolm II defeats the Northumbrians". source:
> > http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
>
>
> So basically you are a troll who is only interested in pro-Germanic,
No. Basically he is correct with one or two unimportant errors of
detail and you are the troll. But we've known that for a long time,
haven't we?
> anti-Celtic propaganda. Well that's fine by me but don't expect me to
> answer any more of your posts.
Translation: "I'm out of my depth and in danger of being exposed as
a fraud and a troll".
> I am only interested in dealing with
> people who are want to discuss actual events,
Oh! you mean like your mythical genocide of the indigeneous Lowlanders
by incomers or your mythical alliance between Pict and Gael - neither
of which can be found in any reputable history source? The only thing
you seem to be interested in discussing are fairy tales that you make
up to suit your bigotted and racist agenda.
Séimí mac Liam
Is that a pig I see going by my upstairs window.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Séimí mac Liam
> Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
You realize, of course, you're speaking rudely to a man who kills water
buffalo with his bare hands before breakfast?, and may know more about
Scottish and Celtic history than most have forgotten.
T N Nurse
> "Allan Connochie" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
> news:<3e49...@news.greennet.net>...
> > "Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:a5ec705.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote
> > >
> > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > >
> > > feel free to supply a date for yr claim. while i ackmowledge some of
> > > the sick/poor surviving picts would have punished themselves through
> > > inter-marriage i feel certain that they would have drowned these
> > > gaelic babies :->. how else would you explain near-total loss of
> > > pictish culture.
> >
> >
> >
> > Much of the Pictish hierarchy seems to have been destroyed after a battle
> > with the Norse, and Mcalpan took advantage of this, and it does seem likely
> > that he used Norse assistance to gain the throne and by tradition he later
> > purged many of the remaining Pictish nobility.
>
> What evidence is there to back this up?
MacAlpin's Treason and the subsequent sharing out of Pictish lands
between the Norse and Gaels. All well established historical facts
that can be found in decent history book.
Honest Nev
> Scotch was originally an English contraction for the traditional Scots or
> Scottish. It became used in Scotland too but has fallen out of general use
> for a while now and is disliked by most Scots and is genrally regarded as
> almost mildly abusive. The term Scotch tends to be used exclusively as an
> adjective for whisky, tape etc. People in the UK generally know this but of
> course often people from elsewhere have no idea that they may be irritating
> people by using it.
i find it odd that scotland`s most notable and prestigious exports
(whisky, eggs etc.) are proudly referred to as `scotch`, and yet the
people themslves shun the label. can`t say i`ve come across such a
duality before and seems to be slightly illogical.
> > angles/northumbrians same thing, no? Edinburgh Hospital Radio confirms
> > my date:
> > http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
> > there is nothing to suggest it was founded before this date, and
> > Edinborough is a northumbrian name.
>
> It is well known that it was founded before this date! The place was called
> Din Eidyn and was the capital of the Gododdin [Votadini] tribe. The poem 'Y
> Gododdin' is an elegy describing how the British warriors feasted in
> Edinburgh before riding down to Catterick to their defeat against the
> Anglian warriors of Deira. This is well attested and any reasonable history
> of the region, or web search will show you that. Edinburgh is an Anglian
> name but really it is simply an anglicisation of the original name Din
> Eidyn.
surely `edwin`s bourough` is less of a leap?
i don`t dispute such a strategically important location would attract
(temporary?) settlements, but as to actually *founding* edinburgh,
surely it is the northumbrians as surely as the romans *founded*
london (which is gospel apparently).
> plus, as i say, there is
> > no evidence to suggest that they weren`t protecting the pictish + any
> > other pockets of pre-celtic resistence (in the hills of northern
> > england esp).
>
>
> There were no Picts in the hills of northern England though!!
i never said there was!! i said there were "other pockets of
pre-celtic resistence". Here-on-in i`ll refer to these as
"pre-bythronic nativists" (P-BNs) as "pre-celtic" sounds a bit too
non-specific.
> And why would
> the Angles be protecting them even if they were?
because as mercenaries they would have enjoyed patronage and succor
from the P-BNs very much like the allies received from the french
resistence in nazi-occupied france. an ally (even a depleted one) is
always useful.
> And who would they be protecting them from?
the non-romanised bythronics. at this point of course (490ad approx)
they would have protected the romanised bythronics from these also.
> That
> is not to say
> that a substantial proportion of the Northumbrian population wasn't British.
> It almost certainly was, but the Anglian elite were ruling the kingdom.
a portion maybe, but not a substantial one. maybe slightly less than
the pictish and other P-BNs contingents (i would guess).
> in fact some claims have been made that `well-dressing`
> > (old pre-celtic tradition still upheld in english county of derbyshire
> > + some of staffodshire) was a tribute to the english for saving them
> > from the welsh.
>
> But the Welsh in those days did not mean Welsh as in from Wales. Welsh was
> the Old English name for foreigners and meant the existing British
> population.
i realise this is the accepted version. of course `the Taffii` was the
roman term for non-romanised bythronics.
> > of course nowadays the lowlands scotch/northumbrians+cumberlanders are
> > virtually the same people (genetically not culturally of course).
> > Indeed many scandanavian names are considered `scotch` by the scotch
> > themselves (e.g. davidson, anderson etc.).
>
> They are pretty similar culturally as well as genetically!
you have perhaps not read `the beano` (UK Newspaper) which used to run
regular stories on frequent border altercations.
> Celtic is not so much a genetic thing really it was a cultural/linguistic
> thing.
well scotland is mainly anglophone today (and wales for that matter),
apart from all the lovely tartanry/kailyardisms what would seperate
scotland from england cultarally (and yes, i know the legal system is
different)?
Is tartantry what scotland rests on as a `celtic nation`? discuss.
