Comments by "Iain Mc" (@iainmc9859) on "Celtic History Decoded" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 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
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18.  @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
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1