Celts.

I coould not find enough enformation about Celts in Turkish web sites.I will translate them information you gave all.My english is in the stage of upper intermiddiate.So somteimes I got problems. After I translate them into Turkish I will ask you some questions about Celts?I got some information about them but was not enough.

This sentence makes no logical sense.

I see nor relation. The first is about Copan, Mexico. The second is about technicalities on wether ancient remains should be reburied or what.

No it's about telling where people where spent their younger years based upon teeth and bone analysis.

Number one I never proposed a thesis, I simply reported to you what most modern archaeologists believe and then showed you an article from a highly respected and mainstream archaeology publication that's quite clearly shows this view.

Number two I never said you chose that the article I chose. You must clean your glasses more often.

the first and second links prove quite categorically you can't tell Anglo-Saxon from Britons by analysis of bones and teeth. Something you were denying was possible.

Most interesting is the article of British Archaeology: Large numbers of native Britons have never yet been recognised in the archaeological record. My own research, however, suggests that evidence for the Britons can in fact be found, and in places where archaeologists have hitherto rarely looked - that is, in Anglo- Saxon settlements and cemeteries. It should not really be a surprise to find them there, as the 7th century laws of King Ine of Wessex contain regulations for Britons, in a way that implies their close co-existence with Anglo-Saxons, often as slaves or serfs. This means invasion, subjugation and a hierarchical assimilation. Evidence of this sort suggests two distinct phases of interaction between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons - immigration in the 5th/6th centuries resulting in ethnically divided communities and regions; and increased mixing of the two groups in the 7th/8th centuries, leading to the assimilation of the natives into Anglo-Saxon society. So what was I saying? Invasion, subjugation and hierarchical assimilation through the generations. Slowly the Britons (Celts) became Anglo-Saxon by force of facts. More of that very interesting article that fully supports my thesis: In the first phase, about half the male adults in Anglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries were buried with weapons; and where there are enough skeletal data, it appears the men with weapons were, on average, one to two inches taller than their weaponless brethren. Other skeletal evidence suggests this was probably not the consequence of different diet and health. There is also strong evidence that the men of post-Roman Germanic populations on the Continent were one to two inches taller than Romano-British men. We may, therefore, accept the stature difference in post-Roman England as evidence that about half the male population in `Anglo-Saxon' communities was of native British stock. So we have two types: "tall warriors" and "short serfs". The warriors look Germanic, the serfs Celto-Roman. Probably genetic analysis would confirm those ethnic differences. The author then mentions: Berinsfield (Oxfordshire) - example of "comunity model" (segregation), where Saxons and Britons did not mix even if they lived in the same settlement. Stretton-on-Fosse (Warwickshire) - example of "warband model", where Saxons marry native women, creating a mestizo community. The second phase, after maybe 8-10 generations, does show an assimilation: This situation changed gradually throughout the 7th and 8th centuries. A drop in average male stature by one inch in `Anglo-Saxon' cemeteries in Wessex suggests that more native groups, previously buried in cemeteries that cannot be identified, were now adopting Anglo-Saxon culture and burial practices. In addition, in existing Anglo-Saxon settlements the disappearance of the stature differential between men with and without weapons suggests more intermarriage between ethnic groups. The appearance of Celtic names in the Wessex royal house (for instance, the 7th century king Ceadwalla) suggests that the elite too became mixed.

Yes, Heinrich Harke believes in the Anglo-Saxons as a small military elite similar to the Vikings and Normans. It's an old article, very radical in it's day, refuting the pushed the native population west or genocided them opinion. And backing it up with firm evidence.

It's sparked a lot of research since. And subsequently more and more finds of early Anglo-Saxons and Britons living together and becoming one in a few generations have been uncovered. And as I stated above, Briton towns didn't disapear Anglo-Saxons moved into them and they continued to thrive for centuries.

However since this article other people have put forward different theories for the relationships between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons living together and becoming one. Military elite it one, but also many others such as traders, refugees, immigrants, foriegn artisans and so on. One theory say a mixture of relationships, intially conquest in the east but more a cultural influence later in the west.

Which theory of Anglo-Saxon role you choose to believe is up to you. It's not believing the dumb genicide and replacement theory that's important.

True if the Celts came that would be one way. There could be others too.

But unlike with the Anglo-Saxons the evidence they came at all isn't that solid.

Also you need to be more specific who the Celts are. The La Tene Culture travelling from Switzerland to Britain, the Gauls, the La Tene culture conquering the Gauls then leading the Gauls to Britain. The Spanish. The La Tene culture conquering the Spanish then leading them to Britain. So many options and 'celt' such a non-specific term to describe such a specific event.

I think Paul was right saying that Anglo-Saxons had some ''special traits'' to offer to indigenous populations-how can u explain that their culture and lang. became dominant?If AS were just a bunch of thugs-why would anyone accept their language:Fear?Why didn't a part of south slavs accept Avar language( their cruelty was beyond any doubt),or why don't Chinese speak Mongolian,etc.I know-there r cases and cases-strangely, according to u , the IE's were always able to impose their own language and culture-although a very small minority...Since u think they had nothing more to offer than brutal force, that's a ...well- a certain phenomenon in the history...

A long time the British were Celtic because much evidence. Buildings, artifacts, race and language.

Buildings thought to be celtic have long since shown to be older than thought and comtemporary ones in different styles, artifacts are considered to have been made locally not brought over by invaders, old racial theories have long since been shown to be nonsense.

So now your proposing we base a whole invasion upon a language.

One even linguists can't agree upon much about.

Now you completely lost me. I'd have thought links about genetics was your thing.

Perhaps you mean this kind of stuff,

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-1/p20.html

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba77/column3.shtml

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba10/ba10feat.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld_2004042 2.shtml

That their was no mass replacement of population is a long held view backed up by huge archaeological evidence. Nowadays genetics seems to be saying a similar thing, so two camps agree. [A similar debate is going on in French Archaeology]

That there was a clear Celticasation of Britain is currently what's under dispute. Quoted above in a previous post the museum keepers of two of the greatest collections of [so called]Celtic artifacts in the world. Both disagree they are Celtic at all. And both believe them the work of the indiginous populations of their countries not foriegn invaders.

That there was any invasion is now also under dispute. The theory of Celtic invasion of Britain was invented when Celtic goods similar to those of La Tene were found in Britain and Ireland. To date this is the only evidence for invasion. If however they are made by British and Irish not invaders then there's no evidence of invasion.

What being demonstrated there is Anglo-Saxons, migrated from Germnay and Denmark. Didn't displace the local population, drive them west and build new towns. Instead they moved into existing British towns, lived amongst the locals and as a minority. But whats more important within a few generations the whole town was living in a culture more influenced by the culture of the migrants.

The refutiation of Celtic Britain isn't arguing against small numbers coming over, but mass migration and replacement.

The burial site was Pagan from very early in the migration, so included people born in Germany and Denmark, tooth records showed this. What was interesting was the supposedly Christian Britain's buried in the same place, obviously adopting the Saxon faith.