> > > > 700 bc is post-neolithic, no? btw i have checked and the modern-day
> > > > cornish are english (apparantly all the bythronics jumped ship back to
> > > > france fearing (i am told) that the Anglo-Saxons where the murdered
> > > > pre-celtic natives back from the dead, signalling the doom of celtic
> > > > britain.).
> > >
> > > There was a movement to Brittany of what was probably much of the elite
> > > class of southern Britain. The estimated figure I've seen [though how
> they
> > > get to this I don't know] was no more than around 12000 souls. The
> > > estimated population of our island was seemingly several million at that
> > > time!! Also if all the Cornish were English then why did the Cornish
> > > language survive in Cornwall?
> >
> > a very small cornish-speaking group remained, and was happily
> > tolerated by the english for years until it died out. an interesting
> > comparison could be made with pictish, of course.
>
> Simply incorrect though. The Cornish language did not go into serious
> decline until the 17thC which was well over a millenium after the English
> invasions.
extinction is very similar to a serious decline. i think a dead
langauge since 17thc, no?
I think there`s about five people doing a night class in it though :-)
> I repeat why did Cornish survive so long if the population was
> all English?
i said "a very small cornish-speaking group remained and was happily
tolerated".
the germanics are a famously tolerant people, the dutch and swedish
being my favourites. when the shadow of christianity fell over europe,
who were the first nations to throw of it`s fascistic yoke? why, twas
the germanics. of course nazi germany was a bit intolerant, but then
the irish liked them, didn`t they? and nobody`s perfect.
yrs nev
Honest Nev
> > you`ll find that bbc history sites are famously unreliable (they still
> > refer to "the dark ages" for fucks sake). + are very PC when comes to
> > anglo/celtic antagonism (i.e. "the Angles took Edinburgh from the
> > Britons and pushed west to Galloway" (yr source) whereas even
> > Edinburgh Hospital Radio gets it right (despite percieved bias) "626:
> > Edinburgh founded by Edwin of Northumbria /1018: Edinburgh becomes
> > Scottish town when Malcolm II defeats the Northumbrians". source:
> > http://web.reddotradio.co.uk/index1.cfm?thepage=misc/edinburgh.cfm?log=no
>
>
> So basically you are a troll who is only interested in pro-Germanic,
> anti-Celtic propaganda. Well that's fine by me but don't expect me to
> answer any more of your posts.
does that include when you`re being `barry`? I hope not!
> I am only interested in dealing with
> people who are want to discuss actual events, not spout pro-Germanic
> propaganda.
you`re not even a real doctor, are you?
yrs nev
Diarmid Logan
Please tell me the name of any history book that supports your
position that the Gaels and the Vikings were allies against the Picts.
Diarmid Logan
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in
> news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com:
>
> > "S im mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns931F51...@129.250.170.84>...
> >> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in
> >> news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> >> >> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the
> >> >> > Vikings killed the Pictish royal family.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> >> >> between the repective royal families.
> >> >>
> >> >> This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out
> >> > the Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was
> >> > half-Pictish, to claim the Pictish throne.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You make it sound as though the Gaels had no part in the defeat of
> >> the Picts. This history has be cited to you in the past.
> >
> >
> > It was the Vikings, not the Gaels, that slaughtered the Pictish
> > royalty. MacAlpine, and other Gaels, used the chaos created by the
> > Viking violence to seize power.
> >
>
> Is that a pig I see going by my upstairs window.
Is that a lame response from Séimí mac Liam that I see on my computer screen?
Diarmid Logan
> In article <6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
>
> > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<fwe7kc6...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > >
> > > > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> > > > > between the repective royal families.
> > > > >
> > > > > This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> > > > Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
> > >
> > > half-Pictish -- ie descended from the Pictish aristocracy, no ???
> >
> > Actually MacAlpine was part of the Gaelic aristocracy. It is very
> > unlikely that he would have ever succeeded to the Pictish throne if it
> > wasn't for the fact that the Vikings had slaughtered the Pictish royal
> > family.
>
> Nope, it was unlikely he'd have succeeded to the throne if *he*
> hadn't murdered them all. MacAlpin's Treason refers.
Again, the chaos created by the Vikings slaughter of the Pictish royal
family allowed MacAlpin to seize the Pictish throne and kill off his
rivals. It was Germanic Viking aggression against the Picts that
allowed MacAlpin to gain dominance over the Picts.
Diarmid Logan
Actually if you knew as much Scottish history as you claimed you would
know that the king's name was Drust, not Durst.
Alan Smaill
> Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:<fwe7kc6...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> >
> > > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, the Gaels and the Picts merged together after the Vikings
> > > > > killed the Pictish royal family.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the merger of the Gaels and the Picts involved marriages
> > > > between the repective royal families.
> > > >
> > > > This probably doesn't fit your world view, we know ...
> > >
> > >
> > > The Picts were dominant over the Gaels until the Vikings wiped out the
> > > Pictish royalty. This allowed Kenneth MacAlpine, who was half-Pictish,
> >
> > half-Pictish -- ie descended from the Pictish aristocracy, no ???
>
> Actually MacAlpine was part of the Gaelic aristocracy. It is very
> unlikely that he would have ever succeeded to the Pictish throne if it
> wasn't for the fact that the Vikings had slaughtered the Pictish royal
> family.
Not up to your usual standards, Dermi.
Managed totally to avoid the question, of course, so not
a total failure.
>
> > > to claim the Pictish throne.
> >
> > We have pointed out before to you the battle that Kenneth MacAlpine
> > fought against the Picts that decided the future of Scotland.
> >
> > Not a Viking in sight:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/priority_independence/stirling2.html
> >
> > But that just doesn't suit your prejudices either, does it ???
>
>
> Nothing to do with my prejudices, but with recorded history. As much
> as you find it difficult to believe the Germanic Vikings engaged in
> acts of violence and one of those acts was the slaughter of the
> Pictish royalty. Without their royalty, the Picts were essentially
> leaderless which gave MacAlpine the opportunity to seize power.
Everything to do with recorded history, I'm afraid;
at least you don't contest the fact of a battle with nary
a Viking in sight.
Would you like to know about the earlier violence between the Picts
and the Gaels? I'm sure you can find out, and pass over in silence.
Must try harder, Dermi.
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
School of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-5148
University of Edinburgh
T N Nurse
Any of them. There are dozens if not hundreds to choose from. Go read
one, rather than peddling your own ignorance as fact. I'm sure others
will supply you with plenty of titles, just as I am sure you will
ignore them and continue to wallow in self-imposed ignorance - your
usual tactic when cornered and faced with inescapable historical fact
that rebutts your prejudice and bigotted agenda.
T N Nurse
So you have no evidence and, to cover your exposure as a liar, switch
to taking issue with a typo. Thank you for that admission.
Séimí mac Liam
> T N Nurse <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
So, a sneaking opportunist rather than a vile oppressor, eh? I prefer a
dog that growls before he bites.
Séimí mac Liam
I think you have confused the attributions the lame part is from Dairmid
Logan.
T N Nurse
What 'chaos'? Present you evidence.
Again, your talking garbage. The Pictish throne was already occupied
when McAlpin murdered the King and his noblemen. Not a Viking in sight.
> It was Germanic Viking aggression against the Picts that
> allowed MacAlpin to gain dominance over the Picts.
Nope. It was both of them. McAlpins hatred of the Picts was well
documented. Still, nice to see you've finally conceded your previous
claims of a Gael- Pictish alliance against the Vikings was a fabrication.
As we now knoew, there was no Gaelic - Pictish alliance. Indeed Gaelic
treachery was common place. In Easter 834, whilst the Picts were
facing up to do battle with the Vikings, the Scots attacked the
Picts from the rear and forced the Picts to split their army in too. As
a result, the Picts suffered a crushing defeat. The Scots then headed
north to attack the main Pictish army. They faced one another in
August of that year and the Scots suffered a crushing defeat during
which Alpin is captured and beheaded. 5 years on and the Picts are
still doing battle, whilst the treacherous Scots are waiting in the
shadows waiting their chance. 839 and the Picts suffer a defeat at
the hands of the Vikings. During this battle, both the Pictish King
and his brother are killed note: *not* the entire Pictish royal family.
By this time the Pictish army has become seriously weakened. By 840,
the Picts are starting to get things back on an even keel. Drust IX
is now the Pictish king. Alpin's son, Kenneth macAlpin seethes in
the background and lays plans. 841 and he attacks the Pictish army
and defeats them. macAlpin then invites Drust and his nobles to
peace talks, plies them with drink, murders them, seizes one of
Drust's daughter and takes her into a forced marriage - no doubt to
legitimise his claim - claims the Pictish throne, cuts a deal with
hsi comrades the Vikings, shares out the spoils and sets out on a
course of obliterating the Picts from the face of history.
1200 years later, Diarmid Logan comes along and tells us that they
were great pals who had an alliance against the Vikings.
And if you want historical sources, here they are:
The Prophesy of St Berchan
Des Instructione Principus - Geraldus Cambresis
Irish Annals.
But, as we see here, you don't like primary historical sources,
you much prefer the English BBC's Pop-Pistory for the Beavis and Butthead
Generation, don't you?
Barry
> > first invaded Europe in the form of the Roman Empire.
>
> the romans were huns? how so?
>
No, I mean the Aryans invades Europe when they invaded the Roman
Empire. The Roman Empire acted as a stopgap before then until it
eventually caved in under the pressure.
> to sum up: celts and germanics speak `aryan` languages. pretty much
> everyone in europe/india does. the germanics have been in europe since
> pre-history. the huns did not use an `aryan` language although
> hungarian is spoken in europe (in hungary, funnily enough).
>
> hope you find this useful, nev
the Gaels, Picts, Britons, Basques, etc have a genetic marker which
links them directly to stone age Europeans. This means that the
ancestors of such people lived in Europe 8,000 years ago, and even
before then. These same ancient people have inhabited Britain since
about 6,000 years ago. All male bodies exhumed in Europe, born before
2,000 to 3,000 years ago, share this same marker.
The Germanics have not been in Europe since pre history, and
haplogroup anthropology proves this. It's also well known that the
Visigoths invaded the Balkans in around 400 AD under Alaric the 1st,
and then ransacked Rome in 401.
The Basque language has nothing in common with any other language. The
reason Gaelic might have similarities with Germanic or Romantic
languages is all down to recent contact – relatively speaking.
The word Aryan has "evolved" quite a bit over the last century in an
attempt to strengthen the notion of a white culture. It's particularly
common in the States where it's not uncommon for people to marry
outside their ethnic group. Today the word encompasses people of
Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic and Slavic backgrounds. At one time
though, Catholics were targeted by the Klan, the Irish were called
"Black Irish", and Hitler's "great" Aryan vision included making
Slavic people the slaves of Aryans. If you go onto the white
nationalist site - www.stormfront.org/forum/ you will see that they
have a Russian forum – how things have changed, eh?
The Aryans did exist of course –
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/India/AryanMig.html
but Picts, Scots or Britons are not related.
Mike
thing as a king Kennith MacAlpine. Surnames only came into use in 944 A.D in
Ireland so I hardly think that surnames were in use in Scotland before then.
Kennith MacAlpin is a fairtale since his surname can only be derived from
Ireland where the irish gaelic surnames developed from Brian Boru!
http://www.burrenpage.com/Poulnabrone.html
http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/moghane.htm
These sites introduce the elaborate and sophisticated Iron age people whon
knew the geography of the land and used bronze and clay pots simply because
they were cheaper and easier to use. Iron rusts very easily and so they used
hoes made of copper to dig thier farmsteads of crops. They(Irish) were in
the Iron age and traded with romans. The geography of the land indicates
that clay, bronze pots were cheaper and easier to use than digging Iron ore
which is very rare in Ireland and hard to develop.
