Comments by "Iain Mc" (@iainmc9859) on "Celtic History Decoded"
channel.
-
96
-
35
-
25
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
13
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
General response to all previous responses from initial comment.
'Celtic', although I self-identify as a Celt myself, just isn't a term we can hammer down to one thing or another, is it linguistic (not entirely), is it cultural (not entirely), is it genetic (not entirely), is it time period specific (not entirely), is it geographic (not entirely). Do we exist ... well yeah, sort of ... or are we a classical author's misrepresentation of just 'not Greek or Roman'. It might explain why 'Celtic Art' often looks like an existential crisis; where did we start, where are we going, where are we now ... on your feet for 'Strip the Willow' and get the next round of drinks in ?
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I am not a Viking, I am not a viking, skol, I am not a viking, skol, I am not a skol, I am a skol, I am skol, I skol, I skol, skol, Skol, Skol, Skol, SKol, SKOL, SKOL, SKOL, SKOL !
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Although I'm a R1b, supposedly with some R1a via genealogy, I really hope there's some Western Hunter Gatherer still knocking about in there.
As to the theories:
Although logical, there isn't any greater evidence of WHG coming through the matriarchal DNA, as far as I know. So I'm not convinced of the 'kill all the men and take all the women' theory. I still think there's a larger underlying 'failure to reproduce' issue here; whether that is the WHGs were already teetering on the edge of extinction (like our Neanderthal cousins before them) or a viral pandemic carried by the Yamnaya that principally effected the WHGs, or a massive and immensely effective genocide.
The genocide theory seems too centralised and too based on a massive cultural investment of all Yamnaya in removing the 'natives'; although possible we're not finding mass war graves (as yet).
The 'technological superiority' theory doesn't hold in any way true as better technology always assimilates into earlier cultures after the shock of the new is absorbed, eg: the horse and the gun into Native American culture.
Lactose tolerance would also have been assimilated genetically by interbreeding (if people from the two cultures interbred, as did Homo Sapien and Neanderthal before) after a few generations, no surprise that our first herder ancestors developed lactose tolerance. Not convinced that WHGs all committed suicide by drinking milk either.
The jury is still out on this ... I'm edging closer to the 'plague' idea though, which might explain why we're not finding inhumations or cremations of WHGs. You die the survivors simply walk away from the body, no ceremony, just fear.
If anyone knows of any relatively up-to-date scientific/academic research relating to this mystery, that is publicly available (no space aliens or ancient Atlanteans, thank you) I'd be really interested to know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomaslacornette1282 As I said people in Britain, either in the Iron Age or now, don't share much genetic material with those in south central Europe, except for Indo-European, Middle Eastern Agriculturalist, Pastoralist, Urnfield, Beaker etc etc, that makes up the foundations of our pan-European haplogroups.
I think we are coming to an agreement that Celticness is a lot more than just being about a small gene pool, it is about language, art, music, social structures, laws ... and these days nationality. Neither is it bound by time or geography. As 'Celtic' is quite possibly an exonym, a generic Greek term for a European that doesn't speak a classical language, being part of the larger barbarian population, and as it also had a renaissance in usage in the Victorian period, I feel a strict definition is not only not possible but also not helpful.
Personally, I'm not convinced by tight definitions of 'Celticness' by historians, academics, genealogists or geneticists, although I respect their endeavours. It is and probably always has been a loose term for a disunified but recognisable culture. Maybe it is more readily understood in relation to what it isn't ... classical, germanic, scandinavian, slavic.
I'm a Celt (self-identified) ... not born in a 'Celtic' country, not speaking a 'Celtic' language, not living in the Iron Age ... but having a long ancestral history in Britain. A combination of all the immigrants that came to seek shelter in these far north-west european shores.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tolerance levels increase with greater exposure, even within the lifetime of an individual. Not just to foodstuffs but also to allergies, bacteria or viruses. So there can't be any surprise that those people that live in an environment well suited to the production of certain foodstuffs become tolerant of it, even at a genetic level, over a few generations. Evolution isn't a steady progression, its episodic, with sudden rushes and lulls. For example, Japanese people were genetically very unsuited to the high levels of salt in processed food that came with American 'culture' after WWll. This created quite a lot of severe ill health, soring levels of high blood pressure. Within two generations this has almost levelled out on a par with western tolerance levels. Another Japanese example, there are some women in Japan, generally older ladies, that catch (by hand) water snakes; a bite from which would kill a westerner within hours, not so these old ladies. You put a young Japanese woman from a city in the same work environment I suspect they'd be in intensive care within the week. Environmental tolerance adaption is a powerful human tool, genetics take a while to catch up.
