Celts.

What kind of info? I warn you that Celts are a wide topic expanding from their relatively uncertain origins in the depths of the Bronze Age to present day Celtic-peaking peoples of Western Europe. It is also a "nation" that is idealized by many (British and French particularly) and therefore on which you may find many non-objective claims.

In general, the Celtic people forms somewhere in Central Europe, possibly the region of the Rhin, and are clearly part of the Central European Tummuli Culture (1500-1300) and its successor the Urnfields Culture (after 1300). Nevertheless, these cultures do group more peoples than just celts, particularly Illyrians and Italics.

C. 1300 BCE, Urnfields culture expands suddenly in several directions:

• Belgium, Northern France and SE England (probably Celts)
  
• West Bank of the Rhone, Languedoc, Catalonia, Ebro Valley (mostly Celts too)
  
• NE Italy (Italics and Illyrians)
• Western Balcans (Illyrians)

C. 800 BCE, Hallstatt Culture (early Iron) comprises the same peoples with the notable exception of those in Italy, froming an arch from the Balcans to Catalonia around the Alps.

C. 700, Iberian Celts are known to have expanded into the Central and Western peninsula. C. 600-550, NW Iberia falls again under Iberian (native) influence, cutting Iberian Celts from the mainland (what explains their lack of Druidism - see below).

C. 400 BCE, La T�ne Culture is the first exclussively Celtic arahceological culture and it may be also the most important one in the history of this people. In this phase, Celts expanded from their core around the Rhin and Upper Danub to most of France and Britain, to Northern Italy, to the Pannonian plains, where thy were fought by the Dacians, and beyond into Serbia and even (as mercenaries) to Asia Minor.

In this phase they adopt Druidism (imported from Britain) and they stabilish the "oppida" system of economical and political organization. This system centralized much power in few hands and made the "oppidae" the centers of Celtic trade network. These fortfied towns were nevertheless objectives that expansive Germans (and later Romans) attacked and destroyed, annihilating with them the Celtic society of the late Iron Age.

As you know, only British Celts (of which continental Britons are just an offshot) survived the Germanic and Romanic expansion and assimilation.

You would have learn tales of a great single race spreading over and occupying all Europe. However these days conquest and genocide theories are not popular, and modern archaeology looks more to trade and influence.

Very interesting... The boldened part is the major theme of international affairs these days, but when those genocide and conquest claims were popular, so was genocide and conquest.  Perhaps the nature of society determines archaeological interpretation..?

Trade and influence" is the theory of Paul............. is the theory of Maju

 

The modern view has been gathered by looking at how societies in the past changed a lot with very little foriegn influence. A prime example is the impact on English society of Huguenot migrants. Half the world today for example wears Jeans, listens to pop music and plays football. Many archaeologists note in the anglo-saxons part of England (East Anglia) no new villages were built when they arrived. All the towns that existed before continued. The graveyards excavated showed people of both Briton and Germanic descent buried and the Britons in anglo-Saxon dress. This is not the story of an invasion, it's a peaceful migration, co-existance and inflencing of local culture. Similar to the Huguenot story.

 

But yes historical theories do get influenced by times. Many people have noted how during the imperial age how the past was interpreted as a series of ancient empires and invasions and exterminations.

Originally posted by Paul   The modern view has been gathered by looking at how societies in the past changed a lot with very little foriegn influence. A prime example is the impact on English society of Huguenot migrants.

Surely the English became French thank to such a subtle influence

I just can't believe that we are exchanging in English nowadays, according to your theory we should be exchanging in Gascon, mon Dieu!

Half the world today for example wears Jeans, listens to pop music and plays football. Many archaeologists note in the anglo-saxons part of England (East Anglia) no new villages were built when they arrived. All the towns that existed before continued. The graveyards excavated showed people of both Briton and Germanic descent buried and the Britons in anglo-Saxon dress. This is not the story of an invasion, it's a peaceful migration, co-existance and inflencing of local culture. Similar to the Huguenot story.

How do you notice they are Britons (Celto-Roman) if they are dressed in Anglo-Saxon clothing?

I don't say that invasions are just bloody processes but if you were so clearly right, in a sense of maybe talking about "colonization" or even just cultural subsumtion, much like East Africans were Arabized, then we would find that Britons would have adopted Anglo-Saxon culture only very modified, much as Swahili is just an extremely modified Arab or much as Somalis still speak Somali.

There must be a reason for a majority to adopt the language of a minority, and that is normally, if not always, power.

And when power imposes (more or less violently, more or less subtly) a foreign culture on a pre-existent one, that's an invasion.

But yes historical theories do get influenced by times. Many people have noted how during the imperial age how the past was interpreted as a series of ancient empires and invasions and exterminations.

