Comments by "Jack Mac" (@TheEggmaniac) on "Celtic History Decoded" channel.

@АнтонПавлов-ц4з Arizona is ancient name given to the state by the original native Americans, it comes from 'alĭ ṣonak,' meaning 'small spring.' Arawa is ancient place in New Zealand meaning place of canoes. They both start with 'Ar' but obviously have nothing to do with Aryan. I mean you need to have more than a few letters in name, to prove its got anything to do with Aryan.
1
@АнтонПавлов-ц4з There is no definite evidence that the original source of the swastika was with any people called Arian. Just about every where was conquered by someone. Just because a name has few letters in common with a place, is not proof enough of any connection. I dont know what youre banging on about.
1
@АнтонПавлов-ц4з Ok answer to your question, it would be the country youre living in. If you were British or American, and you lived in France, then your country would be France. Perhaps you mean what is youre home country, or what country would you be from? People with British or American citizenship and passports, can live in countries other than Britain or America. Youre not really making much sense. Why dont you get to your point dude? if you have one. So far you have said there is place called Aria, in Greece. Which I think you assume is called that, because it was formed by Aryans. Though you show no evidence of this. Also you have mentioned the Aryans used a swastika symbol. Though not sure what the relevance of this is, as other cultures have used it too, including the Nazis.
1
@АнтонПавлов-ц4з Hey bud I really dont know what point youre trying to make. I was just trying summarise what you had posted. I didnt say Aria had anything to do with the Greeks or Nazis. But youre not really making any sense.
1
Ive been there, and you can see how its a perfect defensive position. Surrounded by the sea on 3 sides with steep high cliffs. The only other way to reach it is a path, which takes you down into a deep valley, and then up to a small gateway. The top of this enclosed promontory, is flat and and could encompass several large buildings. Including a bakery, It had a well of fresh water, stables and other building apart from the castle itself. A perfect fortress built to survive long sieges. Which it did. Its an amazing place.
1
@hardywatkins7737 Eh? I didnt say that in my comments? I think the video presenter put this forward as a theory. Perhaps you meant to comment directly on his video?
1
@hardywatkins7737 No worries bud. I think your point was very valid. I would like to hear more about where the idea of the Celtic language/ culture coming from Eastern Seaboard or British Isles. From Barry Cunliffe's theory. If thats what you mean.
1
@hardywatkins7737 I dont think anyone can say with any confidence what language stone age Britons or Irish people spoke. They may have spoken languages similar to those at the time, spoken on the European continent. But I think its quite possible they spoken a non Indo European language. Due to their remoteness. As do the Basques of Spain, speak a language based on a non Indo European language.
1
Just about everyone in Western Europe are descended from the Yamnaya people who originally came from the Russian steppe, 5-6000 years ago. R1b if the most common male haplogroup in Western European countries, including Spain and Portugal. So that doesnt prove the Scottish and Irish are descended from the Scythians.
1
@jackbirdie Im not parroting anyone. I think you have misunderstood what I said. I do actually believe that Gaels and Scots came from Iberia originally, but I dont believe the came Gaels or Scots came from Scythia. This is all myth. Having R1b as a male haplogroup doesnt prove that anyone came from Scythia. Of course somewhere way back in time people moved from what is today called the West Eurasian Steppe into the west of Europe. There were lots of migrations of people along this route. So you could say people in Scotland with R1b haplogroup, are very distantly related to people who originally came out of this region. But it doesnt mean people in Scotland are directly related to Scythian people. Thats what this whole video is about. The declaration of Arbroath states that Scottish Kings can be traced back through lines of Scythian kings. This was written to try an impress the pope, and show that Scots were a long descended independent kingdom. So worthy of being recognised as an independent kingdom. As though they needed that anyway. There is no DNA evidence from any bodies of time connecting early Scots ( including Picts ) with the people who were from Scythia. Apart than they may have a male haplogroup R1b, which only makes up a tiny part of persons DNA. I think you need to do some more research.
1
@vladimpaler4689 'We' is it? So you are now speaking for everyone who has R1b as a haplogroup. That doesnt mean you speak for all Scottish people. Im Scottish and of my family goes way back, and Ive had my DNA tested and my haplogroup is not R1b. Not all Scottish people have R1b male haplogroup. Why do you seem to think that people with R1b haplogroup are all part of some homogenous group or race. Its just a male haplogroup that many people in parts of the World , particularly Western Europe, have in common. They could be completely unrelated and of different race and still be R1b. You could find lots of males in parts Africa, where there was previous European colonisation, who have the R1b haplogroup, because generations ago their great great great etc grandfather was European and was R1b. They will still be R1b, but the 99.8% of the rest of their DNA could be African. How does being R1b mean that you are descended from Scythians? Obviously back thousands of years in Western Eurasia there were common ancestors who were R1b and spread out into Western Europe, and elsewhere. But its doesnt prove any direct lineage to Scythians
1
Yes this whole idea of Scots or even Irish being descended from ancient Scythians is very tenuous. I read comments here that say Scots are predominately Male haplogroup R1b., as though that is some kind of proof. But so are they vast majority of men of Western Europe, including Spain and Portugal. The area the Scythians came from are not R1b now. Beside from that, there is not any genetic evidence of Scots and Irish are descended from Scythians. It just seems a myth that has perpetuated.
1
@emmanuelgoldspleen2905 Everyone in Western Europe is partly descended from people who came from the Yamnaya people, who migrated originally from Pontic-Caspian Steppe about 5000 or more years ago. So yes I agree. It doesnt make the Scots some direct descendants of the Scythians or their kings.
1
A lot of effort by the Romans to build the Antonine Wall, it took 12 years to complete. But it was abandoned after only 8 years and the Romans fell back to Hadrians Wall. I would be quite exasperated, if I had been involved in building it, and then had to leave after 8 years.
