Man that facial reconstruction looks like... me. 4th great grandfather arrived in Virginia, settled down to North Carolina appalachian mountains, where we stayed. Scots heavily settled this area, then remained insulated.
Scotland was an independent country prior to Bruce, Edward longshanks only took a primary roll at the request of the protector’s of Scotland after the death of Margaret Maid of Norway Queen -designate 1286 -1290 . So for a period of 16 years we had an English overlord. We were an independent nation and we will be again.
@ when in 1286 or now, if now that is inaccurate. Scotland raises 100% of its own tax base and receives back 32% in the form of the Barnet formula. The Scottish government is unable to borrow and therefore unable legally to go into debt unlike Westminster. So to simplify it say you give me £100 off your hard earned and I give you £32 back, would you be happy probably not. Simples and if we are being subsidised why not tell us to go to f I would. Why suffer a bunch of spongers. We would be happy you would be happy. 😃 I am all for happy.
@@davidmartin2957 Until Wee Krankie makes it all disappear and you have to go back to Westminster cap in hand. And if Scotland was able to borrow who is going to loan them any money. The EU didn't even want you, they were happy to take in Latvia, Estonia even Greece but backed off from Scotland. And tell me what does Scotland export, Whisky, some fish (most of the ships foreign owned) ..... I can't think of anything else. Yes I'd be happy to see the back of you lot too. Oh and I looked this up as Scots usually tell lies on these issues and if you read it carefully you will see why. Scottish Budget 2023 to 2024: guide Each year the Scottish Government publishes a balanced Budget that sets out the spending plans for the new financial year. The annual Scottish Budget covers each financial year, which runs from 1 April until 31 March, with annual spending amounting to over £50 billion. The Scottish Budget for 2023 to 2024 has been set at £59.7 billion and a detailed breakdown of spending plans is available on the Scottish Government web site. This Budget comes at a critical point for Scotland. It seeks to balance the immediate pressures of our continued recovery from the pandemic along with supporting our three strategic priorities - to eradicate child poverty to enable the economy to transition to Net Zero to create sustainable public services that support the needs of our people The Budget is developed and delivered in partnership with the Scottish Green Party, delivering on commitments made as part of the Bute House Agreement. This is a summary of how the Scottish Budget is funded, and the key spending commitments for the year ahead. How the Scottish Budget is funded The Scottish Budget is funded mainly through annual funding from the UK Government, known as the Scottish block grant, and devolved tax revenues. The block grant is calculated with reference to changes in spending on equivalent public services in England. The Scottish Budget is allocated a population share of changes in funding using the Barnett formula, which is added to baseline funding to give the revised Scottish block grant for each year. This funding is added to the devolved tax income raised in Scotland to fund spending on devolved public services in Scotland. There are rules that govern how Scotland receives and manages its funding and these are set out in the UK Government’s Statement of Funding Policy and in the Fiscal Framework. The Fiscal Framework is an agreement between the Scottish and United Kingdom governments, which details how Scotland must manage its funding. This includes limits on borrowing powers and on the use of a reserve to transfer funding between financial years. The agreement also details the arrangements for the adjustments made to the Scottish block grant, to account for the devolution of certain tax and social security powers - these are called ‘Block Grant Adjustments’. An updated Fiscal Framework was recently agreed by the Scottish and UK Government. Read more on the Fiscal Framework. What the Scottish Budget funds Ultimately the Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the people of Scotland for its use of public money. Each year, Scottish Ministers develop spending proposals ahead of the new financial year. These proposals are published and presented to the Scottish Parliament with draft legislation (the annual Budget Bill) for scrutiny and approval by the Parliament. Devolution allows the Scottish Parliament to decide how much money to spend on different policy areas, including schools, hospitals, policing, certain social security benefits, the economy, climate change and the environment. Delivery in these areas involves a range of partners including local government, public bodies and the third sector. And to end it all what currency are you going to use, Sterling ? no FU, the Euro, they already told you to jog on.
If you want to be independent again why on earth do you want to join the EU? I can only think that it is because Scotland would become a net financial recipient, because there is hardly a better way to lose independence than join the EU lol
Did you know they are building a horse track on Bannochburn site? Some Americans have bought Sterling council and they are building gambling sites and hotel on our history. The petition was hidden from us.