They were in the Iron age alright, they just thought it expensely.
http://www.geocities.com/diarmidlogan/genetics.html
This site introduces the myths of the Irish including the fact that the
Neolithic (Dalcassion firbolgs) people possesed Iron age swords when they
swooped down on the vikings from the mountains of Munster with small
attacks. They eventually gained strength with possession of Iron age weapons
and swept across Ireland to Meath where the O'Niels had to give up thier
land.
http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/people/brianbor.htm
More about the real history of the Irish can be found on this site:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ancientireland/
"The Phantom Piper" <Gh...@Spirit.org> wrote in message
news:5p674vkroov1c539e...@4ax.com...
> None of the above: most of them are Britclones.
>
> >The term Scotch is used to describe Scottish of an Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
>
> You use "scotch" as you choose to do,
> and I'll use it as I see fit, thank you.
>
> >This term is put to good practice in Ulster in a hope of
> >strengthening ties between the provinces Presbyterians
> >and the English.
>
> I would very much like to strengthen some Ties about
> the Ulster Presbyterians and their C.E. fellows in Merrie
> Olde Einglannd. It would make swimming back more
> difficult, once we'd flung them off the pier...
>
> >Thanks to modern anthropology, we know that about 80%
> >of Scottish people belong to Haplogroup 1.
>
> Thanks to not-so-modern Lysenkoism, we know that
> once you've severed an Einglischmann's head, it disnae
> grow back!
>
> >Today, much of Europe is of "Aryan" extraction,
>
> Ye-e-e-sss - especially that bit between Belgium and Bavaria...
>
>
> Oops! I Think I Hear Some Of The Scotch Calling Me,
>
> ---The Phantom Piper
>
Mike
how can there be a 'so-called' Kennith 'McAlpin'
T N Nurse
bg...@yahoo.com (Barry) wrote:
> the Gaels, Picts, Britons, Basques, etc have a genetic marker which
> links them directly to stone age Europeans.
So who were the Picts that were tested?
T N Nurse
"Mike" <mmcnam...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> Scottish surnames only came into use in Scotland by about the 1100 A.D, so
> how can there be a 'so-called' Kennith 'McAlpin'
His correct name was Ciniod, son of Alpin. He took the name Kenneth 1st
when he took the throne of Alba. Kenneth McAlpin is simply a more
modern reference.
Alan Smaill
> The Gaels, Celts and the Picts all belong to the same race. There is no such
> thing as a king Kennith MacAlpine. Surnames only came into use in 944 A.D in
> Ireland so I hardly think that surnames were in use in Scotland before then.
> Kennith MacAlpin is a fairtale since his surname can only be derived from
> Ireland where the irish gaelic surnames developed from Brian Boru!
It's a fair tale, alright.
Guess what, "surname" is French for nickname, I dare say there
was some way of telling one Coinneach from another.
Barry
Perhaps it was his decendants took the name McAlpin.
Barry
Samples have been taken across Scotland - the Oxford University is in
the process of producing an atlas, which should be available over the
next few years. The BBC also worked on a project over the last number
of year which set out to establish the Viking, haplogroup 3,
population in Britain and Ireland. Anyway, studies have found that 80%
of Scottish males belong to Haplogroup 1. In Western Scotland, the 20
remaining percent belong primarily to haplogroup 3 - which is the
haplogroup that is associated with Scandinavia. The 20% to the East
have mostly Germanic, haplogroup 2, markers. It worth noting that
haplogroups tell you what extraction your father's, father's...father
was of, but they dont tell you about all your ancestors. On the other
hand, it does allow us to establish the extraction of the Scottish
population as a whole. Haplogroups define race, and therefore they
cant be used to establish who is of Briton, Gael, or Pictish
extraction.
T N Nurse
bg...@yahoo.com (Barry) wrote:
> T N Nurse <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tnnurseNOUCE99-108...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>...
> > In article <731cea69.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > bg...@yahoo.com (Barry) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > the Gaels, Picts, Britons, Basques, etc have a genetic marker which
> > > links them directly to stone age Europeans.
> >
> > So who were the Picts that were tested?
>
> Samples have been taken across Scotland
No they weren't, they were taken in a few areas in the North
of Scotland where it was suspected that Viking presence may be,
namely the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney, with Oban Pitlochry
and Stonehaven (perhaps a clue in that last name why it was selected?)
being the only mainland testing sites. That leaves the vast majority
of the population of Scotland, who live in the Central Belt, untested.
I ask again, who were the Picts that were tested?
Mike
O'Shea is part of the MacNamara clan and the McNamara clan along with the
O'Shea is on this site below:
http://www2.smumn.edu/uasal/DNAWWW/ytechnical.html
The MacNamara and McNamara clan is also on this site:
http://www.bertdefriest.nl/MijnDNA.htm
"Mike mcnam...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:OdU3a.71197$L47.10...@read2.cgocable.net...
gerald.copp
"Mike" <mmcnam...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:QXB4a.74142$L47.10...@read2.cgocable.net...
Allan Connochie
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com...
What is this seizing the throne business? That sounds like he simply became
king and ignores any invasions and use of force against the Picts. It is
often hard to say as to what actually happened in those times but by
tradition MacAlpin gained dominance over the Picts by force. This is not a
new idea made up by Nurse or something. The fact that the Picts were also
being assailed by Scandinavians would simply make the job easier for
MacAlpin but it doesn't change the nature of invasion.
Extract from Scotichronicon by Walter Bower 1440s.
