Comments by "Iain Mc" (@iainmc9859) on "French DNA: What is the Genetic History of France?" video.

I know that the traditional reason given for Breton 'Celticness' is the Saxon advance westward through, what is now, England, but I think it is no coincidence that Brittany is the furthest peninsular from the Frankish advance through northern Gaul; however I'm still with Groundskeeper Willie's opinion on our Gallic cousins.
16
@thomaslacornette1282 I saw something recently that basically explained that you only really carry traces of your last ten generations of specific ancestors. After that its just generic haplogroups. Described as genetic 'rinsing'. Personally, as I've said, any 'absolutes' in terms of culture, genetics, nationality (I've avoided the word 'race' throughout) are just people seeking simplistic models to adhere to. We are a unknown mixture of antecedents ... and to fool yourself otherwise is not just intellectually futile but can be dangerous.
3
@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
@Ajemone We may have been fighting the long defeat for 2000 years but the tenacity of the Celt will endure. Anyone that has been to a Celtic music festival or has taken pride in their heritage will know that a spirit of independence endures; but that spirit does not and cannot exist in splendid isolation; it is an interactive part of a vibrant culture looking outwards across the globe. The Insular Celts do not fear the English, we've been slowly civilising them. These Germanic migrants have even come to call Britain home. We have endured, we will survive and we will flourish (there's advantages to being stubborn and proud)... but not by being inward looking. You'll tend to find the nationalist parties in Celtic countries being the most progressive and internationalist and not the least 'conservative'. There is no sense of needing a hegemony of 'celticness' in Scotland, Wales or Ireland ... although I'd be in favour of a loose unofficial confederation of nation states within Britain, rather than the political situation as it stands.
2
@Ajemone I'll keep voting for it until it happens.
2
I know the traditional reason given for Breton 'Celticness' is the advance of the Saxons westward through what is now England, but I think it is no coincidence that Brittany is the furthest peninsular from Frankish incursions into northern Gaul; however I'm still with Groundskeeper Willy's opinion on our Gallic cousins.
2
@hooverbaglegs I think you're equating Brythonic and British (Insular). Brythonic (P Celtic) and Goidelic (Q Celtic) are linguistic terms not geographically in origin. People who spoke P Celtic (Brythonic) may have had regional dialectical differences, like modern day Swiss German and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern German, but it would have been mutually intelligible, given a chance to get the 'ear in'. If you are saying that British P-Celtic came later than Gaulish then that wouldn't hold true as there is plenty of evidence that Celtic tribes moved from Gaul to Britain, the Belgae being the most obvious example, although the Veneti are perhaps a more appropriate one for the connection between Armorica and Dumnonia (Cornwall) without apparent linguistic difficulties. I'm not saying that any of these languages were fossilised or did not have dialectical differentiation over time or geography. Only that in any one time period they could make themselves understood by their peers, perhaps not immediately by a Brythonic Brigantian to an Anatolian Galatian, but with attunement as a 'lingua franca' as needed.
2
I've no doubt that some Dumnonians 'fled' to Brittany at the Saxon encroachments as there was always trade across that stretch of water, just as there has always been trade between the Isle of Man, Scotland and Ireland. The Brythonic form of Celtic unites the Breton's and Kernow just as Goidelic Celtic unites the Manx, Scots and Irish, although they are different in some grammar, spelling and syntax. I think my main point is that the Kernow were not moving to territory that did not have an already Brythonic speaking population. I'm sure many also found homes amongst their Cymric cousins as well.
1
@thomaslacornette1282 Nobody doubts that anybody who had trade with Rome reflected some latin culture, this of course went both ways as Rome was greatly influenced by different cultures it came into contact with. Neither does anyone question the role of the Scandinavian genetic diaspora across northern Europe. To state that the Kernow that left Britain for the Breton peninsular were only Celtic by 'culture' is patently incorrect. The language was Brythonic Celtic and even today, after over a thousand years of being incorporated into England, there are specifically 'Celtic' associated genes in many areas of Cornwall. You can still draw a genetic marker line across England from Bristol to Hull were north west of which there are less Anglo-Saxon genetic markers, although they speak English and self-identify as being English, the fact is there are more Celtic British genes in these areas than Germanic even after 1500 years of integration.
1
@thomaslacornette1282 I think we can agree that mass migration theories haven't been accepted for some time now, although the Yamnaya seem to give us reasons to look carefully at it again. So now we have to agree on what is 'Celtic' genetics. You appear to consider Hallstadt (Austria) is the definition of 'Celticness' genetically. I'm including, not just in terms of geography but also in terms of time, the descendants of Beaker people across North Western Europe, as well as including some that travelled southwards into the Balkans and eastwards into Anatolia. If you are holding to the Hallstadt only definition (Hallstadt D ending in 459 BCE approx) and thus excluding La Tene, then Roman Gaul wasn't Celtic either. Celtic isn't really defined purely by genetics, or purely by 'culture' or in terms of linguistics, or even timescale. I take your initial point that the people of Hallstadt (1200 - 459 BCE) do not share much of a genetic overlap with Brythonic or Goidelic speakers ... but I think your definition of 'Celtic' is much too narrow and most academics would describe Hallstadt as being proto-Celtic. The post-Roman people in Cornwall share many genetic overlaps with the people of Brittany as they had contact with their Brythonic cousins and some did travel there to avoid Saxon incursions into Dumnonia. If you don't accept them as being Celtic I respect your right to disagree.
1
@brunol-p_g8800 Yeah, I'd agree with you, largely ... sort of. It again comes down to what 'Celtic' is, ... cultural, artistic, linguistic, genetic. Those factor's do not move as a monobloc. Barry Cunliffe has a 'Celtic from the West' theory that is worth looking into. I take a rather earlier viewpoint that neolithic culture came down from the north and mixed with bronze age agriculturalism, Urnfield and later Beaker. Add the Yamnaya to this and you've got a dynamic mixture as the Bronze Age transmutes into the Iron Age. I wonder where we'd be if only those pesty Roman's hadn't have interfered 😁
1
@Ajemone Or maybe our sense of independence, even from our own Celtic cousins, is why we are still here and the Roman Empire is just a bunch of crumbling ruins; occasionally burlesqued by organisations that have a fondness for fasces in their symbolism.
1
@Ajemone I'm glad your relatives and region did not agree with fascist ideologies; although I didn't imply they did. My point is, and remains, that those with dreams of Empire intend to 'unify' people under their sway; something that Celts have never been known for. It is our very refusal to be unified that has for the past two and a half thousand years allowed us to be a vibrant and living culture, a mixture of language, art, music, genetics and geography; not merely a fallen Empire for the history books.
1
@hooverbaglegs Just to clarify your 'not really'; when the Merovingian Frankish King Clovis conquered the Romano-Gaulish territory of Soissons in 486 AD and then captured the towns of Blois and Nantes in 491 AD where do you think that those Gaulish (Brythonic) speaking people went to ? I've no doubt that many stayed put and just accepted a change in the aristocracy and slowly learnt a new language but I'm also sure many fled further west where there were already Brythonic speakers in Armorica/Brittany, some of which had fled Saxon incursions in Britain. Or are you just saying Gaulish is not Brythonic (P Celtic) ?
1