Stirling council (usually Labour) has done its very best to obliterate the Bannockburn site. Inthouht the funal insult was when they made the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. - an attempt union by forcible conquest - into a huge BRITISH ARMY DAY celebration. So that anyone who wanted to go there to commemorate Bannockburn was magically transformed into a fan of the Queen and her army.
@@eh1702 I'm English and even I think this is outrageous. It should be illegal to rewrite history like this. Scots should be able to celebrate their victory. I am descended from Robert the Bruce's English cousins, so I had family fighting on both sides of the Scottish war of Independence.
No, this is one of the more sensible summaries of Scottish ancestry. The coming of the Beaker people is echoed in the Treaty of Arbroath which speaks of ancestors coming from Scythia (Ukraine), something which was scoffed at by scholars for centuries, but has now been proved by DNA studies. The only quibble I have is that the Battle of Bannockburn is mentioned at the start, as a contributer to the genetic pool, but then is not mentioned again. This was just click bait and unworthy of the subject. I had ancestors on both sides of the Scottish war of Independence.
People always talk as if the single named (paternal) lineage is the whole genome. It ignores the fact that the first generation Normans usually married daughters and sisters of the English landowners that each of them replaced. (It worked really well: it was cheaper than marrying and importing a bride; and the surviving dispossessed English landed gentry knuckled under, presumably because their grandchildren would still inherit something. It left them some dignity as parents-in-law, I suppose.) So there would probably be more Anglo-Saxon and native brit dna than Norman in the 4th generation Bruces. The mitochondrial dna is from Britain, but in the second generation, younger daughters, or the daughters of lesser nobles, could still make a catch of any more-noble native Englishmen who had kept a toehold. The Normans themselves: some were full viking by blood - but what does that mean? By the time they went to take Normandy, the Lochlanach (Vikings) Whether Fin-gall/Norwegian or Dubh-gall/Danish, had a fair bit of Scottish and Irish mixture in them, not to mention a dash of Finn, Russian, Ukrainian and Saami. Other Normans conquerers were Viking+West Francian, some were Burgundian, and quite a lot (like those who became the Stewarts) were Bretons. And who were the Bretons, boys and girls?
The Highland clearances cast a dark cloud. Though Ancestry DNA says I've got 12,000 cousins in Ontario Canada. Maybe their success there is the silver lining.
The Picts were basically the same people as the Caledonians. The term was first used by the Romans in 297AD. IMO this was probably due to the Caledonains being the only northern tribes encountered by the Romans, who still painted or tattooed themselves. According to historians such as Tim Clarkson and archeologist Ewan Campbell (see his online pdf doc 'Were the Scots Irish') there was no invasion or mass migration of Gaels from Ireland. The Epidii tribe who lived in Argyleshire spoke the Gaelic because they were geographically isolated from the other Caledonian/Pictish tribes and found it much easier to interact with the Irish. There is no evidence of any invasion. Any genetic similary between the Epidii and the Irish was due to the Bell Beaker settlements of the Bronze Age and the later Norse settlements.
You're correct. There was no Irish migration into Scotland around 500 AD. That was a later created myth. The only Irish influence in Dark Age Scotland was Christianity brought over by St Columbo, but Christianity was already established in southern and central Scotland before he arrived. Ewan Campbell's paper 'Were the Scots Irish' is one of the most important studies in early Scottish history.
@@ko0974 The Epidii did extended their kingdom of Dalriada on to northern Ireland and to much of the Hebrides. Scotlander545 is right enough about the Irish missionairies such as St Columbos. the conversion of the Caledonians/Picts was when the irish influence began along with the usage of Gaelic. This was around 563AD. BTW these Irish missionairies travelled far and wide. After converting the Picts they converted the Angles of Northumberland and went on missions to the Continent. They even went north to Orkneys, Shetlands, Faereo islands and Iceland during the Viking Age. There are even traces of Gaelic within the Icelandic and Faeroese languages.
@@billmclaurin6959 well Iceland first inhabitants were Irish monks ... Vikings later took Irish women with them to Iceland to start families and settle down, first to do so,and even today large numbers still have Irish ancestry ..We definitely made our mark !