"Kenneth himself crossed the mountainous region of their territory and
turned his arms against the remaining boundaries of the Picts. After many
Picts were slain, he forced the rest to flee and acquired sole rule over
both kingdoms. The Picts recovered their strength to some extent with
English [I would guess he means Northumbrian] help and kept up the attack on
Kenneth for four years; but after a while he weakened them with unexpected
raids and various slayings. At last in the twelfth year of his reign he
joined battle seven times in a day and, after overthrowing innumerable
nations of the Picts, he confirmed and ratified his possession over the
whole kingdom"
Extract from the Declaration of Arbroath 1300s [concerning what the
Scots/Gaels did]
"The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and
even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the
English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold
efforts"
Now that is not to say that these early Scottish writers spoke the gospel,
or that they weren't prone to exaggeration or propaganda; however it does
show an old belief that the Picts were overthrown by conquest. And of
course over most of the Pictish territory [Northern Isles, far north of
mainland and some of the Western Isles excluded] the conquest was mostly
carried out in the end by Gaelic Scots. Not by Norse, Danes, English or
other wicked Germanics.
Allan
Diarmid Logan
> "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > T N Nurse <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tnnurseNOUCE99-7F9...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>...
> > > In article <6d220a72.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:<fwe7kc6...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:<fwe4r7c...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk>...
> > > > > > > diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) writes:
> > Again, the chaos created by the Vikings slaughter of the Pictish royal
> > family allowed MacAlpin to seize the Pictish throne and kill off his
> > rivals. It was Germanic Viking aggression against the Picts that
> > allowed MacAlpin to gain dominance over the Picts.
>
> What is this seizing the throne business? That sounds like he simply became
> king and ignores any invasions and use of force against the Picts. It is
> often hard to say as to what actually happened in those times but by
> tradition MacAlpin gained dominance over the Picts by force. This is not a
> new idea made up by Nurse or something. The fact that the Picts were also
> being assailed by Scandinavians would simply make the job easier for
> MacAlpin but it doesn't change the nature of invasion.
Until the Vikings killed most of the Pictish royalty, the Gaels were
subjects of the Picts. Therefore, it is unlikely that it was superior
force that allowed the Gaels to gain control. When the Vikings killed
of the Pictish royals this created chaos within Pictish society that
the Gaels, under MacAlpine, exploited for their own ends.
> Extract from Scotichronicon by Walter Bower 1440s.
>
> "Kenneth himself crossed the mountainous region of their territory and
> turned his arms against the remaining boundaries of the Picts. After many
> Picts were slain, he forced the rest to flee and acquired sole rule over
> both kingdoms. The Picts recovered their strength to some extent with
> English [I would guess he means Northumbrian] help and kept up the attack on
> Kenneth for four years; but after a while he weakened them with unexpected
> raids and various slayings. At last in the twelfth year of his reign he
> joined battle seven times in a day and, after overthrowing innumerable
> nations of the Picts, he confirmed and ratified his possession over the
> whole kingdom"
But what historical evidence is there to back up the above account?
> Extract from the Declaration of Arbroath 1300s [concerning what the
> Scots/Gaels did]
>
> "The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and
> even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the
> English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold
> efforts"
Again no historical evidence to back up this account.
> Now that is not to say that these early Scottish writers spoke the gospel,
> or that they weren't prone to exaggeration or propaganda; however it does
> show an old belief that the Picts were overthrown by conquest. And of
> course over most of the Pictish territory [Northern Isles, far north of
> mainland and some of the Western Isles excluded] the conquest was mostly
> carried out in the end by Gaelic Scots. Not by Norse, Danes, English or
> other wicked Germanics.
So now you are denying that there were any Germanic invasions of
Pictish territory?
T N Nurse
The king and his brother is not 'most' of the Pictish royalty.
Diarmid Logan
I don't know what you mean by "race" but you are probably correct in
saying that it would be difficult to distinguish a native Briton (i.e.
a pre-Anglo-Saxon Briton) from a Gael or a Pict since it is likely
that all three groups would be predominantly Haplogroup 1 since that
haplogroup has been in Europe since the Palaeolithic era. Germanic
groups, on the other hand, would have lower levels of Haplogroup 1 but
higher levels of Haplogroups 2 and 3. Tell me, do you know if any
samples have been taken in the Lowland areas or have the samples been
concentrated in the Highland and island regions?
T N Nurse
diarmi...@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
Ah, so you, who points others to the BBCs website and draw
conclusions from it, haven't actually read the website? Quite
an admission there, me old chum.
Barry
> saying that it would be difficult to distinguish a native Briton (i.e.
> a pre-Anglo-Saxon Briton) from a Gael or a Pict since it is likely
> that all three groups would be predominantly Haplogroup 1 since that
> haplogroup has been in Europe since the Palaeolithic era. Germanic
> groups, on the other hand, would have lower levels of Haplogroup 1 but
> higher levels of Haplogroups 2 and 3. Tell me, do you know if any
> samples have been taken in the Lowland areas or have the samples been
> concentrated in the Highland and island regions?
What do I mean by race? Well, I think it possible, actually I think
its probable that the common ancestors of the Aryans and the stone age
Europeans are in fact Negros. Why? Well, my Stone Age ancestors
settled in Britain 6,000 years ago, while 3,500 years ago the Aryan
people began settling the northwest frontiers of India. That's a
distance of over 6,500 km, as the crow flies and ignoring the Caspian
Sea. The Egyptian civilization is about 3,000 years old, and these
people were Negros during the height of their civilization, as
indicated by their art. The Caucasus Mountains are only 1,500km from
Egypt. From Egypt there are 3 northern routes that people can take,
the 1st is into Turkey and on into Europe, the 2nd is north, over the
caucus mountains and into Russia, and the 3rd is into Iran, on to
Pakistan and on eventually to India. People would have been leaving
Egypt and following these 3 different routes for thousands of years,
so it makes no sense to say that those who left Egypt are related, if
you dont include the Negro Egyptians, and their ancestors also. Its
like saying that Scottish Americans are related to each other, but are
not in fact related to the Scottish.
