Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: When were British Isles keltified and what happened to previous inhabitants

  1. #1
    Veteran Member aherne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Aryan
    Ethnicity
    German & Romanian
    Ancestry
    Germanic, Slavic, Thracian
    Country
    Romania
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a1b1a2b3
    Taxonomy
    European
    Politics
    conservative
    Hero
    Gunnar from Njall's Saga
    Religion
    atheist
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    13,151
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,484
    Given: 9,778

    2 Not allowed!

    Post When were British Isles keltified and what happened to previous inhabitants

    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?

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Norb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Last Online
    10-29-2023 @ 03:20 PM
    Location
    Moscow to Arkhangelsk
    Ethnicity
    Aryan
    Ancestry
    Steppe
    Country
    Russia
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    H1
    Taxonomy
    Corded
    Politics
    Esoteric
    Hero
    Those that fought for a better world (If you know, you know)
    Religion
    Natural
    Age
    41
    Gender
    Posts
    7,866
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,828
    Given: 9,772

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aherne View Post
    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?
    can you post examples?

    Nordisch-Westisch or Westisch mit Nordische einschlag
    In other words: Atlantid type

  3. #3
    Dinkum
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Politics
    Diversity is our greatest weakness
    Hero
    Those who made a better world
    Gender
    Posts
    11,827
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,853
    Given: 6,536

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Probably beginning at the turn of the Bronze Age/Iron Age, nearly 3000 years ago, extending to a few centuries before Caesar, in multiple waves.

    There is evidence of considerable genetic change in the British Isles between the Bronze Age and Iron Age/early Medieval Insular Celts. The degree of which is hard to ascertain however without sufficient knowledge of the source (undoubtedly Continental Celts).

    What happened to the Bronze Age British/Irish inhabitants? Same thing as has happened to Celtic Britons and Irish I guess, assimilated into new language/culture somehow, while remaining the largest racial element.
    Last edited by Creoda; 02-06-2021 at 06:16 PM.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic-Mediterranean
    Ethnicity
    English/Spanish
    Country
    England
    Gender
    Posts
    10,883
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,331
    Given: 5,575

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    Probably beginning at the turn of the Bronze Age/Iron Age, c.3000 years ago, extending to a few centuries before the Roman invasion, in multiple waves.

    There is evidence of considerable genetic change in the British Isles between the Bronze Age and Iron Age/early Medieval Insular Celts. The degree of which is hard to ascertain however without sufficient knowledge of the source (undoubtedly Continental Celts).

    What happened to the Bronze Age British/Irish inhabitants? Same thing as has happened to Celtic Britons and Irish I guess, assimilated into new language/culture somehow, while remaining the largest racial element.
    Would you say Phenotypes that are attributed to the Celts like Keltic Nordic would have looked similar when they arrived in the British Isles? or were they darker pigmented in the North Italian/Southern French sense before they mixed with the locals in Britain?

  5. #5
    Dinkum
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Politics
    Diversity is our greatest weakness
    Hero
    Those who made a better world
    Gender
    Posts
    11,827
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,853
    Given: 6,536

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    I'm still open to the idea of Celtic languages in the British Isles being older and going back to the Bronze Age/Beakers, but from what I've seen the Insular Celtic language family is thought to have only split around 500 BC, so that would point to a Celtic invasion just before this time.

  6. #6
    Dinkum
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celtic Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Politics
    Diversity is our greatest weakness
    Hero
    Those who made a better world
    Gender
    Posts
    11,827
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,853
    Given: 6,536

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver109 View Post
    Would you say Phenotypes that are attributed to the Celts like Keltic Nordic would have looked similar when they arrived in the British Isles? or were they darker pigmented in the North Italian/Southern French sense before they mixed with the locals in Britain?
    I don't know how much you can attribute the Keltic Nordic look to 'Celts' per se, considering that it is mostly concentrated in the British Isles and NW Europe generally. However many of the people that are called 'Keltic Nordic' on this forum have clear Germanic influence in their phenotype, I think the KNs in Celtic Britain would have looked more Irish.

    I would rather associate an increase of Atlantid (and Alpine) types with Celtic influence.
    Last edited by Creoda; 02-06-2021 at 06:43 PM.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic-Mediterranean
    Ethnicity
    English/Spanish
    Country
    England
    Gender
    Posts
    10,883
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,331
    Given: 5,575

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    I don't know how much you can attribute the Keltic Nordic look to 'Celts' per se, considering that it is most concentrated in the British Isles and NW Europe generally. However many of the people that are called 'Keltic Nordic' on this forum have clear Germanic influence in their phenotype, I think the KNs in Celtic Britain would have looked more Irish.

    I would rather associate an increase of Atlantid (and Alpine) types with Celtic influence.
    Presumably the pre Celtic British and Irish would have been more of a mix of Brunn, Borreby and Med types mainly, i imagine they would not have looked that difference to how maybe some of the western Scots look today(where i believe Keltic Nordid phenotypes are less common)

  8. #8
    Free Arūnas! Immanenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:43 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Austrian
    Country
    Austria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-S21/U106/M405
    Gender
    Posts
    14,003
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11,400
    Given: 8,724

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...iew=1up&seq=68

    here is the book from Hooton, where he studied Irish male (Phenotypes and Pigmentation). Keltic- Atlantid or somewhat slightly dinarized Atlantids are the main element along with "Nordic-Alpine" types. Brunn influenced individuals can be seen occasionally on some of those individuals of any of those types- he did not use such term. Plate starts at around page 497

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Norb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Last Online
    10-29-2023 @ 03:20 PM
    Location
    Moscow to Arkhangelsk
    Ethnicity
    Aryan
    Ancestry
    Steppe
    Country
    Russia
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    H1
    Taxonomy
    Corded
    Politics
    Esoteric
    Hero
    Those that fought for a better world (If you know, you know)
    Religion
    Natural
    Age
    41
    Gender
    Posts
    7,866
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,828
    Given: 9,772

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    I don't know how much you can attribute the Keltic Nordic look to 'Celts' per se, considering that it is mostly concentrated in the British Isles and NW Europe generally. However many of the people that are called 'Keltic Nordic' on this forum have clear Germanic influence in their phenotype, I think the KNs in Celtic Britain would have looked more Irish.

    I would rather associate an increase of Atlantid (and Alpine) types with Celtic influence.
    Bell Beaker > 'Celts' > KN

    Nordisch-Westisch or Westisch mit Nordische einschlag
    In other words: Atlantid type

  10. #10
    Veteran Member aherne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Aryan
    Ethnicity
    German & Romanian
    Ancestry
    Germanic, Slavic, Thracian
    Country
    Romania
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a1b1a2b3
    Taxonomy
    European
    Politics
    conservative
    Hero
    Gunnar from Njall's Saga
    Religion
    atheist
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Gender
    Posts
    13,151
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,484
    Given: 9,778

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norb View Post
    can you post examples?
    Any British/Irish whose look is Brunn, Borreby or any other variation of CM. This forms an absolute majority among the Welsh and a relative one among the Irish... England and to a lesser extent Scotland, being more exposed to migrations (starting with neolithic settlement, ending with vikings), have a multitude of phenotypes

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-22-2019, 11:23 AM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-31-2018, 10:11 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2018, 12:29 PM
  4. Western Isles Inhabitants
    By Trog in forum Alba | Scotland
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 08:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •