Queen Elizabeth II has passed on

Post Reply New Topic

This advancement of northern Europe was relatively recent as the European renaissance started in southern Europe and northern Europe only began advancing in the latter half of the renaissance. It was not until the 18th/19th century that Northern European kingdoms began to be imitated by the Russian Czars and Japanese emperors and when expansion into the Americas, Asia and Africa began in earnest. The earlier period between 15th-16th century was dominated by the Spanish and Portuguese.

Last edited by cyberdad on 14 Sep 2022, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Agree with all of this. But I am still interested in how things transpired chronologically. I'm a big fan of the archaeologists on the Time Team as they dig up new and exciting finds often under the foundations of existing buildings and farms.

Many northern Spanish people also start out blond and get darker haired. I believe there are some Celtic regions of northern Spain, can't remember exactly what. Maybe Galicia and Asturias? I was surprised to see that when I visited Spain. The darker Spaniards are in the south where the Moors invaded.

I believe at least part of northern Spain is inhabited by Basques, who speak a non-Indo-European language.

Yes, I often think we should dig up all of Britain to find it all out! haha. Most of it is Roman though, it's unusual when we find anything Saxon or otherwise.

It's really interesting that Russia was named after the Kievan Rus, who seemed to be Norse in origin but settled in that area for some reason. Maybe Scandinavia was too inhospitable and distant?

If you've read the 10th century account of the Arabic traveller Ibn Fadlan, he actually met a tribe of Rus people and describes them and their activities in great detail. It is fascinating, shocking and in some places, a little funny with his attitude towards their habits. It's one of the very few eye witness accounts of meeting Norsemen, it is thought to be true because he had no reason to lie about it.

They used his account in the film The Thirteenth Warrior, which I absolutely love, even though they merged it with Beowulf. A cult classic.

The Norse were extremely inclined towards “spreading themselves out”—and they certainly did! From Greenland to deep, European Russia. They even established a slight foothold in very eastern North America, though a government there wasn’t really organized.

I believe it’s a matter of relatively little arable land, mostly.

I wouldn't call the idea that "every marriage had to involve an Anglo Saxon" a theory since there's literally nothing to base it on. It's baseless speculation at best. While the study points to a few differences in legal codes they don't prove how broadly those laws would actually be applied, or if they go deeper than what's actually documented.

It's unlikely those sorts of laws would have any validity in Hen Ogledd or other British polities so it's unreasonable to insist that all of what's now England would have been impacted.

This video covers a more viable explanation and links to supporting sources.



Since genetics doesn't indicate replacement of the people, replacement of their culture due to social prestige seems more likely as an explanation. It's the same pressure that forces Quebec to fight so hard to maintain their language today, it's the same pressure that causes immigrant families to not teach their first language to their kids born in their new homeland.

Since one Brythonic state continued until the 1000s it's hard to make the case that the British were wiped out, deliberately or otherwise. Cumbria was ultimately split between England and Scotland and it's inhabitants were still considered distinct from Scots and from English in the 1200s.

The ones further south ceased to exist earlier, but it's unlikely that micromanaging or replacing the local population was the goal because the fighting was between peoples who both would have considered the island their home at that point, whatever migrations from the continent had occurred had also ceased.

She now rules the world from above with her crowning glory.

Your map proves you wrong. And proves me right (in fact Ive seen that map before and it was in mind's eye when I wrote my post).

Where is the highest concentration of red heads on that map? Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Exactly where Celtic languages are common. Its a Celtic trait for crissakes. SOME stereotypes are correct to some degree. Lol!

Red heads are NOT concentrated in Scandanavia. So Vikings "bringing the trait to the British Isles" would be "coals to new castle" , or " cocaine to Columbia".

But there is that OTHER hot spot for red heads and thats that big splotch on the map way to the east ...astride the Ural mountains on the boundary between Europe and Asia...in the middle of Russia (right where European Russia ends and Siberia begins).

But that area has nothing to do with "the Kurgan Culture" of the Proto Indo Europeans. That culture was farther to the south in Black sea area (Ukraine and southern Russia). That splotch of red heads are in a region now inhabited by Uralian language tribes (non Indo European language group). The Hungarians sprang from that region two thousand years ago.

The "Paleolithic" ended in Europe long before Stonehenge which was built by folks who were at least Neolithic, if not Bronze Age. The "Beaker People" were Indoeuropean invaders from the East who might have been the Celts.

Whether the Beakers, or someone after, "brought in the gene for red hair" doesnt change the fact that red hair became concentrated at the west/northwest edge of Europe by early historic times, and has long coincided with people who speak Celtic languages.

While Danish Vikings were conquering the Danelaw, and Normandy, and while the Norwejian Vikings were pillaging westward and settling Iceland, Greenland, and even North America,...the Swedish Vikings ventured eastward into the rivers of what is now Russia. The Slavs were even more backward than the Scandanavians so the Vikings were able to organize trading posts which became major cities. So yes the Slavic ancestors of Ukraine and Russia were helped in joining the civilized world by the slightly less barbaric Vikings who opened them up to trade- especially southward with Byzantine Empire. And the new Slavic stats emering around the trading centers were called "Rus". Some Vikings ventured even further. In fact the Byzantine Emperor had a whole army of Swedish Vikings called "the Varangian Guard". One of its main purpose was to guard Byzantium from...the OTHER Vikings coming from to Aegean from the West causing the Viking world to come "full circle". Vikings going east from Sweden through Russia being hired to fight off Vikings going the other way around Europe -around France, Spain, and into the Mediterranean from the west.

As I said, it's a theory:

Germans set up an apartheid-like society in Britain
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2006/jul/ger ... ty-britain

Saxon hordes ousted celts
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ted-celts/

The Anglo-Saxons were worse than the Vikings
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-forsk ... gs/1460824

Yes and apparently they had something called the Fimbul Winter, which was such a harsh, long winter that they struggled to grow crops and many died of starvation. So it sounds like anywhere would be better than Scandinavia in that situation.

I've got this book with accounts from historical people since 1000AD and there's an account by Norse people of when they sailed to America and met the Native Americans, I think it's by Leif Erikson and friends. It's pretty interesting! The two groups seem to have been pretty scared of each other!

The slightly less barbaric Vikings...yes, historians reckon they got a bad press by a lot of people. Everyone was barbaric in those days but for some reason Vikings got painted as the worst!

Did you read the account of the Rus by Ibn Fadlan? If not, have a read! So interesting.

Yes it's surprising how little anglo-Saxon, celtic or beaker ware they find. Suggests the cultural influence of the indo-European groups was limited. The exception are the Romans of course were prodigious builders so not surprisingly a lot of their original structures were never demolished (e.g, walls, bridges, canals and roads).

What's interesting is the amount of paleolithic finds. Despite the original paleolithic population being largely wiped from the gene pool, their archaeological legacy is much more impressive than any other group in Britain.

Again this is association by language not genetics. The Celts only arrived in Britain a century before the Romans and while they spread their culture they did not displace the Beaker folk who retained their red hair.