You might then say to me that race is defined by skin colour, and that
Aryans and First Europeans are both white. Well I've been to both
Spain and Korea, and Koreas are whiter than the people of southern
Spain, yet the Spanish are considered part of the white race and
Koreans are not. Again, skin colour has nothing to do with who is
related and who is not. If I had a child with an African, then I am
more related to that child than I am to the vast majority of white
people. Skin colour is simply down to the climate you live in. Black
skin filters the cancer causing rays of the sun, while white skin
allows for the absorption of more vitamin D. A climate similar to ours
can be found all over the world, in places such as Japan, Washington
State, the Falkland Islands, and New Zealand - so you cant say that
white skinned people evolved specifically for a Northern European
climate. If George Bushes descendants live in Texas for thousands and
thousands of years, they'll eventually turn Black.
Anyway, I think my definition of race is much more concrete than the
one which is currently en vogue, as mine is based on genital science,
in the form of haplogroups.
>>>> Samples have been taken across Scotland
>>No they weren't, they were taken in a few areas in the North
>>of Scotland where it was suspected that Viking presence may be,
>>namely the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney, with Oban Pitlochry
>>and Stonehaven (perhaps a clue in that last name why it was
selected?)
>>being the only mainland testing sites. That leaves the vast majority
>>of the population of Scotland, who live in the Central Belt,
untested.
>>
>>I ask again, who were the Picts that were tested?
Please dont be under the impression that I got the 80% haplogroup
figure for Scotland from the BBC survey - this survey was targeted at
establishing the Norse population in Britain.
If you want, you can be tested (if your male). People are being tested
everyday for their haplogroup. Its very popular among Americans, and
if you do a search on the net, you'll come across loads of test
results for various people and families. Ancestry.com has a lot on
this. Even if you belong to Haplogroup 1 though, this only means that
your fathers, father's....father was a stone age European. It says
nothing about your other ancestors.
No Picts live today (only their descendants), but the bodies of
excavated Picts have been tested and found to belong to haplogroup 1.
Numerous Haplogroup studies gave proved that around 80% of all of
Scotland's population descend from Picts, Gaels and Britons. These
haplogroup studies are being conducted all the time through out the
world. One study in the US found that a number of Native Americans
born before the arrival of Columbus, belonged to haplogroup 1. This
helps support the claim that the Gaelic explorer St. Brendan the
Navigator discovered America long before Columbus - or at least
indicates that there was some contact between Native Europeans and
Native Americans. Of course, White Nationalists have hijacked this
find, with the claim that Whites have a genuine claim over America.
Diarmid Logan
Actually I have read the website but it is very vague on which parts
of Scotland were sampled. I was hoping that someone could provide me
with more information on exactly which parts of Scotland were included
in the testing.
T N Nurse
It is very precise where it was sampled and even names the places. You'd
be aware of that had you read it.
I was hoping that someone could provide me
> with more information on exactly which parts of Scotland were included
> in the testing.
It's on the site you refer to. Go read it properly this time, rather
than skimming it.
Diarmid Logan
> It is very precise where it was sampled and even names the places. You'd
> be aware of that had you read it.
Unfortunately it is not very precise.
> I was hoping that someone could provide me
> > with more information on exactly which parts of Scotland were included
> > in the testing.
>
> It's on the site you refer to. Go read it properly this time, rather
> than skimming it.
Unlike you I actually read things properly. It does not say in any great
detail how extensive the survey was.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Diarmid Logan
news:731cea69.03022...@posting.google.com
> What do I mean by race? Well, I think it possible, actually I think
> its probable that the common ancestors of the Aryans and the stone age
> Europeans are in fact Negros...
I have no idea what you are going on about in the above post. I was
asking for any information that you might have on research into
haplogroup frequencies in the Scottish population.
T N Nurse
<c1878fb626e3fc07d69...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-EB8...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> > It is very precise where it was sampled and even names the places. You'd
> > be aware of that had you read it.
>
> Unfortunately it is not very precise.
Unfortunately it is very precise. It even names the towns and areas
involved. You haven't read this at all, have you?
> > It's on the site you refer to. Go read it properly this time, rather
> > than skimming it.
>
> Unlike you I actually read things properly.
Then you wouldn't be asking the question you do, if that were the
case. Clearly you are wrong. No surprise there..
> It does not say in any great
> detail how extensive the survey was.
It does indeed. It names the sample points. Please improve your
reading skills and stop wasting everyone's time with you infantile
tap dancing.
Diarmid Logan
Unlike you, I am always interested in new information. If you do not
have any new information for me then please stop wasting my time by
responding to my posts.
T N Nurse
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-AAE...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> Unlike you, I am always interested in new information.
Unlike you, I don't lie about what I've read.
> If you do not
> have any new information for me then please stop wasting my time by
> responding to my posts.
You know where to find the information, your own source which,
as is now apparent to everyone, you clearly haven't read properly
as the towns are listed. Not only that, but I also posted them
earlier in this thread. The fact that you are refuse to look
and are now reduced to juvenile tactic of removing context
to reply speaks volumes of how poor your reading skills are
and the desperate nature of your position.
MacRobert
reflect but wrote anyway:
(Snip)
>Anyway, I think my definition of race is much more concrete than the
>one which is currently en vogue, as mine is based on genital science,
>in the form of haplogroups.
Bollocks.
Stephen
(snip)
Séimí mac Liam
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-AAE...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> Unlike you, I am always interested in new information. If you do not
> have any new information for me then please stop wasting my time by
> responding to my posts.
>
>
There is information new to you in nearly evey link you post. People are
constantly pointing it out to you and you invariably respond in a manner
similar to your response above.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Allan Connochie
Again there was no single Pictish royalty. It is generally thought that
were at least two main seperate powerful kingdoms. The fact that
Scandinavians may have weakened the Picts makes no difference to the fact
that MacAlpine seemingly took power by force against the will of a large
part of the Pictish people. It was seemingly not a peaceful coming together
but rather a hostile take over.
>
>
>
> > Extract from Scotichronicon by Walter Bower 1440s.