@@billmclaurin6959 This stuff was invented innthe 19th century. when every change of governance, culture or language was assumed to be an invasion/population replacement. It’s ridiculous to imagine a cultural or linguistic border any time before the Norman period as being the present national/political borders, the two main landmasses. The archeology contradicts that and, indeed, the cultural and linguistic border persisted *within* what’s now Scotland, not between Ireland and Scotland, well into modern times. It was annihilated only with great effort. Dal Riata was an Ukster dynasty that displaced a dynasty further north and east (Am I mistaken, or wasn’t it said to have its roots there anyway?): For sure, there probably was a massacre or two, but is no reason to think a change at the top caused any particular change of population, language or culture across Argyll and the islands. Change of management ≠ linguistic change. In an age where the population was not literate, there’s no reason to think people changed their language to Gaelic because of some monks: they weren't that powerful. (The Columban church was after all thrown out by Nechtain, wasn’t it?) Unlike the British government, they didn’t get to collect weans all day in school and punish them for speaking their own language. The sea LINKS the west and northern Scottish coasts and islands with the seanoard of old Irish province of Ulster, and further down Ireland’s east coast (and Man) it doesn’t divide them. It was all settled by the same people at the same time, in every prehistoric wave that we know of. The pre-pottery neolithic, the builders of the different styles of huge tombs, and then the Beaker people - each wave of colonisers established itself around the whole area in just a generation or two. The matching tombs are contemporary. The three men buried on Rathlin, between the Antrim and Kintyre coasts, are two generations of the same (then very newly mutated) R1b L21 lineage which the majority of Scottish and Irish men are descended from. That single lineage! All of the evidence points to it being one culture-area since the mesolithic. Because boats. The “rath” in Rathlin - it means a waystation or decision point, in effect a sea-roundabout where you would choose your exit for your destination: up the Argyll coast, or into the Clyde Coast, or the southern Hebrides, or the Antrim coast, or the Isle of Man. These guys were buried at the crossroads, so to speak - in the middle of their territory. This whole idea of “Irish” vs “Scottish” language and culture is anachronistic. The practical physical barrier to getting around, before there were roads, was the middle of each island (Britain and Ireland). Getting from one side to the other overland, with each island, you had to walk and carry stuff, or use pack animals. Going from coast to coast you could do in a day - and carrying tons.
And indeed the English and Welsh. The GENETIC differences among the people of these islands are nothing like as great as many would like to believe. But Culture and Genetics are not at all the same thing. Culture evolves all the time and there can be fairly major changes within a few generations (eg the loss of languages, changes in dialect and religious observances) - but those changes “flow over the top” of a gene pool that changes only very gradually.
@@davidpaterson2309 What you say is true…yet… as it happens, the genetic evidence for Beakers and the large majority of Irish & Scots paternal lineages is pretty startling. In fact, not even “Beakers” as a group, but one single family. Look at the R1b sub-subgroup of the three men buried on Rathlin Island off the Antrim coast, a few miles from the Kintyre coast. (They had food-vessels, the local development, rather than bell-shaped beakers, but it’s everything else Beaker.) These guys are direct relatives a couple of generations apart and buried under, fittingly enough, what became a pub. Their L21 mutation was very new back then, possibly just a couple of generations older than the earliest guy. The more recent two show their own variations in that short time. Around 70% of Scotsmen and even more Irishmen are direct descendants of that very lineage. Of those individuals or of their siblings or first cousins. Of course, as you say, the autosomal differences around these islands is not that great, most of the female lineages are the same as has washed around the western fringe of Europe since the neolithic: but even those show some locally-hatched features. Britain and Ireland show up as their own little distinctive set of clusters or gradients within/ fringeing the western European celtic-germanic (or celto-germanic) patch. There are half a dozen distinct groupings in Britain, the main distinction being between south-east England as a big cluster, and the others. Again, western Scotland (down into a bit of northern England) with Ulster, shows as one population, with other parts of both Ireland and Scotland having some other clusters. The big southeast England cluster on the map actually looks kinda similar to maps of the Romano-British heartland and the later concentration of Anglo-Saxon settlement: a southwest-northwest sweep from about the Severn to the Humber. This general line is a geographic one as well - it broadly distinguishes soil types, vegetation (and farming) and even the breeding/non breeding geography of some bird species like goosander. You could expect the same sort of big cluster for the same sort of reasons in previous colonising events, why not?