1
Samhain has always been celebrated around the same time 31st October/ 1st November, as it marks the start of Winter. It is about halfway between the autumnal equinox and winter solstice.
1
Yes that would seem to make sense, though Edinburgh or Dunedin (Dùn Èideann), as it was known, would still have been part of the Hen Ogled, under the control of the Brythonic speaking Gododdin, until conquered by the Angles in 638. The name, 'Arthurs seat.' possibly comes from a Anglised version of the Gaelic Àrd-thir Suidhe. meaning the place on the high ground or Àrd-na-Saidr, meaning as 'high as you could shoot an arrow.' So maybe its name had nothing to do with King Arthur.
1
@andrewheaney6858 I believe a Brythonic king called Arthur, or name very similar existed too. I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I was saying that name Arthurs Seat, might be a later English mispronunciation of the older Gaelic name Àrd-na-Saidr, meaning as 'high as you could shoot an arrow.' And have nothing to do with king Arthur at all.
1
@andrewheaney6858 Yeah Tintagel Castle definitely seems the most likely place King Arthur inhabited. Though many places in Britain seem to claim he came from their area. He could be an amalgamation of stories of Brythonic kings that resisted Anglo- Saxon invasion. or just one person whos exact origins are lost in history.
1
@Descroix Yes youre right, having I1 haplogroup doesnt necessarily mean you have viking origins. Just that one of your male ancestors probably came from Scandinavia. That could be a very long time ago and many many generations back. Not all Scandinavians in the past were vikings. A lot of them were farmers, fisher people, herders and had all manner of occupations. People seem to greatly generalise that having the I1 haplogroup definitely means you are descended from vikings. I1 haplogroup is found to the greatest extent in Scandinavian countries. Today more than 35 % of men on average, have it there. The further you move away from Scandinavia the more its decreases in occurrence. In Britain and Ireland its varies, around 11% of the male population. When you get to the south of Italy its about 1%.
1
Although it is has been found that some Neanderthals had red hair. Modern humans who have red didnt inherit that gene from them. The red hair genes of modern humans have evolved separately. The mutations for red hair in humans are not the same as the ones found in the fully sequenced genomes from Neanderthals. Sorry to disappoint you. Its a bit of an urban myth.
1
@whitemale6227 ?
1
@whitemale6227 ? Red hair evolved in modern humans, independently of neanderthals some where around 30 to 70 thousands years ago. Yeah thats in the past.
1
No the Scottish slaves Haki and Hekja ,on Leif Eriksons voyage were definitely Scots from Scotland. Its recorded they were originally taken from Stronsay, which is part of the Orkney Islands of the north of Scotland. Those islands were never controlled by the Gaels, who had originally come from Ireland. .Those islands had previously been Pictish and then conquered by the Vikings.
1
@NewDimensions2025 That is a common myth. The so called 'black Irish,' are more likely descended from isolated Celtic people, from the west coast of Ireland that have inherited their darker complexions and hair, from waves of people who moved up the Atlantic coast into Ireland over 2000 or 3000 years ago. It could even be pre Celtic. They have lived in general isolation from other influxes of people.There was recent genetic study that showed the were almost zero numbers of people in Ireland today descended from survivors of the Spanish Armada of 1588. Any survivors of the Spanish ships that were wrecked at that time, were usually either killed by the local Irish ( it was under control by England at the time ) or handed over as prisoners, once they had been robbed of anything valuable.
1
@nvanguy6868 Is that all youve got in response?
1
@emmanuelgoldspleen2905 Yes I agree, that is pretty much what I was saying in my comment.
1
There are theories on why blue eyes developed in humans. Bu there has been no scientifically proven reasons. I think one of the most likely theories is it was seen as attractive in partners. So it was passed on by selective mating with partners who had blue eyes. I dont there is any actual evidence of a blue eyes having greater sight, in areas with lower levels of light. Though they may have more sensitivity to light. Not always a good thing. Lighter skin definitely gives someone advantages at higher latitudes with less light. It make them more sensitive to light and more able to produce vitamin D with lower levels of light. The explanation for Inuit not having pale skin colour, is because they have a diet which has traditionally included a lot of seafood and sea mammals that are high in vitamin D. So they dont need to have lighter skin to be able to to absorb vitamin D more efficiently than darker skin tones. However eye colour is not connected to skin tone. More likely the ethnic group the Inuit descended from, never had the genes for blue eyes in it.
1
@mr.purple1779 Other western hunter gatherers of that time are known to have blue eyes too. Though you cant say all of them did, as we only have a few specimens from different parts of Europe. Perhaps the majority had brown eyes.
1
@mr.purple1779 The hunter gatherers of Europe and Britain, of the Mesolithic period were not farmers, and not related to the first farmers, who arrived much later in Britain , about 5000 BCE. The farming people who arrived about 5000 BCE are know to have had brown or darker eyes, and lighter skin. All the examples of early hunter gatherer bodies found in Western Europe from this early period, around 9000 to 6000 BCE, have been found to have the genes for blue eyes. But these hunter gatherers, in Britain, almost completely died out or were replaced by the incoming farmers from the continent of Europe about 5000 BCE.
1
@vladimpaler4689 haha how do you know that, have you not seen scientific reports? He had a skin colour which you wouldnt describe as white these days. How dark it was is still debated.
1
@vladimpaler4689 Strangely all the scientific experts disagree with you.
1
@vladimpaler4689 That is actually quite laughable. So you think white humans are not same species, called homo sapien sapiens, as other humans like people of African or Asian descent? Wow I dont think any scientist in the world would agree with you. Not sure where youre getting your conspiracy theories from.
1