Age of Warriors Celts 1 and II…
Daz 3D Forums > General > The Commons>Age of Warriors Celts 1 and II…
Age of Warriors Celts 1 and II gone for good?
Serene Night
Posts: 17,697
I see these sets are no longer in the store. Are they sold elsewhere or are they gone for good?
celt.JPG
512 x 656 - 96K
cel2.JPG
373 x 474 - 65K
Post edited by Serene Night on
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Oh man, those are great sets too!
I like historically accurate garb.
yes he was sad to lose his store as were many others, some have spoken on facebook where they can
i forgot about those as I have them on my wishlist but they were not a top priority unless i want to do Asterix & Obelisk. Maybe the PA will put them in the Renderosity store.
Well, Cents are not Gauls, although the period overlaps. And Powerage does have a Gaulish village in his store on Rendo. Or did.
https://www.daz3d.com/celtic-fionn-outfit-for-genesis-2-male-s
https://www.daz3d.com/celtic-maeve-outfit-for-genesis-2-female-s
are an alternative but I have all including the John Mailis stuff for M3
autofitted to G8M the Meshitup outfit on our right
I was taught Gauls were a tribe of Celts like Franks were a tribe of Germans. Thanks for the pointer to the Gaulish village, There is a authentic reconstructed Celtic village museum in County Wexford, another recontructed one on Lake Constance in Germany. They even showed a bit of how metal working was done as would have been needed to make the armour in the OP post images.
You are likely to be right. My early history education is extremely patchy. I know the Bretons are Celts.
The difference between Celtic and Gallic ethnicities
In considering the genetics of Western Europeans it should be understood that our concept of who the Celts were and are is very much based on speculation that has circulated among scholars and academicians since 1707 when Edward Lhuyd first hypothesized that the Irish, Scots, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and Bretons represented the descendants of the ancient tribes referred to as the "Keltoi" by the Greeks and the "Celtae" by the Romans, who learned of these people through the writings of early Classical explorers.
Unfortunately most archaeologists and anthropologists continue to perpetuate the mistaken notion that the Gallic tribes (Gauls) who later moved into the areas already occupied by the Celts were one and the same as the Celts themselves.
The actual Celts were a pre-Gallic population, the aboriginal inhabitants of Western Europe, descendants of the megalith builders whose many cromlechs (stone circles) and dolmens are found throughout the territory occupied by the indigenous Celtic people and later by the Gallic tribes who migrated into their area, introducing their Indo-European language and their Hallstatt/La Tene artwork and handicrafts to the areas already inhabited by the native Celts.
The Gallic tribes originated in Eastern Europe, in part of what was once known as Scythia, where the ancient Eastern European province of Galicia is located on both sides of the Polish-Ukraine border. While most of the Gallic tribes eventually migrated westward into what is now France as the Gauls, and parts of Spain as the Gallaeci (Galicians), eventually reaching Ireland and Britain as the Gaels; other Gallic tribes migrated eastward, settling in Anatolia in present-day Turkey, where they were known as the Galatians.
Oooh, I have both of those. Bought in January 2014.
Thanks, Chohole. Very informative.
One caution - I'd advise everyone that we are likely to have some fundamental paradigm shifts in our understanding of settlement patterns and migrations in late pre-history. Advances in underwater archaeology, remote sensing technology, and human genetics are very likely to challenge at least some of our current understandings - and we can't know which understandings will be challenged until the findings come in. Some people past and present like to live near the coast, even if only for part of the year. The coastline was different before 6,000 BCE. Therefore, many neolithic settlements are likely underwater. Now, we are starting to get a lot more information about these long submerged settlements. In some cases, it is making people rethink our understanding of prehistory.
One example - when did wheat cultivation start in Britain?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2015/03/03/ancient-wheat-uk/
Keep in mind that many of them might have started out over, then in, water. There have been a number of lakeshore discoveries of rock mounds that turned out to be foundations for a platform with a roundhouse on top. Think of a neolithic version of the Island Walkway Pontoon. None of them were very far offshore, assuming our estimates of shoreline changes are accurate. The ones I'm most familiar with have been found so far in Scottish sea lochs and Swiss lakes (that's where a reconstruction project built a fairly large one). They turned out to be such a good idea, and easily defended from unfriendly inhabitants of other waterside settlements, new ones were probably still being built not much more than a thousand years ago.