@ Thank you for your detailed description of the factual basis for what I only knew in principle. Without wishing to detract from that in any way, here’s an observation - Ireland, and only slightly less so, Scotland are simply further away from the source of most of the later migrations, which may sound trite but I’d suggest it might be the explanation for their populations being least affected by those migrations. Eg the “Belgae” were confined to SE England, the Saxons never made it very far north and west beyond that Severn-Humber line (there was an area of Anglian migration in SE Scotland when it was Northumbria), there was no Norman Conquest of Scotland etc. The most significant addition to both places was the Norse and again that’s just geography - they came from the north and Scotland and Ireland were closest, and even today the greatest concentration of Norse DNA is in the places closest to Norway. But I completely agree with your general observation - most of the people of the western edge of Europe are varying degrees of the same genetic “soup”. Re the Severn-Humber line. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? There is a also a hypothesis that Fosse Way (as if someone had put a ruler on the map between the two rivers and drawn a line half way) was not only built on top of a pre-existing Celtic-British road, but was enhanced by some form of earthworks along its northwest facing edge (thus “Fosse”) and that it was either an interim “limes” of Rome, before it expanded further and/or defined the “core” Romano British area. That would maybe also help to explain WHY that same area became most settled by Saxons, most quickly, following the withdrawal of the legions. The Romano-British probably had no military skills or leadership at all - which wasn’t unusual in civilian populations in the Roman Empire; they relied on the army to fight battles and the Empire didn’t like subject civilians having military weapons and training (asking for rebellion). So they were completely exposed, and everyone knew it - the incursions from all directions started very soon after the legions left and we know the Romano British pleaded, fruitlessly, for the legions to return.
The WHG populations should've been shown with dark skin and blue eyes. The eastern farmer population that succeeded it originated in Anatolia and had olive skin. White people should only have been shown after the Beaker Culture originating in Ukraine and southern Russia succeeded them. Otherwise an enjoyable vid.
These videos are next to useless to us researchers who need to know the various haplogroups involved in specific time periods and locations. Y-DNA haplogroups preferred. Spend your time and money producing useful information, PLEASE!!!
A researcher is the person who works out the haplogroups. Or who digs up &/or analyses the archaeology. Or who works out the time periods and the locations from those materials. That is what research is. *Reading* that research is …reading. It’s a very good thing to do. But learning about what people have discovered, actively engaging with it and forming an opinion on it is not what research is. It’s what criticism is, or education. A researcher discovers and publishes new evidence; explains how it tends to firm up, flesh out, modify or throw into doubt present hypotheses; and presents their data and methods in such a way that their research can all be checked - and can be reproduced by anyone. It may or may not offer a new hypothesis. You are asking in the wrongnplace for the information you want. For that, you’d have to read the actual research. That gets published in the relevant academic journals. Reading those is the absolute most basic beginning. Access to the very most recent work can be expensive for an individual - but this is what public libraries are for. You can get free access to many journals (physical or online) through public libraries, especially big-city libraries. Some universities also offer independent scholars their library facilities - sometimes for a modest fee, the arrangements are up to them. If yiu ever graduated from a university, they will probabky grant you access, and many have reciprocal arrangements with each ither. There are also online “open access” sites - or like JSTOR, partially open access - where you can find a lot of journal articles that are a couple of years old or more.
Nice to watch one of these without A.I. narration for a change
Yes…
Yes, and no shouting or bragging. Good, clear enunciation and a cogent explanation of evidence, well-expressed. Thank you. ❤
not everyone is able to narrate their own videos, but still want to make content
@@quercus3290 If they can figure out how to make the A.I. do it, they can record their voice easily enuf.
😂It _is_ an AI voice.
Man that facial reconstruction looks like... me.
4th great grandfather arrived in Virginia, settled down to North Carolina appalachian mountains, where we stayed.
Scots heavily settled this area, then remained insulated.
you carry wonderful heritage, welcome to the channel ...
Scotland was an independent country prior to Bruce, Edward longshanks only took a primary roll at the request of the protector’s of Scotland after the death of Margaret Maid of Norway Queen -designate 1286 -1290 . So for a period of 16 years we had an English overlord. We were an independent nation and we will be again.
Independent, but dependant on English tax payers money.