The short version of the above is - survival is probably based on you adapting to the biome you live in, rather than your genetic make up. This, over time, is written into the genetics and probably not the other way round.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ezzovonachalm9815 So you have a definition of Celt solely from two classical writers. No definition of Druids, Civilisation or Houses and no effective timeline for your Hallstadt claims.
Personally, I'll just stick to Archeological, Linguistic, and Genetic evidence of there being a Northwest European culture, that developed from Indo-European speakers/settlers, spreading out from the northern rim of the Alps; which in some areas was called Gaulish, and developed a larger non-de-plume of 'Celtic' as linguistic similarities, as well as artistic ones, were noted in the C19th.
I don't think anyone is stating that 'Celticism' culturally, linguistically, artistically or genetically had a singular source point in the village of Hallstadt. I'm certainly not and I don't think any of the other commenter are specifically stating this either, therefore we are probably, on that point, in agreement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Muirs are quite disparate places, bushes, trees, ditches, bog, rocks and burns. Its really just uncultivated land. The National Trust for Scotland have control over part of the battlefield site, which is also a Conservation Area. Thankfully the NTfS have managed to resist attempts for planning permission for holiday parks on the site of the battlefield outwith the land they maintain. There's also the problem of controlling public access so that the site isn't damaged by visitor numbers.
They'll always be a compromise between, nature, history, safe public access and the local population. Personally I'm not a great fan of Visitor's Centers and consider them a blot on the landscape ( Including the Bannockburn and Callanish ones in that) but I'm probably in the minority on that issue, I guess coach loads of barely informed tourists need toilet stops and gift shops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelchampion3056 It doesn't take much of an internet search to prove my point. Here's a large cut and paste from the first site I came across, talking about post 1068 ... ''Soon afterwards most of Cornwall was granted to a Count Brian of Brittany, but he is an elusive figure and little is known about him; he fought at Hastings/Senlac Ridge and took part in the 1068 campaign, but subsequently forfeited his lands after he took part in a baronial rebellion against the King [William 1st] in 1075. Soon after his lands in Cornwall and Devon were bestowed on a much more important figure, Robert, Count of Mortain. The great Domesday Survey of 1086 shows Robert to have been the holder of 277 Cornish manors, valued at ยฃ424, which virtually represented the whole of the county apart from a further 18 royal and 44 ecclesiastical estates.'
As to specifically 'Cornish' DNA could you just reference your source and how this differs from southern Cymric DNA and or Breton DNA or DNA from any other Brythonic Celtic area.
I'm all for regional patriotism, and I'd never dare to say you are not what you 'feel' to be but that must also be tempered by a realistic view of cultural, linguistic, genetic and political variance over time.
You haven't answered who the 'Cornish' are that England would be giving Cornwall back to in 2024.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for the response. Unfortunately I missed your past tense; however you didn't clearly define the period you referred to, only mentioning tombstones and pottery evidence. You need to cite your sources to assert claims that Romanticism was simply 'Biblical fanatacism', although I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. (not that this is an exercise in the writing of footnotes). Neither do you define your source for linguists that do not defend the connection of insular P&Q Celtic to Gaulish and other transcontinental Celtic languages. It would also help if your named your 'number one textbook' on Celtic languages.
I take note of your endonymic evidence from western Iberia and southern France, which rather supports my initial comment on the site about 'self-identification' as Celtic, which I agree is largely the result of the Romanticist and Nationalist movements of the 19th century. To this extent we are arguing the same point.
I did use loosely the term Celto-Iberian (meaning the Celts in Iberia) but avoided using the word Celtiberians. It is worth pointing out there was no hard and fast borders between one tribal grouping and another. This was not done out of ignorance, as Celtiberian was a loose heading used in classical times and there is still no definitive agreed list of tribes or tribal borders that fall under the generic modern heading Celtiberian today (did Celtiberians self-define as Celtiberians, probably not); although I think the spirit of the phrase is the fluid mixing of Celtic peoples and the pre-Celtic Iberians. No hard and fast cultural, genetic, linguistic or artistic borders.
In conclusion, I think we are largely making the same point regarding the issue of self-identification issues in contrast to the problems of cultural labelling from outwith (classical sources in this case). Feel free to stick to Celts only coming from southern France and western Iberia. You will hopefully forgive me for erring on the side of a linguistic, artistic, genetic diaspora across Europe that went by different tribal names but had many cultural overlaps, who probably did not define themselves as Celtic, as a useful shorthand, until the 19th century. @jboss1073
1
-
Thank you for your prompt references. I shall certainly try to source them and read over them.