There are a lot of lochs in Scotland which have had Crannog on them.
http://www.crannog.co.uk/
That's it — that's the word I was trying to remember.
You complete lost me saying that Celts are not a part of the a superset of a culture that includes the Gallic tribes like I've always been taught. That's sort of a misnomer that Celtic are aboriginal to France, they came in as wave of migrants from the Eurasian steppes basically the same history that you gave for the Gallic tribes. According to the FTDNA that I paid to have testing done with in 2003 I'm 78% British Isles, 14% Eastern Europe, 5% Scandinavian, 2% Finn, and 1% East Middle East. That 78% British Isles you see would be the genetic legacy of the people that are not Celts and preceded the Celts and they were about a 50% - 50% mix of hunter-gatherers and farmers. They think that, after the ice sheets retreated and the lsles repopulated again, that the 50% - %50 mix of hunter-gathers and farmers came from the area of Basque Country, Spain and the Po Valley, Italy, There has been no speculation that I know of what language(s) was spoken but maybe one(s) related to Basque and Etruscan as non-Indo-European languages might be possible. The 5% Scadinavian & 2% Finn would be the Scandinavian migrants of 1000 years ago. The 14% Eastern Europe would be the Celts, a cultural superset that includes the Gallic tribes. The cultural superset of the Celts would be the Proto-Indoeuropean tribes and the 1% East Middle East work be indicative of the original founding of the proto-Indo-European cultures southeast of the Caspian Sea. Well,that there is where they now think that they originated using genetic samplying of modern people, archealogical digs, and mathematics and well as written histories and conjectores of the past such as you've sited. That though precedes Celtic, Gallic, Bulgar, and other P.I.E. tribes by a lot of time. Most longtime native people in western and central Europe have similar genetic histories although the percentages change.
How are you going to define 78% british Isles. Have you ever seen a definition of the genetic make up of an inhabitant of the British Isles. Do you know which area of Britain has the purest ancient briton genetic material. There was a study, done in the UK only 2 or 3 years ago, which went into an in depth examination of the genetics and DNA structure throughout the UK. It concluded that the UK was divided into 17 genetically distinct clusters of people. In ffact the so called "Celtic fringes" of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.
Jakob Johann Baron of Uexküll, biologist from the Baltics (1864-1944) is said to have stated: "Today's science is the error of tomorrow".
Some unknown source stated it differently "Science is only the current state of our errors"
As long as there is no machine build to travel in time, much of what we (think to) "know" about the past is just more or less educated guessing. A lot of trust is put into "written history", forgetting that history is a) usually written by the winners and b) these aren't immune to to concept of "lying to make one's actions look better"
There are many examples for that. Like the Donatio Constantini ad Silvestrem I papam from the 8th century, which is a forgery, pretending to be from the year 315 (or 317) a.D, upon which the catholic church acted as the ruler over rome, italy and the western part of the roman empire. And it was also early christianity, along with roman political enemies, who made Nero "fiddling while Rome burned", when in fact he was 30 km away when the fire started, but immediately made his way to Rome to supervise the firefighting and opening his gardens to the people fleeing from the fire. The Colloseum in Rome, standing were befroe had been Nero's vast personal area, is called this because of a colossal statue of Nero, that stood in front of it, but later got removed.
And not even scientists are immune to this --> Piltdown Man
Add to that the already enormous number of historical artifacts and genetical traces found at places where nobody would ever expect them - like a special type of battle slingshots, used by celtic (!) clans in spain and even nowadays on some mediterranean island, that are made and used exactly the same way by a group of people living in Peru, who also have a higher than for the region average percentage chance of having red-brownish hair andfair skin, supposedly due to mixing with european genes in precolumbian times or southasian gene traces in southamerican natives showing, that they maybe didn't come the northern way from siberia or that there were two different waves of people coming from there, a couple thousand years apart.. - which prove that the amount of facts we do not (yet) know about the history of the world is way larger than the real, hard, proven facts we do have.
As said above - lot's of educated guessing (and sometimes wishful thinking or cheating..) going on
Well why are you saying 'I define' when it is the genetic archeaologists that are defining all that and with a lot more scientific and archaelogic work and facts to back them up then the brief summary that the FTDNA folk gave to me as matching those modern and historical people that they have sampled at a high enough number to be statistically significant? We customers are funding a lot of the research and supllying most of the DNA but don't be fooled governments are pooring money into this as well via universities and other institutes use of these DNA databases and obtaining new DNA, archaelogical, and medical records.
