Youtube comments of Iain Mc (@iainmc9859).
-
29
-
28
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Totally with you on the generics, petticoats, chemises, underclothes in general if the outer garment covers them up can all be re-used (It depends here if you're wearing things for your own satisfaction or for the public eye). A wide brimmed straw or felt hat can often be manipulated into several shapes and accessorized to period. Stomachers can also be re-used on different gowns as well. Older people tend to wear the fashion from the generation before, certain professions, eg. doctors, clerics, have an almost institutional conservatism in dress.
I have an 18th century greatcoat with a wide 19th century collar, as the wide collar balances out stylistically the turnback cuffs I don't really care that its an anachronism, it keeps the wind off the back of my neck and can be topped off by either a tricorn or a bicorn.
The point you make about practical working people's clothing is spot on, fashion changes for those that can afford it.
I guess the general point, as you stated, is not everything has to be up to date, whatever that date happens to be.
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Raising a military socio-economic point, the Roman army may have been able to win victories in Wales and set up some well garrisoned 'civic' centers on the good farm land of the east, they may have been able to extract taxes or possibly even tribute from local tribes but that money went back out of the door in paying off tribal leaders not to raid into what land had been 'civilised'. The Romans never felt safe enough there to supplant the local rulers and the local chieftains did not Romanise their tribes. There is not one single villa in present Wales.
As for Scotland it was always beyond the effective reach of Roman 'civilisation', being the vanity project of several Roman emperors. The Romans could march an army in, the tribes would make way and hit Roman supply lines. Watch towers and forts were set up to defend supply lines, then defensive walls, none of which Rome could hold militarily over the medium to long term; never mind setting up civic centers. Much higher bribes went out to local chieftains than could be raised in any form of taxed economy. A drain on military and financial resources. A good analogy would be Afghanistan, hilly, tribal and liable to erupt into revolt at any moment.
And of course the only literary evidence of military victories came from whom ... Romans, not biased at all of course. Case in point Mons Graupius .... Yeah, Rome wins another brilliant military victory ... now lets retreat smartish before the Emperor has me executed for this fiasco, besides these bloody midges are eating me alive !
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
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ye see yon birkie ca’d a lord,
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that,
Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
His ribband, star, an’ a’ that,
The man o’ independent mind,
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.
I loved how Midge Ure sang this at the opening of our Parliament one year, looking directly at the Queen and Prince Phillip.
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
-
@nostalji93 I accept you apology regarding being rude and dismissive, lets move on.
I don't understand why you were so defensive as I only responded to your initial comment to Sandy as I found Sandy's comment genuine and open, where I found your comment combative and dismissive to his whole world view. My 'quick assumption' was that you were looking for a response to oppose, you just got it off me not Sandy. I don't think that was 'bad faith' as it was borne out by subsequent responses; I doubt that a young fundamentalist would have either the confidence or dialectic background to wade into that discussion, as your summing up of the OT as 'horrible' would probably have put him off, as may have your jumping from gender specific pro-noun to another. Sandy's avatar icon is ostensibly male, he spells his name the male way, and as a Christian Fundamentalist I'm presuming he may be disinclined to be gender neutral; if unsure its acceptable to describe someone as 'they' when referring to them in the third person, (it might be worth noting here I'd probably not agree with much of Sandy's 'fundamentalist' viewpoint; its worth also noting his concept of ;fundamentalism' may not be either yours or mine) and I appreciate that you wanted a discussion coming from someone of a different religious viewpoint - which I didn't give you.
I don't think that dismissing the whole of the Old Testament as 'horrible' is justified. There are elements of both the Old and New Testaments that I would describe as 'dubious' in the modern timeframe but as the Bible is an anthology of so many different authors over a long period of time, not to mention multiple translations, from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin then English, then it is not surprising there are different viewpoints within it; different Christian denominations also have their own preferred editions. There were also several Councils in the early Church to decide what was Canonical and what to simply leave out, which isn't agreed upon by all denominations, particularly the western and Orthodox churches.
In reference to my original phrasing and re-phrasing using 'background' 'perspective' and 'viewpoint' ; all I was trying to say was that Sandy was making it clear he was aware he was subjective ... I was less sure from your initial comment to him you were aware of your own subjectivity, and it took a few responses for you to say so. I just kept responding until you stated it.
There was no 'virtue signaling' or religious/faith viewpoint expressed throughout any of my responses (except included, in passing, in this response). I was genuine in saying I'm neutral on such things (also taking into account my own background/subjectivity). There was no constructive criticism offered as you didn't appear to have any defined stated viewpoint on any matter of religious theology (or statistics); your comments appeared to be merely aimed at myself for querying you.
Although I can swear like a trooper, there's a time and place. Responding to a stranger online, even one that you perceive as annoying, with you immediately telling them their saying BS doesn't come across well.
If you feel I have contradicted myself or become incoherent in any way I'd be willing to try to clarify my meaning, the same goes for any direct questions you think I've dodged. I too found it difficult to follow your narrative/meaning at times. They do say that America and Britain are two countries separated by the same language, I'm assuming you are American as you called me 'Dude'.
1
-
1
-
@nostalji93 There's no 'one size fits all' way of dealing with understanding other people's perspectives on life. There's another old English phrase, you've got two ears but only one mouth for a reason, in other words listen twice as much as you say. Education isn't everything, having a true and honest spirit, mixed with a little humility is more important.
I probably spent more time studying the Wars of Religion (Thirty Years War) than anything else and how politics took over from religious conviction. I can't say that anybody comes out of the 15/16th century looking particularly gallant or saintly, Erasmus probably came closest to being moderate in his words and actions. Its fine having strong convictions but when you start killing people over it you need to take a step back, not that I'm a pacifist either, I definitely don't have the courage to be a martyr of any sort.
I've got no idea if Sandy would have been offended ... I know him less than I know you. If it particularly bothers you I'd put a singular comment in in response to him directly just stating you intended no malice and leave it at that.
Find your own path, tread carefully, trust your instincts, we can learn from each other but we may come to different conclusions, don't be weighed down by regrets, start each day afresh ...
Nobody can teach you more than you can find out for yourself, and don't spend your life listening to stupid old men who haven't got their own shit together either 😁
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sounds a lot like WASP well-heeled, monocultural, un-empirical, anecdotal, sour grapes to me.
I'm white, English, male, middle-aged and never felt threatened by the diverse society around me. What are being claimed as being British and Christian (both of which I am) values are not any more unique to Britain or Christianity than they are to any other state or religion. People the world over are good, bad or indifferent. You're not racist to believe in the 'uniqueness' of our culture (your concept of what 'our' culture is may not be mine) but it does tend to lead to 'us and them' ism, that implicitly becomes dangerous to those you perceive as being 'other' if you use it to justify treating them as being different or lesser.
There are no 'holy cows', and everything should be questioned; including how Britain relates to the world, past, present and future. That isn't 'revisionism', its historical research. Neither is it a religion, there is no coda or set path to enlightenment. We have always presented an image of history that reflects ourselves in the present time, however questioning perceptions of the past is a necessity for each generation. Simply accepting them at face value is neither healthy nor intellectually valid. The past is not sacrosanct, neither is any historical figure. Ignoring information because you don't like what you see doesn't make it any less true; although you are always filtering this information through the veil of your own experiences, values and the age in which you live. As you get older your value sets change and so do societies.
Although, ostensibly, Mr Fox and I may look and sound alike he does not speak for me and doesn't represent my perception of white, English, male, middle-aged culture. I'm afraid it looks more like he is seriously concerned that there is less deference given to the received wisdom of the leaders of society; even though, by enlarge, they remain in charge. He speaks loudly of the need to query and debate the status quo but I fear his 'party' will attract precisely those that will tenaciously resist any attempt to compromise the status quo of their own opinions. There is the seed of his 'silent majorities' downfall.
I defend his right to speak as he finds but I still perceive that he speaks in defense of unrepresentative 'privilege', white or otherwise, as does Mr Anderson.
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 £424, 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
-
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
-
There are borers in marine environments that make exactly those type of holes in molluscs, moon snails and dog whelks are the obvious candidates, however that's hundreds of miles from the site. Some freshwater fish are also raspers, but they generally eat algae. You've also got the perennial possibility of water action, either dripping or flowing around a static shell with grains of sand caught in it.
Personally I'd be more likely to go with a snail smart enough to know there was food inside a washed up shell. How did all the other shells get there if it wasn't a midden, presumably some natural event ?
You've an interesting hypothesis that 'Humans aren't the only people that can break rocks', I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, Yes humans are the only 'people' that can break rocks, presuming that our other primate relatives, chimps, bonobos, past and present, don't quite count as people, or crows, or clumsy elephants, or earthquakes etc etc 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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)—who 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 Braña 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 Braña-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 “dark or dark to black” 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 University–Purdue 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1