I suspect that the ultra-simplistic vision of a genocidal history is modeled in European colonization of the last centuries in areas of very under-developed nations, such as North America, Australia, or Argentina - a model that can hardly be found earlier in history, where most people interacted with neighbours of simmilar or only slightly diferent techno-cultural level and where most migrations were starred by little nomadic tribes unable to replace (even if they wished to) the conquered nations.

Originally posted by Maju There must be a reason for a majority to adopt the language of a minority, and that is normally, if not always, power. And when power imposes (more or less violently, more or less subtly) a foreign culture on a pre-existent one, that's an invasion.

Undoubtably some kind of power influence, but power influences come in many forms.

The British never colonised India but it's the langauage of power in the country today. Thailand is attemting to become a bi-lingual country as we speak, mandatory classes at school, bi-lingual street sign and bus signs, mandatory advanced English componant of all degrees. and Thailand has never been colonised.

Changes of language for two very different reasons there. THe use of English in Switzerland is a third.

 

The Britons in Anglo-Saxon dress were established by DNA testing, both well dressed and male and female. Seems Anglo-Saxon dress spread like Jeans across Britain replacing Roman fashions. Seems excepting Anglo-Saxons into the town offered something, whether stability, new technology, spiritual beliefs, muscle, strong leadership or better trade networks to grow rich from, who knows.

 

 

 

 

"[The Broighter Hoard] it was made by goldsmiths working in ireland, they certainly wouldn't have called themselves Celts"

"Being Celtic is a good marketing ploy. There's an interest in the Celt and everything Celtic and I think Irish people are clever and have and capitalised on that"

"I think the [Irish's] Celtic identity is largely an illusion."

"[What are the Irish] Irish is what we've called ourselves for a very long time."

Dr Eamonn Kelly, Keeper of Antiquities, National Museum of Ireland.

 

[The Battersea Shield and the Waterloo Helmet] The two finds in 1857 that are the basis of Celtic migration theory  and are it's most important supporting evidence because they are similar to finds in La Tene the same year, so were presumed to be manufactured in La Tene too and carried over by migrants.

"What's important to recognise these are very British objects, the decoration shares something with other parts of Europe but at the same time is distinctly British."

Dr JD Hill, the Curator of the Iron Age Collections in the Department of Prehistory and Europe at the British Museum.

Originally posted by Maju C'mon Paul: the British did colonize India: it was the jewel of the British colonial empire! They may not have "colonize" it by moving masses of population but that's not my point - and you know it. DNA testing can't tell you the ethnicity of a person: it can tell you something about his or her genealogy but not the adopted ethnicity. Obviously all Britons (at least all Britons of England) became Anglo-Saxons eventually, the same they have became Celts earlier. Genetically Yorkshire and Norfolk are the two more Anglo-Saxon (or Danish Viking, impossible to tell) regions in all Britain - yet they are still 60% Briton. If we would DNA-test modern English, none or almost none would pass the "Anglo-Saxonity test". But that's logical: Anglo-Saxons, as Celts before them, were always a minority - but powrful minority who imposed their rules.

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.

 

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Paul The refutiation of Celtic Britain isn't arguing against small numbers coming over, but mass migration and replacement. I don't mean to refute "Celtic Britain" (whatever that means) I just mean that: There was no mass replacement of poulation (genetics demonstrate that quite clearly) There was a clear Celtization of all or most British peoples I say that the Celtization was done via invasion. That invasion was surely gradual, going through several phases between 1300 and 200 BCE - and history offers us some good examples of how it could happen in the invasion of Caledonia by the Scots (Irish), for instance: the Scots never repalced the Picts or other peoples that lived in Scotland, they just conquered them, imposed their conditions, transfered their ethnical name (the c**try is nowadays still called Scotland) and their language was accepted as main one (until the English gained influence). Simmilar episodes ssurely happened in previous centuries. I see no mistery about that. We can see the same pattern in the Arabization of North Africa, the Turkification of Anatolia, the Romanization of Gaul and Hispania, etc.

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.

 

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Paul 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. Obviously you are not talking of Celtic Britons: you are talikng of Anglo-Saxons of British ancestry. They were already totally assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon culture, whatever their ancestry.

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.

Edited by Paul

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Paul 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's the meaning of all that: don't British minorities (those not Anglo-Saxonized) speak Celtic languages or what? Dou you mean that Gaelic of Welsh are not Celtic?

 

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.

 

Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Paul 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. Obviously you are not talking of Celtic Britons: you are talikng of Anglo-Saxons of British ancestry. They were already totally assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon culture, whatever their ancestry. 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. I'm not so sure that two individual genomes show much about that. Can you offer a link to your source anyhow, so I know what are we talking 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

Edited by Paul

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...

Originally posted by Maju The first and the second link are unrelated, but the two last ones are relevant.

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.

 

One can imagine that a simmilar pattern could well apply to Celtic invasions.

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.

 

Edited by Paul