Besides that, you neglect that I cited, unsourced, sorry, that the Isles were repopulated after the last ice by peoples out of predominantly Italy, Spain, and southern France before the arrival of Celtic peoples and culture. These people of pre-Celtic folk out of Italy, France, & Spain were not likely a homogeonous group themselves one would think or they'd all be either male or female clones of each other. So no to say someone is 100% Bristish Isles as if they were a perfect example of a British Isles person is a lack of understanding what it is that is being compared to reach that percentage. It conveys no nationality or rights of citizenship but instead is making use of geographic and historical facts to inform one of one's genetic inheritance in a more user friendly way than saying there ancestors lived within these geological quadrants bounded by these GPS coordinates. It is the nature of DNA to vary but it varies in differing ways in various localized and isolated cultures of people that are unique among the isolates but different between the different cultures of peoples in their isolation. And it is those blocks of DNA they have found nowhere natively but in the British Isles, as only one example, they have studies for local in Russia, Sweden, France, localities in African, Asia, ..., that they are using to come up with those statistical methods. In the past that was almost 100% dependant of myself and others that have taken such tests of creating accurate family trees. Well that's easy to say to create an accurate family tree but is much harder to do as government records are often wrong, people's bibles are often wrong, tax and land records are often wrong, church records are often wrong, we ourselves building the trees are often wrong, and so on, but most people build a family tree that is more than 90% correct . And now they are augmenting that work in a big way with more and more DNA samples from historical archaelogical digs to prove or disprove conjecture from those results with historical evidence. That is how they are measuring similarity or dissimilarity for the most part. They have extracted DNA from cheddar man, Irish bog men, and others all over the UK, France, Europe and increasingly worldwide. They aren't guessing but using statistical probability. Eg, if one has to buy a loosing lottery ticket to be considered from the British Isles and buying losing lottery tickets was unique only to people with a genetic legacy from the British Isles and that was the single criteria they used to say I was a match or not then I'd match British Isles 100%. They are doing that instead but with multiple blocks of DNA unique to the different cultures they are studying.
Genetic genealogy is becoming increaingly more precise in what they can figure out of the past as they gather more and more DNA samples and do comparitive mathematics and statistics. The DNA I donated has been analyzed again and again as databases with out DNA and they continue to discover new things using the same DNA data. It was used by genetic archealogists at a university to prove a genetic legacy as told in old Irish church historical documents was true and is being using to more accurately map the branching of those families than the original church documents themselves did, which often tending to be more political than actual historical truth. There is a very interestingly a technique called triangulation I used to prove that I descend from a historical couple whose male partner descended from Amerindians and this same technique was used to catch a criminal in California recently from a 32 year old & older cold cases.
So you see these scientific methods aren't the archaelogical, historical musings and chest puffing of the past with opinion on similarity and dissimilarity and more often than not, flat out guessing, but mathematic statements of genetic matching matched with 10s of 1000s, maybe 100s of 1000s of family trees and supplemented by an ever broader base of archaelogical DNA research. There is also plenty of carefully selected DNA from stable populatons of native folk from all over the world with no family trees are all except scant birth records and oral history, eg, they'd choose people born in isolated valleys in Canton Graubunden born before 1950 and other such isolated locales. They are much smarter at it than me, have much more money, and a much larger number of people researching these things than the musings of lone historians of past centuries.
Also, as maikdecker said even profession scientists and historians aren't immune to spinning something their way. Fact is my DNA says what is says and I can't lie about it. it's here and with me & defines who I am for as long as I live. It's like expecting to read the source code to DAZ Studio and then expecting it to be anything other than what it is, DAZ Studio.
All that said, while it will probably be a boon for health care in the future, and all these archaelogical DNA studies and reconstructive family branching of the DNA are interesting to see where the history books are generally correct or not, Asterix & Obelisk is still my prefered history of those times. And i have to admit the history books are more correct than I long thought but in a general non-exact way, like Hindi religion and old Greek religion have a lot in common.