@ when in 1286 or now, if now that is inaccurate. Scotland raises 100% of its own tax base and receives back 32% in the form of the Barnet formula. The Scottish government is unable to borrow and therefore unable legally to go into debt unlike Westminster. So to simplify it say you give me £100 off your hard earned and I give you £32 back, would you be happy probably not. Simples and if we are being subsidised why not tell us to go to f I would. Why suffer a bunch of spongers. We would be happy you would be happy. 😃 I am all for happy.
Scotland has been 1 nation longer than a country by itself.
@@davidmartin2957 Until Wee Krankie makes it all disappear and you have to go back to Westminster cap in hand. And if Scotland was able to borrow who is going to loan them any money. The EU didn't even want you, they were happy to take in Latvia, Estonia even Greece but backed off from Scotland. And tell me what does Scotland export, Whisky, some fish (most of the ships foreign owned) ..... I can't think of anything else. Yes I'd be happy to see the back of you lot too. Oh and I looked this up as Scots usually tell lies on these issues and if you read it carefully you will see why.
Scottish Budget 2023 to 2024: guide
Each year the Scottish Government publishes a balanced Budget that sets out the spending plans for the new financial year. The annual Scottish Budget covers each financial year, which runs from 1 April until 31 March, with annual spending amounting to over £50 billion.
The Scottish Budget for 2023 to 2024 has been set at £59.7 billion and a detailed breakdown of spending plans is available on the Scottish Government web site.
This Budget comes at a critical point for Scotland. It seeks to balance the immediate pressures of our continued recovery from the pandemic along with supporting our three strategic priorities -
to eradicate child poverty
to enable the economy to transition to Net Zero
to create sustainable public services that support the needs of our people
The Budget is developed and delivered in partnership with the Scottish Green Party, delivering on commitments made as part of the Bute House Agreement.
This is a summary of how the Scottish Budget is funded, and the key spending commitments for the year ahead.
How the Scottish Budget is funded
The Scottish Budget is funded mainly through annual funding from the UK Government, known as the Scottish block grant, and devolved tax revenues. The block grant is calculated with reference to changes in spending on equivalent public services in England. The Scottish Budget is allocated a population share of changes in funding using the Barnett formula, which is added to baseline funding to give the revised Scottish block grant for each year. This funding is added to the devolved tax income raised in Scotland to fund spending on devolved public services in Scotland.
There are rules that govern how Scotland receives and manages its funding and these are set out in the UK Government’s Statement of Funding Policy and in the Fiscal Framework. The Fiscal Framework is an agreement between the Scottish and United Kingdom governments, which details how Scotland must manage its funding. This includes limits on borrowing powers and on the use of a reserve to transfer funding between financial years. The agreement also details the arrangements for the adjustments made to the Scottish block grant, to account for the devolution of certain tax and social security powers - these are called ‘Block Grant Adjustments’.
An updated Fiscal Framework was recently agreed by the Scottish and UK Government. Read more on the Fiscal Framework.
What the Scottish Budget funds
Ultimately the Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the people of Scotland for its use of public money. Each year, Scottish Ministers develop spending proposals ahead of the new financial year. These proposals are published and presented to the Scottish Parliament with draft legislation (the annual Budget Bill) for scrutiny and approval by the Parliament.
Devolution allows the Scottish Parliament to decide how much money to spend on different policy areas, including schools, hospitals, policing, certain social security benefits, the economy, climate change and the environment. Delivery in these areas involves a range of partners including local government, public bodies and the third sector. And to end it all what currency are you going to use, Sterling ? no FU, the Euro, they already told you to jog on.
If you want to be independent again why on earth do you want to join the EU? I can only think that it is because Scotland would become a net financial recipient, because there is hardly a better way to lose independence than join the EU lol
Did you know they are building a horse track on Bannochburn site? Some Americans have bought Sterling council and they are building gambling sites and hotel on our history. The petition was hidden from us.
Makes me angry, They should name and shame those Stirlingshire councilors.
hahahahaha, LMAO, lets face it you need the money when you finally become independent.
*Stirling
Stirling council (usually Labour) has done its very best to obliterate the Bannockburn site. Inthouht the funal insult was when they made the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn. - an attempt union by forcible conquest - into a huge BRITISH ARMY DAY celebration. So that anyone who wanted to go there to commemorate Bannockburn was magically transformed into a fan of the Queen and her army.
@@eh1702 I'm English and even I think this is outrageous. It should be illegal to rewrite history like this. Scots should be able to celebrate their victory. I am descended from Robert the Bruce's English cousins, so I had family fighting on both sides of the Scottish war of Independence.
