0
I have somewhat of an obsession with the Celts. Recently, because of the works of some geneticists, some have postulated that the Celtic ethnogenesis happened in Spain. Others keep with the traditional idea that the ethnogenesis happened in Central Europe, specifically Southern German/Austria.
Here are outlines of the two basic theories, keep in mind I'm no expert:
1) Central Europe ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Celts are descendants of the Kurgan culture from Southern Russia. They slowly invaded Europe, conquering and then mingling with Bell Beaker peoples, and adapting to their new surroundings. This settlement and interaction resulted in the development of the culture associated with Hallstatt - "Celtic culture". The new ethnic Celts then pushed into France, Spain, and eventually Britain and Ireland.
From a racial viewpoint, Coon argued that the warrior types found at Hallstatt and La Tene tended to correspond Corded Ware and Kurgan types(Nordid, basically). These Nordids then mixed a little with the Bell Beakers(Dinarids), before invading France and then the Isles. Coon actually thought the "Celtic type" made a majority in Britain and were stereotypically associated with the English.
However, as I'll explain, some genetic research seems to contradict this...
2) Spanish ethnogenesis
In this theory, the Megalithic people who settled Spain and then Britain and Ireland spoke Celtic languages. Rather than spread through military conquests from Southern Russia - "Kurgan Hypothesis" - this different idea of the spread of Indo-European languages sees them resulting from Neolithic farming settlement of the Mediterranean, associated with the Megalith builders. Essentially, one branch of the Indo-European languages originated in Turkey, spread from their to Greek, from thence to Italy, and then to Spain, the Isles, and then to France. I guess in this theory, Celtic languages develop out of Latin rather than the other way around - and the people who brought farming to Britain and Ireland already spoke Celtic.
The main support for this theory is genetic information. Genetically, it seems very hard to prove a Celtic invasion of the British Isles during the Iron Age. Rather, most Britains and Irish genetically seem related most to Neolithic Megalith builders - as does Northern Spain and Northwest France - all areas where Celtic languages were spoken.
There's also some support from Celtic mythology - the Irish, for example, saw themselves as being descended from settlers from Iberia, and these legends don't speak of an invasion or conquering another peoples - as would have happened in the Kurgan hypothesis. There's also little archaeological evidence in either Britain or Ireland for any military invasion during the Iron Age - the implication being that the Celtic-speaking settlements of the Isles happened in a period where they held little indigenous population, and thus did not require a "conquest" as the Kurgan hypothesis holds.
There is definite evidence of a warlike Iron Age culture in Central FRance and Central Germany, however. In the Spanish hypothesis, thus, Celtic invasions of central Europe would have begun from either the British Isles or Spain, and would have been violent in nature due to the established agriculture/large populations in those areas when the Megalith builders came around.
Bookmarks