So why have you picked on the British Isles We have always known that many of us are 100% mongrel, heck even the English language is a mongrel language, with references to many of the major groups who have decided to try and take over our poor little islands. I would love someone to try and decipher my son's DNA, given what I know about even just the last 4 or 5 generations.
Don't be to proud of your mongrel heritage, as that is something shared with many people from all parts of Europe (and therefor, america too, with all them european mongrels going there and intermixing even more with oneanother...
Just take Germany as an example... the first native population - to current knowledge - was... none. At least until that Homo Erectus made his way to the region.. then came the Neanderthals, not fully clear how, when and why, but they got some stable population for a couple hundredthousand years, before the first wave of refugees from africa arrived - Home Sapiens... Some mixing and outbreeding later, the Neanderthal was gone and Homo Sapiens got the next influx from some Homo Sapiens cousins from the southeast...
Then the real mixing began.. People from the north going south. Romans going north, then south again. More Northerners going south, with some near and far east-asian genes being introduced into the gene-pool through invading barbaric hordes. Rinse, repeat until the time of the 30-years war, where about every other country in europe send mercenary armies to fight, rape and pillage on german turf, giving another nice little massage to the gene pool.
French protestants going to germany to flee religous oppression.. german people settling in eastern europe, mixing genes, and being forcefully sent home again...
As it is now - 2018 - I guess it would be near to impossible to find some "true blooded german", with the first problem being how to define what that would mean. And that would be true for about every other country in europe, given the fact, that all those movements of population due to climatical changes, wars, barbaric hordes going here and there and people fleeing from them, along with the more peacefully genepool adjustments due to trade relations, people going somewhere else for personal reasons and.. and... and.. lead to a great remixing of the genes for most of them.
Probably the least mixed genes will be found in some extremely rural regions, where there has been little movement of people for elongated timelines. Which usually doesn't prove as a good thing, because sooner or later there are only more or less close relatives to breed with, what usually isn't the best way to go for any population.
In the end, most of the worlds population is mongrels of one kind or the other... It has been stated for a while, that the purest Homo Sapiens genes were supposed to be found in sub-saharan africa. Alas, even that theory is wobbling a bit, with new data seeming to show that there has been some influx of a different Homo (sub-)species into that sub-saharan genepool (like with the Neanderthal and Denisova people in Europe/Asia).
So in the end, we are all family. Which explains a lot about what is going on in the world.
Not proud of it, just stating it as a fact. Humanity came from a great big mixing pot, with it's roots in Africa we are now told. As pre-history goes it is actually not all that long ago that the The British Isles were not islands, but attached at both the north, south and east to the main continent, making it so much easier for the inhabitants of said continent to wander around, visit and intermingle. It is very easy to quote from this document, or that document, but lets face it - it is pre-history precisely because there were no written records. History began when humanity invented a written language. And that din't happen until after the great floods and tsunami that sundered the UK from mainland Europe at the end of the last ice age when the glaciers melted and valleys, swamps and low levels became The English Channel, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
As Chohole says, humanity has been around from more than 100,000 years. Britain has been separated from Europe for less than 9,000 years. People were wandering around.
But the science on all this is going to change very soon. The current amount of evidence gathered from above sea level sources is going to be dwarfed by underwater archaeology on continental shelves. Humans liked to live near coasts for part of the year if for no other reason than sea mammals have useful hides. Can't say how our understanding will change yet, but can say that we are digging up and examining stuff that has been submerged for 7,000 years.
Much of the Persian Gulf was above water, and inhabited by humans. Off the west coast of India is a huge continental shelf that was above water, and inhabited. The shore of the Black Sea, parts of the Western Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Irish Sea, all had periods after the last ice age in which they were inhabited, but are now below the waves.
You claim I have picked on the British Isles but I haven't as I haven't said a single solitary insulting thing about the British Isles in my post. I picked the British Isleas because almost 100% of my ancestry is from there and in fact, like or or not, that is where most of the research has been concentrating, most of the customers ancestry originate from there, and an overwhelming amount of historical movies and history books have been written about. I didn't write a single one of those books or make any of those movies so don't conflate their message with the factual information I stated regarding my genetic genalogy tests and those scientific researchers findings. I did though mention government, church, scientific, history, and even personal mistakes in the past that are constantly being corrected and improved upon using genetic archealogy and mathematics. Mongrels? It matters not if one is a mongrel or not. What choice did the child have in it? Or the parents involved in a forced marriage which was most of the time. Or the soldiers that were drafted? Or even two people that fell in love for no other reason than they fell in love? Why should Eskimos feel bad because people aren't flocking to their settlements? Sure ultimately they have genetic mixing too, they aren't completely isolated and they aren't clones but being who they are in isolation is more a choice that others have made and not a choice they have made.