No, this is one of the more sensible summaries of Scottish ancestry. The coming of the Beaker people is echoed in the Treaty of Arbroath which speaks of ancestors coming from Scythia (Ukraine), something which was scoffed at by scholars for centuries, but has now been proved by DNA studies. The only quibble I have is that the Battle of Bannockburn is mentioned at the start, as a contributer to the genetic pool, but then is not mentioned again. This was just click bait and unworthy of the subject. I had ancestors on both sides of the Scottish war of Independence.
Look up Robert sephers work.
Thank you.
Scottish Genetic Origins starring the Norman Robert de Brus
People always talk as if the single named (paternal) lineage is the whole genome. It ignores the fact that the first generation Normans usually married daughters and sisters of the English landowners that each of them replaced. (It worked really well: it was cheaper than marrying and importing a bride; and the surviving dispossessed English landed gentry knuckled under, presumably because their grandchildren would still inherit something. It left them some dignity as parents-in-law, I suppose.)
So there would probably be more Anglo-Saxon and native brit dna than Norman in the 4th generation Bruces. The mitochondrial dna is from Britain, but in the second generation, younger daughters, or the daughters of lesser nobles, could still make a catch of any more-noble native Englishmen who had kept a toehold.
The Normans themselves: some were full viking by blood - but what does that mean? By the time they went to take Normandy, the Lochlanach (Vikings) Whether Fin-gall/Norwegian or Dubh-gall/Danish, had a fair bit of Scottish and Irish mixture in them, not to mention a dash of Finn, Russian, Ukrainian and Saami. Other Normans conquerers were Viking+West Francian, some were Burgundian, and quite a lot (like those who became the Stewarts) were Bretons.
And who were the Bretons, boys and girls?
The Highland clearances cast a dark cloud. Though Ancestry DNA says I've got 12,000 cousins in Ontario Canada. Maybe their success there is the silver lining.
yes indeed , a separate episode on this is on my mind for some time, thanks for bringing this up ...
The True Scotsman at last!
welcome to the channel ...
The Picts were basically the same people as the Caledonians. The term was first used by the Romans in 297AD. IMO this was probably due to the Caledonains being the only northern tribes encountered by the Romans, who still painted or tattooed themselves. According to historians such as Tim Clarkson and archeologist Ewan Campbell (see his online pdf doc 'Were the Scots Irish') there was no invasion or mass migration of Gaels from Ireland. The Epidii tribe who lived in Argyleshire spoke the Gaelic because they were geographically isolated from the other Caledonian/Pictish tribes and found it much easier to interact with the Irish. There is no evidence of any invasion. Any genetic similary between the Epidii and the Irish was due to the Bell Beaker settlements of the Bronze Age and the later Norse settlements.
Think there was dual invasions between the two ?
You're correct. There was no Irish migration into Scotland around 500 AD. That was a later created myth. The only Irish influence in Dark Age Scotland was Christianity brought over by St Columbo, but Christianity was already established in southern and central Scotland before he arrived. Ewan Campbell's paper 'Were the Scots Irish' is one of the most important studies in early Scottish history.
@@ko0974 The Epidii did extended their kingdom of Dalriada on to northern Ireland and to much of the Hebrides. Scotlander545 is right enough about the Irish missionairies such as St Columbos. the conversion of the Caledonians/Picts was when the irish influence began along with the usage of Gaelic. This was around 563AD. BTW these Irish missionairies travelled far and wide. After converting the Picts they converted the Angles of Northumberland and went on missions to the Continent. They even went north to Orkneys, Shetlands, Faereo islands and Iceland during the Viking Age. There are even traces of Gaelic within the Icelandic and Faeroese languages.
@@billmclaurin6959 well Iceland first inhabitants were Irish monks ... Vikings later took Irish women with them to Iceland to start families and settle down, first to do so,and even today large numbers still have Irish ancestry ..We definitely made our mark !
@@billmclaurin6959 This stuff was invented innthe 19th century. when every change of governance, culture or language was assumed to be an invasion/population replacement.
It’s ridiculous to imagine a cultural or linguistic border any time before the Norman period as being the present national/political borders, the two main landmasses. The archeology contradicts that and, indeed, the cultural and linguistic border persisted *within* what’s now Scotland, not between Ireland and Scotland, well into modern times. It was annihilated only with great effort.