I largely think that we tend to agree in most matters (the modernity of self-identification) although we may differ in the overall cultural overview. Those people of southern France and western Iberia that used the word Celt on their pottery and tombstones didn't develop their culture in either geographical or historical isolation, but as a process of migration of Indo-Europeans that developed many distinct but related hybrid agricultural and pasturalist societies in the pre-classical age.
I do note that you originally said 19th century Romanticism sprung from Biblical fanatacism; which is rather different from Biblical Romanticism. Early 19th century Romanticism certainly did not develop out of a profound biblical or religious belief but out of a rejection, in general, of neo-classicism (artistic and literary) and the 'Ancien Regime', as well as a move towards democracy and universal suffrage. I do however totally accept that you probably meant that the political development of national creation myths came about at the same time as Romanticism; but don't let me put words in your mouth. We wouldn't agree on a strong Biblical fanaticism to these national creation myths, or the literary or artistic movements, although obviously people then as now made reference to the Bible as a cultural keystone of western society. If anything I'd probably say that Romanticism glorified nature itself and not its inferred maker.
Not quite on the same page is my own pet theory, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it, that the word celt is derived from what I believe is the ancient Phoenician word for a flat metal ingot about the size of a modern chessboard, generally in the shape of a cow hide, used in trade. I suspect that as, shall we call them Central Europeans, were some of the first iron workers that this may have a linguistic root connection. Let me clarify, I don't mean Celts and Pheonicians are genetically or culturally closely related, (the Celtic/Scythian/Pharaoh's daughter stories are absolutely just creation myths I'm sure) just that as 'Central Europeans' were one of the first proponents of iron smelting that the trade ingot and the people who worked it could be connected, although I haven't found any studies on the subject, and it simply could be a remarkable coincidence. @jboss1073
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to David Reich, DNA analysis has shown that Western Hunter Gatherers were typically dark skinned, dark haired, and blue eyed.[41] The dark skin was due to their Out-of-Africa origin (all Homo sapiens populations having had initially dark skin), while the blue eyes were the result of a variation in their OCA2 gene, which caused iris depigmentation.[42]
Archaeologist Graeme Warren has said that their skin color ranged from olive to black, and speculated that they may have had some regional variety of eye and hair colors.[43] This is strikingly different from the distantly related eastern hunter-gatherers (EHG)โwho have been suggested to be light-skinned, brown-eyed or blue eyed and dark-haired or light-haired.[44]
Two WHG skeletons with incomplete SNPs, La Braรฑa and Cheddar Man, are predicted to have had dark or dark to black skin, whereas two other WHG skeletons with complete SNPs, "Sven" and Loschbour man, are predicted to have had dark or intermediate-to-dark and intermediate skin, respectively.[45][26][b] Spanish biologist Carles Lalueza-Fox said the La Braรฑa-1 individual had dark skin, "although we cannot know the exact shade."[47]
According to a 2020 study, the arrival of Early European Farmers (EEFs) from western Anatolia from 8500 to 5000 years ago, along with Western Steppe Herders during the Bronze Age, caused a rapid evolution of European populations towards lighter skin and hair.[42] Admixture between hunter-gatherer and agriculturist populations was apparently occasional, but not extensive.[48]
Evolution of Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic phenotypes in Eurasia. Dark-skinned western hunter-gatherers resided in Western Europe, and expanded to some extent towards north and eastern Europe.[42]
Some authors have expressed caution regarding skin pigmentation reconstructions: Quillen et al. (2019) acknowledge studies that generally show that "lighter skin color was uncommon across much of Europe during the Mesolithic", including studies regarding the โdark or dark to blackโ predictions for the Cheddar Man, but warn that "reconstructions of Mesolithic and Neolithic pigmentation phenotype using loci common in modern populations should be interpreted with some caution, as it is possible that other as yet unexamined loci may have also influenced phenotype."[49]
Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana UniversityโPurdue University Indianapolis, who worked on Cheddar Man project, said that "we simply don't know his skin colour".[50] German biochemist Johannes Krause stated that we do not know whether the skin color of Western European hunter-gatherers was more similar to the skin color of people from present-day Central Africa or people from the Arab region. It is only certain that they did not carry any known mutation responsible for the light skin in subsequent populations of Europeans.[51]
A 2024 research into the genomic ancestry and social dynamics of the last hunter-gatherers of Atlantic France has stated that "phenotypically, we find some diversity during the Late Mesolithic in France", at which two of the WHG's sequenced in the study "likely had pale to intermediate skin pigmentation", but "most individuals carry the dark skin and blue eyes characteristic of WHGs" of the studied samples.[52]
Cut and Paste from Wikipedia ... although they probably chatted over computers and tested samples like Scientists rather than stood around shipboard water fountains and interjected with a lack of any professional knowledge and training !
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1