> >
> > "Kenneth himself crossed the mountainous region of their territory and
> > turned his arms against the remaining boundaries of the Picts. After
many
> > Picts were slain, he forced the rest to flee and acquired sole rule over
> > both kingdoms. The Picts recovered their strength to some extent with
> > English [I would guess he means Northumbrian] help and kept up the
attack on
> > Kenneth for four years; but after a while he weakened them with
unexpected
> > raids and various slayings. At last in the twelfth year of his reign he
> > joined battle seven times in a day and, after overthrowing innumerable
> > nations of the Picts, he confirmed and ratified his possession over the
> > whole kingdom"
>
> But what historical evidence is there to back up the above account?
The above was written as a pro-MacAlpine pro-Scottish piece. There is very
little historical evidence of what exactly happened. I have been careful to
use phrases such as 'by tradition' and I have myself conceded that these may
well be exaggerations or even simply Scottish propaganda. You are claiming
that this or that definately happened without any concrete evidence to back
it up.....not me!
>
> > Extract from the Declaration of Arbroath 1300s [concerning what the
> > Scots/Gaels did]
> >
> > "The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and
> > even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the
> > English, they took possession of that home with many victories and
untold
> > efforts"
>
> Again no historical evidence to back up this account.
Again so what! Simply showing you the generally accepted tradition that the
Picts were finally assimilated by conquest.
>
>
>
> > Now that is not to say that these early Scottish writers spoke the
gospel,
> > or that they weren't prone to exaggeration or propaganda; however it
does
> > show an old belief that the Picts were overthrown by conquest. And of
> > course over most of the Pictish territory [Northern Isles, far north of
> > mainland and some of the Western Isles excluded] the conquest was mostly
> > carried out in the end by Gaelic Scots. Not by Norse, Danes, English or
> > other wicked Germanics.
>
>
> So now you are denying that there were any Germanic invasions of
> Pictish territory?
Eh can't you read Dairmid? I clearly say it was a Gaelic conquest apart
from in the Northern Isles, far north of the mainland, and some of the
Western Isles.
Allan
Diarmid Logan
news:Xns932967...@129.250.170.83
> There is information new to you in nearly evey link you post. People are
> constantly pointing it out to you and you invariably respond in a manner
> similar to your response above.
*Sigh* Another clown with nothing to do but waste my time.
Séimí mac Liam
> "Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns932967...@129.250.170.83
>
>
>> There is information new to you in nearly evey link you post. People
>> are constantly pointing it out to you and you invariably respond in a
>> manner similar to your response above.
>
> *Sigh* Another clown with nothing to do but waste my time.
>
>
>
>
Tit for tat.
Barry
> "Barry" <bg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:731cea69.03022...@posting.google.com
>
> > What do I mean by race? Well, I think it possible, actually I think
> > its probable that the common ancestors of the Aryans and the stone age
> > Europeans are in fact Negros...
>
> I have no idea what you are going on about in the above post. I was
> asking for any information that you might have on research into
> haplogroup frequencies in the Scottish population.
http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/haplo_profiles.asp?dbname=ychroms&popid=47
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n3/001900/001900.html
T N Nurse
<40df1f46ce71a517093...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-AAE...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> Unlike you, I am always interested in new information.
It's not 'new' information. It's listed in the very source you
urged us to read and claimed to have done so yourself. Clearly
you had not, have been cornered again, and now engage in childish
denial.
> If you do not
> have any new information for me then please stop wasting my time by
> responding to my posts.
You know where to find it, you've been told often enough. Not only that,
but I gave the list of the sample sites earlier in this thread. The
fact that you fail to follow up speaks volumes of how poor your
reading skills are, or that you are simply dishonest. Which is it?
User235
diarmi...@yahoo.com says...
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-EB8...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> > It is very precise where it was sampled and even names the places. You'd
> > be aware of that had you read it.
>
> Unfortunately it is not very precise.
>
Yes it is
> > I was hoping that someone could provide me
> > > with more information on exactly which parts of Scotland were included
> > > in the testing.
> >
> > It's on the site you refer to. Go read it properly this time, rather
> > than skimming it.
>
> Unlike you I actually read things properly. It does not say in any great
> detail how extensive the survey was.
Yes it does. It says:
Scotland
Testing sites:
Durness (Highlands), Kirkwall (Orkney), Oban (Argyll), Pitlochry
(Perthshire), Stonehaven (Aberdeenshire), Lerwick (Shetland), Lewis,
Harris, Uist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/genetics_results_04.shtml
Took me seconds to find on the site you previously gave and is very
precise. Clearly you haven't read it properly at all.
Allan Connochie
> In article <YjU3a.71200$L47.10...@read2.cgocable.net>,
> "Mike" <mmcnam...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > Scottish surnames only came into use in Scotland by about the 1100 A.D,
so
> > how can there be a 'so-called' Kennith 'McAlpin'
>
> His correct name was Ciniod, son of Alpin. He took the name Kenneth 1st
> when he took the throne of Alba. Kenneth McAlpin is simply a more
> modern reference.
Sure I can imagine a Gaelic king in the 9thC using 'son of' instead of
'Mac'. This is really quite a silly direction we are taking.
Allan
Allan Connochie
> "T N Nurse" <tnnurse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tnnurseNOUCE99-AAE...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk
>
> Unlike you, I am always interested in new information. If you do not
> have any new information for me then please stop wasting my time by
> responding to my posts.
This is bonkers! The web-page you have continually pointed people towards
for months now, and which is a link on your own geocities page, clearly
lists which towns were the testing sites. Hint if you want to find out
where the Scottish tests were done then click on Scotland etc etc. You
clearly don't seem to have really read the sites you continually quote.
Allan
Mike
white skin, protudung cheek bones, and a brow ridge on your forehead that
displaces your eyes so that you almost look like Arnold Shwarzenegger who is
a direct descendant of the Neanderthal. Most Irish and Welsh belong to hp 1
or 1.15, although your definitions seem to be that of something different.