Dal Riata was an Ukster dynasty that displaced a dynasty further north and east (Am I mistaken, or wasn’t it said to have its roots there anyway?):
For sure, there probably was a massacre or two, but is no reason to think a change at the top caused any particular change of population, language or culture across Argyll and the islands. Change of management ≠ linguistic change.
In an age where the population was not literate, there’s no reason to think people changed their language to Gaelic because of some monks: they weren't that powerful. (The Columban church was after all thrown out by Nechtain, wasn’t it?) Unlike the British government, they didn’t get to collect weans all day in school and punish them for speaking their own language.
The sea LINKS the west and northern Scottish coasts and islands with the seanoard of old Irish province of Ulster, and further down Ireland’s east coast (and Man) it doesn’t divide them. It was all settled by the same people at the same time, in every prehistoric wave that we know of.
The pre-pottery neolithic, the builders of the different styles of huge tombs, and then the Beaker people - each wave of colonisers established itself around the whole area in just a generation or two. The matching tombs are contemporary.
The three men buried on Rathlin, between the Antrim and Kintyre coasts, are two generations of the same (then very newly mutated) R1b L21 lineage which the majority of Scottish and Irish men are descended from.
That single lineage! All of the evidence points to it being one culture-area since the mesolithic. Because boats.
The “rath” in Rathlin - it means a waystation or decision point, in effect a sea-roundabout where you would choose your exit for your destination: up the Argyll coast, or into the Clyde Coast, or the southern Hebrides, or the Antrim coast, or the Isle of Man. These guys were buried at the crossroads, so to speak - in the middle of their territory.
This whole idea of “Irish” vs “Scottish” language and culture is anachronistic. The practical physical barrier to getting around, before there were roads, was the middle of each island (Britain and Ireland). Getting from one side to the other overland, with each island, you had to walk and carry stuff, or use pack animals. Going from coast to coast you could do in a day - and carrying tons.
What do you know,if anything, about star forts in Scotland and worldwide?
Fort George would be a good place to start.
With Fort George, the clue is in the name.
@eh1702 correct...Statue of liberty is built on one too.
Also "Fort" is a clue cheeky, but where is "Star" in that name?
Fort George is shaped like a dragons head. George and the dragon?
Don't be a dick
Mainly Bell Beakers like the Irish
And indeed the English and Welsh. The GENETIC differences among the people of these islands are nothing like as great as many would like to believe. But Culture and Genetics are not at all the same thing. Culture evolves all the time and there can be fairly major changes within a few generations (eg the loss of languages, changes in dialect and religious observances) - but those changes “flow over the top” of a gene pool that changes only very gradually.
@@davidpaterson2309 What you say is true…yet… as it happens, the genetic evidence for Beakers and the large majority of Irish & Scots paternal lineages is pretty startling. In fact, not even “Beakers” as a group, but one single family.
Look at the R1b sub-subgroup of the three men buried on Rathlin Island off the Antrim coast, a few miles from the Kintyre coast. (They had food-vessels, the local development, rather than bell-shaped beakers, but it’s everything else Beaker.)
These guys are direct relatives a couple of generations apart and buried under, fittingly enough, what became a pub. Their L21 mutation was very new back then, possibly just a couple of generations older than the earliest guy. The more recent two show their own variations in that short time.
Around 70% of Scotsmen and even more Irishmen are direct descendants of that very lineage. Of those individuals or of their siblings or first cousins.
Of course, as you say, the autosomal differences around these islands is not that great, most of the female lineages are the same as has washed around the western fringe of Europe since the neolithic: but even those show some locally-hatched features.
Britain and Ireland show up as their own little distinctive set of clusters or gradients within/ fringeing the western European celtic-germanic (or celto-germanic) patch. There are half a dozen distinct groupings in Britain, the main distinction being between south-east England as a big cluster, and the others. Again, western Scotland (down into a bit of northern England) with Ulster, shows as one population, with other parts of both Ireland and Scotland having some other clusters.
The big southeast England cluster on the map actually looks kinda similar to maps of the Romano-British heartland and the later concentration of Anglo-Saxon settlement: a southwest-northwest sweep from about the Severn to the Humber. This general line is a geographic one as well - it broadly distinguishes soil types, vegetation (and farming) and even the breeding/non breeding geography of some bird species like goosander.
