Sunday, October 14, 2001, 11:02:42 AM, you wrote:
> Thus, while the statement "the population stayed the same, but there was
> a language chance and the adoption of various bits of European Celtic
> culture" might sound pretty fine, it does not really explain how such a
> language change did take place and why those various bits of European
> Celtic culture (which isn't at all as uniform as most British
> archaeologists usually pretend when talking about the "Celtizaton" of
> Britain) were "adopted". In fact, the statement fails to explain the
> process of how this took place completely, it only pretends to solve the
> problem by simply ignoring it.
The language change issue isn't for archaeologists to solve, although
they may contribute to its solution. The reasons that a people in one
place adopt bits of the culture from another place vary, but are
fairly obvious - trade, religion, intermarriage, maybe small
invasions/migrations, etc. British archaeologists are well aware of
the lack of uniformity in European 'Celtic culture'.
Archaeology deals with the 'hard' facts, and those indicate continuity
But you also wrote:
"Only in the long term if at all. There's little indication of one
determinable migration from somewhere in central Europe to Britain (or
in fact anywhere else). So if it was a migration phenomenon at all
(which has been quite strongly disputed in the last two or three
decades), it was a whole series of minor, short-range migrations, at
best of small population groups (most likely social elites)."
I thought you and I were more or less in agreement when I saw that!
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:[log in to unmask]
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details