Possibly your of Hp 2.47 or 3.65 and again a direct descendant of
Arnold Schwarzenegger, and you might have orange hair and brown or green
eyes that are sunk within the forehead of your tiny and incumbersome skull.
http://www2.smumn.edu/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/celticbasque.pdf
"gerald.copp" <gerald.copp@localhost> wrote in message
news:0OC4a.818$zG2.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Diarmid Logan
Look at this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/genetics_results_04.shtml
"Scotland
Testing sites:
Durness (Highlands), Kirkwall (Orkney), Oban (Argyll), Pitlochry
(Perthshire), Stonehaven (Aberdeenshire), Lerwick (Shetland), Lewis,
Harris, Uist
The UCL team encountered difficulties in distinguishing between the
DNA of Saxon and Danish invaders. The Saxons and Angles arrived in the
5th century AD. They came from northern Saxony, just to the south of
Denmark, so it is not surprising that DNA samples from this region are
very similar to that of the Danes. In mainland Scotland, as in
England, these groups were lumped together as 'invaders' (Angles,
Saxons and Danish Vikings). Most of mainland Scotland did contain some
evidence for these invading groups, with the results being remarkably
similar for this part of Scotland as for the South of England.
The outlying Scottish isles provided the most conclusive evidence of a
Viking presence. In the Northern and Western Isles, as well as in the
far north of the Scottish mainland, Norwegian genetic signatures were
found. In Shetland and Orkney 60% of the male population had DNA of
Norwegian origin, most probably passed on from the Vikings. Here the Y
chromosomes of the rest of the population could be identified as
similar to those of the Ancient Britons (Celts) - no evidence of an
Anglo-Saxon or Danish influx was found.
In a special case study, Jim Wilson looked more closely at his native
Orkney. It's known that immigration from Scotland occurred in
centuries between the end of direct rule from Norway and the 20th
Century. The extent of this immigration could have distorted our
results significantly, so Jim focussed on a sub-group who had ancient
Orcadian names which would date back roughly to the time of the end of
Norwegian rule. He discovered that when he did this, the proportion of
Norwegian Y chromosomes increased. While it's difficult to put an
exact figure on it, we can say that as a result of Jim's study, Viking
input in Orkney was somewhere between 60-100%. This figure does not
rule out complete replacement of the indigenous Picts by Vikings - the
genocide theory suggested by Brian Smith from his study of
place-names.
In the Western Isles traces of Norwegian settlers were also prominent,
although not in quite such high numbers as in the Northern Isles. Over
30% of the men tested in the Hebrides showed evidence of Norwegian
ancestry in their DNA. The DNA results supported the historical and
archaeological record, which shows the Vikings travelling from Norway
across to the Northern Isles of Scotland, then around the west coast
and into the Irish Sea."
No where does it say what percentage of the Scottish population is
Haplogroup 1. If someone is going to claim that 80% of the Scottish
population is Haplogroup 1 then they should produce evidence to back
it up. The above link provides no evidence to support such a claim for
a given percentage of Haplogroup 1 in the Scottish population.
Diarmid Logan
I never said that MacAlpine was a peaceful man. What I did say was
that the actions of Germanic Vikings weakened the Picts so that
MacAlpine was able to take over.
> > > Extract from Scotichronicon by Walter Bower 1440s.
> > >
> > > "Kenneth himself crossed the mountainous region of their territory and
> > > turned his arms against the remaining boundaries of the Picts. After
> many
> > > Picts were slain, he forced the rest to flee and acquired sole rule over
> > > both kingdoms. The Picts recovered their strength to some extent with
> > > English [I would guess he means Northumbrian] help and kept up the
> attack on
> > > Kenneth for four years; but after a while he weakened them with
> unexpected
> > > raids and various slayings. At last in the twelfth year of his reign he
> > > joined battle seven times in a day and, after overthrowing innumerable
> > > nations of the Picts, he confirmed and ratified his possession over the
> > > whole kingdom"
> >
> > But what historical evidence is there to back up the above account?
>
>
> The above was written as a pro-MacAlpine pro-Scottish piece. There is very
> little historical evidence of what exactly happened. I have been careful to
> use phrases such as 'by tradition' and I have myself conceded that these may
> well be exaggerations or even simply Scottish propaganda. You are claiming
> that this or that definately happened without any concrete evidence to back
> it up.....not me!
The BBC website said that the Vikings killed off the Pictish royal
family. If you believe this to be wrong then I suggest you take up the
matter with the BBC.
> > > Extract from the Declaration of Arbroath 1300s [concerning what the
> > > Scots/Gaels did]
> > >
> > > "The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and
> > > even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the
> > > English, they took possession of that home with many victories and
> untold
> > > efforts"
> >
> > Again no historical evidence to back up this account.
>
> Again so what! Simply showing you the generally accepted tradition that the
> Picts were finally assimilated by conquest.
Again where have I claimed that MacAlpine was a peaceful man. What I
have said is that it was the actions of the Germanic Vikings against
the Pictish royalty that allowed MacAlpine to gain control.
> > > Now that is not to say that these early Scottish writers spoke the
> gospel,
> > > or that they weren't prone to exaggeration or propaganda; however it
> does
> > > show an old belief that the Picts were overthrown by conquest. And of
> > > course over most of the Pictish territory [Northern Isles, far north of
> > > mainland and some of the Western Isles excluded] the conquest was mostly
> > > carried out in the end by Gaelic Scots. Not by Norse, Danes, English or
> > > other wicked Germanics.
> >
> >
> > So now you are denying that there were any Germanic invasions of
> > Pictish territory?
>
> Eh can't you read Dairmid? I clearly say it was a Gaelic conquest apart
> from in the Northern Isles, far north of the mainland, and some of the
> Western Isles.
A conquest that was made possible by the actions of the Vikings
against the Picts.