You could expect the same sort of big cluster for the same sort of reasons in previous colonising events, why not?
@ Thank you for your detailed description of the factual basis for what I only knew in principle. Without wishing to detract from that in any way, here’s an observation - Ireland, and only slightly less so, Scotland are simply further away from the source of most of the later migrations, which may sound trite but I’d suggest it might be the explanation for their populations being least affected by those migrations. Eg the “Belgae” were confined to SE England, the Saxons never made it very far north and west beyond that Severn-Humber line (there was an area of Anglian migration in SE Scotland when it was Northumbria), there was no Norman Conquest of Scotland etc. The most significant addition to both places was the Norse and again that’s just geography - they came from the north and Scotland and Ireland were closest, and even today the greatest concentration of Norse DNA is in the places closest to Norway. But I completely agree with your general observation - most of the people of the western edge of Europe are varying degrees of the same genetic “soup”.
Re the Severn-Humber line. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? There is a also a hypothesis that Fosse Way (as if someone had put a ruler on the map between the two rivers and drawn a line half way) was not only built on top of a pre-existing Celtic-British road, but was enhanced by some form of earthworks along its northwest facing edge (thus “Fosse”) and that it was either an interim “limes” of Rome, before it expanded further and/or defined the “core” Romano British area.
That would maybe also help to explain WHY that same area became most settled by Saxons, most quickly, following the withdrawal of the legions. The Romano-British probably had no military skills or leadership at all - which wasn’t unusual in civilian populations in the Roman Empire; they relied on the army to fight battles and the Empire didn’t like subject civilians having military weapons and training (asking for rebellion). So they were completely exposed, and everyone knew it - the incursions from all directions started very soon after the legions left and we know the Romano British pleaded, fruitlessly, for the legions to return.
@@davidpaterson2309 Cheers matey anytime
Yes, surprise, surprise Scotland shares the same DNA heritage as the rest of Britain. Who'd of thought!
Thank You.. SEAN DHONNCHAIDH
thanks for. your like and support ...
If Robert the Bruce was fighting for Independence. How come King Charles III is descended from him? 😉
Food for thought
Scottish are in the Bible
Where?
@@UncleWigz The Chapter on Jock Tamson’s Bairns, of course.
@@eh1702 Ah, yeah...right after the account of the Pictish apple pie war.
The WHG populations should've been shown with dark skin and blue eyes. The eastern farmer population that succeeded it originated in Anatolia and had olive skin. White people should only have been shown after the Beaker Culture originating in Ukraine and southern Russia succeeded them. Otherwise an enjoyable vid.
how people should be represented is an ongoing debate, thanks for the like ...
These videos are next to useless to us researchers who need to know the various haplogroups involved in specific time periods and locations. Y-DNA haplogroups preferred. Spend your time and money producing useful information, PLEASE!!!
A researcher is the person who works out the haplogroups. Or who digs up &/or analyses the archaeology. Or who works out the time periods and the locations from those materials. That is what research is.
*Reading* that research is …reading. It’s a very good thing to do. But learning about what people have discovered, actively engaging with it and forming an opinion on it is not what research is. It’s what criticism is, or education.
A researcher discovers and publishes new evidence; explains how it tends to firm up, flesh out, modify or throw into doubt present hypotheses; and presents their data and methods in such a way that their research can all be checked - and can be reproduced by anyone. It may or may not offer a new hypothesis.
You are asking in the wrongnplace for the information you want. For that, you’d have to read the actual research. That gets published in the relevant academic journals. Reading those is the absolute most basic beginning.
Access to the very most recent work can be expensive for an individual - but this is what public libraries are for. You can get free access to many journals (physical or online) through public libraries, especially big-city libraries. Some universities also offer independent scholars their library facilities - sometimes for a modest fee, the arrangements are up to them. If yiu ever graduated from a university, they will probabky grant you access, and many have reciprocal arrangements with each ither.
There are also online “open access” sites - or like JSTOR, partially open access - where you can find a lot of journal articles that are a couple of years old or more.
I read somewhere that the Picts crossed from todays Scandinavia over the Doggerland bridge 8000 years ago?
they are generally believed to have emerged as a distinct group in Scotland much later ..
No.