If you want to know your son's genetic profile you should test for it. I find it very interesting, most don't though, and it can be very difficult and tedious work if you go beyond anything more than a generic history of your ancient ancestry as researched by modern day archaelogical geneticists; you know the Proto-Indoeuropean and other ancient cultural histories those scientists are still working on deciphering that those tests are revealing. Also, for the most part, regarding recent ancestry for about the past 500 years, those DNA tests are only useful is determining that well yes, my surnames are almost 100% English in my tree because that is where they where all from. If the surnames don't match the results of the ethnic percentages of the past 500 years than you have maybe an adoption from the early death of parents, much more common then and so many other valid reasons for such mismatches and yet those events rarely are recorded. Well now you have DNA evidence of that.. Proof those tests on occasion do reveal genealogy that paperwork will never reveal sometimes. As example, for my surname I went 15 years without a Y-DNA match except for 4 surnames that weren't my surname that researchers, amateur and scientific collaborating, were about to determine were due to non-paternal events that had occured in colonial North Carolina. Finally, this year someone with my surname matches my surname. Another example, I found out by a combination of genetic tests and historical research that the matrilinael linage of my mother came from Finland via New Sweden almost 400 years ago. One will never find a paper trail for that. A papertrail will never reveal that I had to have one place in my tree where a sub-Saharan ancestor joined in the tree, in the Americas, most likely with one of the descencants of the man from Ireland that was captured by allies of Cromwell and was exiled as a slave to the Barbados. Another example where papertrails aren't afforded the opportunity to be burned or recorded incorrectly is that I have multiple places where Amerinidians joined into my tree. I also learned via a person whose ancestors never left Great Britian that she triangulated her DNA match with me and what I thought where ridiculous stories of people tracing ancestry to the Plantagenets and William the Conqueror in the past are mostly true when she & I could only find one common place of an ancestral couple from before the English colonies in North America came about is where our written trees matched. Now though, I'm really at the limits though now of what I can identify correctly in my tree as they will be (mostly) no existing paper trail for those events. I've thought that in the past too though and yet the researchers invented new techniques that enabled me to find out those unusual things I found out.
What I like about all the DNA and also those census, church, tax, land and other records is - I wasn't there, I wasn't afforded the opportunity to do anything regarding any of the events surrounding that DNA or those recorded records and they say what they say and I can't lie about them and I can't be responsible for them either, having not been there. The other thing about that research I've like though is it reveals just how uninvolved almost 100% of my ancestry was in running anything more than the lives of their children and their kitchen. And that that is true for everybody, not just myself. Unfortunately I can't find any relevant cook books from food they would have gathered back in those days in the areas they lived despite it being the most pressing relevant need in there lives. That to me makes no sense. I guess like those old oral family history that are typically scoffed at as lies, folk tales, carpentry, and other day to day tasks that those food gatherings and cooking was all oral tradition too.
I was actually being facetious when I said I would love to see someone try decipering my sons DNA. As I said I know how complicated it is just in recent generations. My paternal side includes Scots, (a recent purer line from the highlands) Gael from the Irish invaders sometime back as well as assorted English and british lines including the fact that the line is a "bastard" line, as one of my great grandfathers was the younger son of an Earl (Great grnadma was a chambermaid). On the Maternal side we find Irish again and some welsh a little further back, welsh being where the purest "british" DNA is found. My first husband, who is the father of my sons, includes Italian as a recent import on the paternal side and Romany on the maternal side.
I haven't checked DNA or church records, but from oral history in my family and a couple of birth records my mother gathered (before there was an internet) most of my ancestors from my mother's and my father's side came from Upper Silesia and the regions around there.
I don't know much about my father's side, apart from him being born in Berlin in 1924 and his ancestors coming from further east than that. East-Prussia mayhaps.
My mother's great-great-grandfather was supposed to have gone from Upper Silesia (and somewhere around Gleiwitz/Gliwice) to the Rhineland in the 1850 or so, to work in the coal mines. His son, when serving his military duty, was stationed near/at Brunswick and decided to stay there. He met a girl whose ancestors had also come from the east and the result is me...
