From: Neil McEwan <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Blood -- on the list and on the ground <grin>
>At 10:29 AM 5/15/99 -0500, Mike Hayman wrote:
>>Do you do this by clothing? Frankly I can't tell a Celt from a Deutscher,
>>Dutchman, most Frenchmen , English or a Scandanavian. My point is that
>>"Celtic" bloodlines have been mishmashed completely with Northern European
>>stock since AD 700 that there is no longer any distinct physical
>>characteristics that appear uniquely to any one ethnic group.
> There are no characteristics that appear *uniquely* but there are
>characteristics that appear *predominantly*.
Granted, but saying this doesn't give us any ability to say that Mr.
Jimison's physical traits are due to Celts versus Saxon genetic dominance.
Both of the groups in the last 6 or so generations have been pretty well
mixed up for over 13 centuries or more, all thus far espoused enclaves
being well after the great migrations of the dark ages. Those Scots came to
Scotland via Ireland in the Dark ages, absorbed local Picts and Caledonians,
plus a Belgae and Brigante or Two, must not forget the Romans, Norwegians
and Swedes, a couple of Danes, Angles and Saxons. Are they Celts now? Just
what did the original Celts look like to which you can trace the
preponderance of physical appearance from? The Tuatha de Danaan were
supposed to be blonde, yes? Cuchullen was dark? I would even say that your
predominant trait might be visible in modern geography but I doubt that you
could map it back to some particular sword carrying raiders bent on rape of
the locals when it occurred. Even if we could, would we want to?