Merhabalar Üye Olmak İçin http://capkin-power.tr.gg/Forum/anmelden.htm adresindeki boş alanları doldurunuz sonra msn'nize mail gelicektir onu tıklıyıp aktive edebilirsiniz tşkler.

Well, after I have more or less gone through the soecnd part, the overall evaluation has improved somewhat. Actually I was quite annoyed by his interpretation of Celtic identity and pre/proto-history but the rest is ok. And even if we disagree in some interpretations of Celtic history, he may have clues I don't in some cases. I still think he's making a maximalist reading of anything Celtic and, for instance, does not understand the genesis of Iberian Celts, who became isolated from the continental (and British) ones c. 550 BCE, before La Te8ne. I also think that there is no reason for the clade not have travelled around before any Indo-European was spoken at the Rhin-Danub area. But Celts (and related peoples, like Italics, Illyrians) were a vector too surely. My criticism was specially towards researchers who are involved in commercial testing, that makes promises of finding personal ancestries that may be too obscure (for most people) and therefore are tempted to oversimplify and identify popular historical peoples, like Celts or Vikings (or characters like Chingis Khan) to make it more seductive. In that sense this paper falls somewhat into the publicity stunt. Anyhow, even with non-commercial research, I sometimes feel that the data and the conclussions are not always in full synchrony, that prejudices and agendas bias conclussions now and then or, more often, that the lack of prehistorical knowledge of geneticists makes their conclusions somewhat incosistent. It tends to improve anyhow.