Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#11

Post by virgulino »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

The Romans built a wall (the Great Pict Wall) bisecting Britain because they were so afraid of the Picts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#12

Post by naikrovek »

alistairSH wrote: post #8
naikrovek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, I'm Scottish, but I was born in America, so shouldn't it also say American ? /s omission from the title does not mean that the unmentioned nation has zero Pictish ancestry.

The opening of the article explicitly lists “Scotland, Wales, North Ireland and Northumbria” despite leaving Northumbria (which resides mostly in northern England) out of the title.

ok. again, headlines omit details. that's a normal thing for a headline to do.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#13

Post by prottog »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #10
GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. > This has been true in all conquests. You lost it at the end there. Compare the United States. Some conquests are a small group installing themselves at the top of society. Others are a large group installing themselves at all levels.

I mean, all conquests are about the victors being at the top. What kind of conqueror would put themselves at the bottom?

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#15

Post by thaumasiotes »

prottog wrote: post #13
thaumasiotes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. > This has been true in all conquests. You lost it at the end there. Compare the United States. Some conquests are a small group installing themselves at the top of society. Others are a large group installing themselves at all levels.

I mean, all conquests are about the victors being at the top. What kind of conqueror would put themselves at the bottom?

The kind who's part of a group so large that all top positions are already filled.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#16

Post by consilient »

Kamq wrote: post #7
GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

> The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Romans had no problems killing off large swaths of the population. Depopulation was a tactic that was absolutely on the table. For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slave…

> For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves.

This is probably a misremembered quote from Plutarch:

> For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners.

The total population of Gaul was certainly higher - contemporary estimates range from 5 (assuming very high mobilization and highly exaggerated Roman numbers) to 20 (taking the highest ancient numbers at face value) million.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#17

Post by philwelch »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

> I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans…

…are a singular example. I can name a singular counterexample: the R1 Y-chromosome haplotype completely replaced the preexisting indigenous Y-chromosome haplotypes across Europe, indicating that the male population was replaced wholesale. In more recent history, North American and Australian populations were also predominantly replaced with settlers, as were parts of South America.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#18

Post by BirAdam »

Genetics are weird. I have received next to nothing from certain ancestors, and quite a bit from others as far as DNA testing is concerned. Likewise, in a lithograph of one I can see an ancestor who looks nearly identical to a half brother of mine. Shit is so weird.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#19

Post by ekianjo »

Kamq wrote: post #7
GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

> The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Romans had no problems killing off large swaths of the population. Depopulation was a tactic that was absolutely on the table. For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slave…

No, certainly not one third of the population in Gaul.

Re: Modern Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people found to have Pictish ancestry

#20

Post by slater »

Kamq wrote: post #7
GauntletWizard wrote: post #3

I think what's surprising to me is all the people who seem to think that the chief method of conquest is replacement, when it's long been established that it's indoctrination. The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. Their greater success though, was getting the people to want to be Roman. And who wouldn't want to be Roman when the…

> The Romans didn't kill off native peoples - they subjugated them, taxed them, and forced them to comply with some Roman norms. That's painting with a bit of a broad brush. The Romans had no problems killing off large swaths of the population. Depopulation was a tactic that was absolutely on the table. For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slave…

> For example, during the conquest of Gaul, ~1/3 of the population was killed and another ~1/3 were sold off as slaves. The tactics you're talking about were used on the remaining 1/3.

And that one small, pesky village of Gauls the Romans just could NOT conquer, try as they might.

Post reply on HN