![]() Have you been to Scotland? There's some cultural divide for sure e.g. There were Gaelic speakers moving there but not as many. But Edinburgh's immigrants largely came from the non-Gaelic Eastern Highlands around Aberdeen. It's not a simple matter of highlands vs lowlands because of the mass migrations from the Highlands in the time of the Clearances. ![]() ![]() My presumption is that the most noticeable genetic difference in the country would be between Edinburgh and the Hebrides. There is no way to represent the genetic boundaries in a single map, it's infinitely shaded and mixed. One big reason language and genetics don't move together is because you always need a single mother tongue, but genes mix freely without borders. I'd recommend keeping cultural and genetic questions separate for this reason. Gaelic became the dominant language but there is no evidence of any Pict genocide. The language went further than that as the Gaelic Kingdoms expanded and replaced the Pict Kingdoms. I don't know to what degree but it was presumably a real genetic change in those areas. They settled in the Hebrides, Inverness, etc. It was closer to the reverse process a millennia ago when the Gaels arrived from Ireland. In this case it is just people gradually adopting Scots as it was the language of the politically dominant Lowlands. This sort of language change is usually not accompanied by genetic change. The current language map with Scots running right up to the Hebrides is very unlike the map of seven centuries ago when Gaelic predominated and had a foothold in the lowlands. I recommend reading into the history of Scots and Gaelic. Take note, ethnicity isn't always defined around shared genes. The language difference is a difference in ethnicity, nothing creates ethnic identities as readily as language does. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. Instructions and advice on how to best do an AMA.įrom Wikipedia on the Anglo Saxon settlement of Britain: Want to do an AMA or know someone who does? Message the mods! Comments should be on-topic and contribute.ĭiscussions are limited to events over 20 years ago.If a post breaks one of our rules or guidelines you will be informed about it. So it is perfectly normally for your post to not show up in the new listing. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is!Īll posts will be reviewed by a human moderator first before they become visible to all subscribers on the subreddit. r/History is a place for discussions about history. Join the r/history Discord server to chat with other history enthusiast!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |