Were the bell beakers of the British isles replaced by the mainland celts genetically? Did the celts conquer them? Was there ever a Celtic invasion of the British isles? Or did they just adopt Celtic languages through trade and interaction?
Were the bell beakers of the British isles replaced by the mainland celts genetically? Did the celts conquer them?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Those two little fuckers are so fucking aesthetic.
God, so true
>Were the bell beakers of the British isles replaced by the mainland celts genetically?
>Did the celts conquer them? Was there ever a Celtic invasion of the British isles?
Sometimes it seems I'm the only one who knows this very basic fact for years. How do you know of it?
Yes there was lol, celts replaced 50% of the population in the British isles
Read it. They're not claiming it's Celtic, they're saying it's "plausible" EEF-rich migrants had a connection with Celtic. Celtic arrived in the early Iron Age not the Bronze Age.
EEF migrants in the late bronze age are celtic
It's the early Iron Age, but yes those were probably Celtics. Their genetic influence was limited and it's not near 50% in Iron Age Britons, excluding outliers.
But the study says 50%??
It's referring to a mixed population in Southern England during the Early Iron Age. It's not referring to modern people or the whole region.
That's assuming that all of the increase in EEF ancestry comes from the Bronze Age French, rather than EEF refugia in England and Wales, local selection for EEF ancestry in southern Britain or female immigration from EEF rich populations elsewhere.
One of the things that makes this transition odd is that the proportion EEF ancestry increased while there was no significant change in Ydna haplogroup proportions.
Northern Scotland, Northern Yorkshire and Northumbria has pure FC jeanz.
Everywhere else looks onions and southern Sainsbury munchers or bogtrotters
The Bell Beaker people were the "Celtic invaders" everybody really talks about. From the time they arrived, there may have been smaller back and forth incursions of proto-Celtic and Celtic peoples but nothing major. The most recent of these was probably included the incurision of Belgae people into Britain shortly before Ceasar's time, followed by possibly some Gauls settling in Ireland after his conquest (the ancestors of the Eoganochta of Munster) and then finally some displaced Britons settling in Armorica and Irish Scots colonising Caledonia.
>The Bell Beaker people were the "Celtic invaders" everybody really talks about.
There is no possibility of this, unless you accept delusions.
The only real evidence of a population-changing invasion in the British isles seems to correspond to the arrival of those people and nobody later
It doesn't have supporting evidence. Bell Beakers were everywhere and ancestral to half of Europe. Trying to ascribe Celtic to them is untenable.
The best we've got is to ascribe it to the particular branch of early Indo-European people who settled in modern day France, Britain and Ireland, because as far as I'm aware, there's no real evidence of a later large movement of people. If there is I'd like to hear it.
It's not just nonsense genetically and geographically. It's 2000 years too early to be Celtic.
We can't know exactly how early Celtic or proto-Celtic languages started being spoken due to lack of writing though
No. Early Celtic languages like Gaulish and Goidelic were written down. Comparing their vocabulary and grammar allowed Celtic scholars to pinpoint it. Proto-Celtic came into existence sometimes around 1000 BC.
Okay. So I know the typical LULZ attitude is to be relentlessly belligerent but I'm actually interested in learning about this topic so I'm going to defer to you on it.
As far as I understood, the dominant theory as regards the origins of the populations of Britain and Ireland was in the Bell Beaker people, but there's no evidence of a stereotypical "Celtic invasion" circa 500 BC as Victorian scholars often held. Hence as far as I could gather most scholars held that the warlike bronze age peoples who conquered the British isles were essentially the ancestors of the Celtic Britons and Irish with Hallstatt and La Tene cultures arriving later as cultural trends rather than representing a later invasion. Thus we can assume these bronze age invaders most likely introduced the earliest versions of the languages which later evolved into Welsh and Gaelic.
So what's your take? I know there's a guy called Barry Cunliffe who proposes something along the lines of Celtic languages being a lingua franca of Atlantic seaways, but I've never actually read his work so idk what to really make of it.
>but there's no evidence of a stereotypical "Celtic invasion" circa 500 BC
There is, but it happened before this.
>Hallstatt and La Tene cultures arriving later as cultural trends rather than representing a later invasion.
These are Celtic cultures and they didn't replace the British Isles genetically. Also cultural trends have largely been obsoleted in this geographic area and point in history, like Bell Beaker migrants represented the movement of people, so did the Hallstatt migrants.
>Thus we can assume these bronze age invaders most likely introduced the earliest versions of the languages which later evolved into Welsh and Gaelic.
No reason to think that, at best they spoke a language family related to Celtic, but not Celtic itself. They assimilated the indigenous Britain population and became elites but didn't make much of a dent genetically.
So when can we say the "Celtic invasion" of the British isles took place? What's your general schema of events?
The Bell Beakers themselves probably spoke some variety of proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic language or just North-West Indo-European.
The Celtic expansion into Britain will probably mirror the Celtic expansion into Iberia where IE Lusitanians were progressively Celticized in both material culture and language while already being somewhat similar to the Celts already.
Sometime around 900 BC Celts arrived, confirmed by DNA evidence. They brought new technology and cultural elements, but did not replace the people of the British Isles.
So what's our evidence of that? As far as I was aware, the material culture in Britain and Ireland didn't change so drastically around that time
>So what's our evidence of that?
Primarily genetic evidence. There's a new EEF-rich continental European component in Britain beginning in the early Iron Age which is considered to be likely Celtic.
>As far as I was aware, the material culture in Britain and Ireland didn't change so drastically around that time
It kind of did. Iron working was introduced, chariot usage was introduced, swords were introduced, hillforts start being constructed on an organised scale. These changes just aren't possible without migrants and a new elite.
There is no DNA evidence of a change.
In 900 BC there was an influx of DNA from Women from North France.
You wouldn't need any large scale migration assuming 1) a very splintered/tribal isles where many languages were spoken. Celts could have moved into southern England and dominated a particularly tradey area and then their proxies, over centuries, who were largely native-British beaker genetically spread out spreading the Celtic gospels. Or, throwing it out there, celtic languages spread from the isles originally, or the regions of northern France/Belgium where celts who made their way into Britain came from were very British looking genetically, which would make sense. Assuming this has been looked into carefully by people who know things.
There's no chance that people from Britain weren't moving to the continent is basically what I mean regardless of whether that has anything to do with Celtic languages. I think there's a bias or misunderstanding that people only migrate west for some reason. Maybe just my bias/auto assumption and am projecting. Might have been pockets around Belgium that looked a lot like modern English people (same ratios/haplo subtypes) back then.
>Christ, how many times do I have to say this?
First wave: Puntiflox
Second wave: Granj'jbleth (Bottom Half)
Third wave: Vlitit Ith Itinz
Fourth wave: Hooo-oooo-oooo-oooh
Fifth wave: Wfp
Replaced? No, but there was an influx of Celts from the main land during the Iron Age. Shows up in heightened admixture in southern Britain, particularly represented by a higher EEF genetic portion.
all made up to justify english colonialism
Unroot an ancient people from their timeless habitation