The names of some of these ancestors give a clue about their heritage. Like one having the family name "Krummdeutsch" (which translates into "Crooked German", allowing thoughts about his "not quite proper german heritage") and another one "Kaganovski" which points to the regions of Poland, Ukraine or Russia.
So, even without checking my genes, I can be quite sure that the "pure german" part would be relatively small, considering the amount of interaction of different genetic groups going on in the eastern and north-eastern regions of europe. Probably lots of slavic genes, mixed with a bit nordic and mayhaps some mongol horde thrown in for good measure. My father had very high cheek bones and black hair, which as he claimed, made it impossible for him to join the HJ due to him not looking aryan enough...
Digging deep enough in the genes would perhaps be interesting, though what would it change? Would it somehow change how I see myself? I guess not... This knowledge wouldn't make me better or worth, because I can only define me by the things I do or do not do and not by from where my ancestors came. They are all dead... most of them for quite a long time. And nothing they did or didn't do has much influence on me as a person or my view of the world and others living in it.
My ancestry is Swiss on mom’s side mostly and Scottish and Irish on my fathers side. The Swiss heritage has been traced as far back as we could to the town Ebersole which was my mom’s last name. Her genetic breakdown is something like “broadly Northern European” and also includes Norwegian Finnish, and German which the dna service is German/French. She has a recent British/Irish ancestor
I do have a fairly high amount of Neanderthal dna. I seem to have gotten more than either of my parents. I guess that’s where I get my allergies from.
My father’s ancestors were part of the clearances and he has a high percentage of Scottish Dna. His people were sold as indentured servants by londoners in the colonies and we’ve been here ever since.
I turned out with 40 percent British/Irish and the rest from various Germanic countries and broadly Northern European and like 4 percent Neanderthal.
I am very interested in Britain and ancient history and the studies of humanity and culture. I admire the British quite a bit and am quite an Anglophile...
I have always been interested in the Celts and Picts and pre-Roman times. I think because less is known and thus makes it more intriguing to me than more recent events.
I found your history interesting but then when I was a child I could practically recite every country on every continent by heart. I'm probably one of the few non-German / Czech / Poles that knows the general area of Silesia since childhood from self teaching from books I bought at Salvation Army shops for a quarter.
As far as changing your outlook on yourself well it shouldn't do that and that's the point. You never were or could be responsible for the past or present that you had no involment with. A lot of people, politicians and mass media ignore that very important fact though. More important though is I have, and it's most only snippets of data, investigated thousands of ancestors and non-ancestors in building my family tree and it is quite nice to learn about people that weren't in history books and for all the right reasons too.
However, if you have no interest there is nothing wrong with that either. I'm not one of these people that think people must be force-fed history to shame them into behaving in a civilized manner. That's what actually current law, parenting, and schooling is there for and no history is needed to do that effectively.
Sorry, I don't know what facetious is. I think it's like a 'wink and a nod' kind of joking to diffuse sensitive subject matter? OK, that's pretty interesting. I've read Shakespeare was actually Italian or maybe it was half Italian. I was surprised how small the replica of the Globe Theatre is when we visited.
I will guess and say profile of people with a lot of ancestors from colonial Pennsylvania. I bet some of them were Mennonites and/or Amish. I was as never interested in Cetic culture as I was in Roman culture although I did buy a 2000 year old gold Celtic stater from not too far north of Bath because Roman gold coins from that time were out of my price range.
You should watch Simon Shama's History of Britian DVDs. It is really concise and well done history.
I enjoy roman history a lot as well. Very interesting culture, and fascinating architecture. I love all the time team episodes featuring the romans.
Yes, Mom's side has Mennonites. A lot of them. Interesting tidbit, the Mennonites of my mother's family, always called their first sons Abraham. That made it easier to write up property deeds because every firstborn son was an Abraham so they never really rewrote anything. The property was always in the name of one Abraham or another.
I love watching history of Britain. I'm not as interested in the medieval period though. I sort of od' on medieval stuff, fairies and fantasy during my teen to twenties. I am saturated with knights and their ladies, due to an huge early fascination.
I also like the time team and Coast, although, they never seem to have enough ancient history... I like all the islands too.