2
One thing certain is that at some point in time people in Britain stopped speaking their own language(s) and adopted Proto-Keltic instead in both linguistic and cultural terms. When did that happen? There are two plausible theories:
- it came along with Aryanized Bell Beaker folk during Copper Age (4500 years ago)
- it came along with Urnfield/Hallstatt/La Tene Culture folk (3500-2000 years ago) in successive waves (ending with movement of Belgae, which were a branch of Gauls)
Before second half of 20th century, most believed the second theory supported by:
- relatively late date of mutation of British Keltic compared to Gaulish or other contemporary languages/dialects. Primitive Irish, for example, was really similar to late Gaulish: such a thing could not occur unless languages were one or maximally two millennia apart in common lineage. If they were 3000 years apart, like Latin and Gothic, they would have been no more similar.
- lack of cultural specialization in British Kelts versus those from mainland. Up until Roman conquest, they remained part of Keltic cultural sphere (although languages already started to diverge): sharing cultural styles and innovations. Based on that criteria (language being the other) they acted like one single ethnic group (and thus treated by contemporary Romans as one single ethnic group: the "Kelts")
As plausible as this theory was, it had one major setback: archaeological evidence for population movement during that time period (3500-2000 years ago) was considered too unconvincing to warrant demographic change. This made many historians argue that Keltification (or Aryanization) was something similar to Romanization: a people of inferior cultural horizon adopting the superior language and culture of its conquerors. This theory became the norm until recently, arguing that kelts are genetically native to britain (only not linguistically) therefore traceable to mesolithic and neolithic settlers that lived there before. This continuity theory is supported by:
- physical anthropology. The majority of British today have looks directly traceable to Mesolithic people living there long before cultural Keltification
- absence of evidence for any consistent immigration
Lately, however, with the advent of genetics, first theory (Bell Beaker one) started to gain more and more support. Arguments are:
- there is genetic evidence that neolithic settlers almost wiped out previous inhabitants (by ways of expansion)
- there is genetic evidence that bell beaker folk (themselves with "steppe" aka Aryan elements) in turn almost wiped out those above (by ways of warfare/genocide)
- there is no genetic evidence for any subsequent migration
Which makes many conclude that Keltification may have started as early as 2500 BC. However, I find genetic theory to be the weakest and here is why:
- if keltification started with bell beaker folk, the similarity between Irish and Gaulish would have been no different from that between Irish and Gothic
- culturally kelts were one ethnic group (or one ethnic "complex") sharing similar culture, religion. Once again this is impossible to maintain if they were separated that long before
- arguments over how people looked like seem contrived to support "multiculturalism" (ethnic cleansing)
A. original europeans (mesolithic folk) were "dark skinned". This is totally at odds with physical anthropology: people today exhibiting mesolithic phenotypes (variations of CM) are among the lightest in Europe
B. neolithic settlers were "lighter skinned". Once again, completely illogical: taking modern anatolians and caucasians (of whom they derived) as benchmarks for phenotypes they brought (Med, Alpinid, Dinaric) they must have been "wog" like to previous inhabitants
C. "steppe" (semitically-correct codeword for "Aryan") people introduced blondeness. Once again, doesn't make sense: both steppe and western european CM elements are fully capable of producing blonde individuals at the same rate and this goes back as far as antiquity is concerned: for Romans the Gauls were light but Iberians were dark (taking themselves as benchmark). Same pattern exists today (but Italians have darkened since Roman times) and same pattern existed before Aryans came (due to the fact that Iberians had much more Neolithic input compared to Gauls).
- the arguments for extermination/population displacement are completely at odds with how Europeans look like today or in the quantifiable past (antiquity)
What do you guys think?
Bookmarks