> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Darwin R. Garcia
> > This mainly depends on what you mean with Aryan.
> Okay... Didn't know there were many shades to Aryan!
Well, there are several shades, including those of the Nazis (who thought of
themselves as being Aryan). One needs to be quite careful with the use of
that term. For what you are talking about, usually the term Indo-European is
> I'm talking about the people who decided to (or were made to)
> move out from their Caucasian homeland(?) area and spread out in
> different directions to Europe, Persia and India, most often as
> invaders, I think.
The problem with this is that we have actually only very vague knowledge
where the Indo-Europeans actually came from and how their languages came to
dominate most of Europe and large parts of Asia. Theories range from
peaceful transmission of these languages from the ANatolian area, with the
spread of neolithic technology somewhen abou 7000 - 5000 BC, to a series of
violent conquests originating from the Caucasian steppes as late as about
2000 - 1500 BC. But actually, we have neither much factual evidence for the
one or the other position or anything that is in between these two extremes.
In short, we simply do not know how this happened, and when, and where the
whole stuff originated. It might even have been a local development across
most of Europe.
> So, basically what I'm wondering is if the Aryans themselves morphed
> into Kelts, or simply replaced them.
Well, if at all, the Indo-Europeans "morphed" into Celts at a date somewhen
between about (most likely) 1500 and 800 BC. "Replacement" of peoples did
not take place, at least as far as can be said, as there is a strong local
continuity in the archaeological record everywhere across Europe. As such,
we can pretty much exclude mass migrations with extermination or complete
replacement of earlier populations. Anything else still goes, though. Yet
again, "Celtic" culture could still be a local development across most of
later "Celtic Europe".
In fact, what you should immediatly let go is the idea that it is people who
move and replace others. We are never talking about biological human beings,
but about cultures. Culture is a way for humans to interact with one another
in a certain specific code of expression, and this code of expression can be
"learned" or "imitated" by every human being, regardless where it comes from
or what "people" it originally belonged to. Or, as it has been defined by
archaeologists: Culture is the nonbiological adaption of humans to their
natural and social environs.
> I often read that the Kelts once occupied all of Europe, but were
> later replaced by the contemporary population. If archaeologically
> true, then who are we (the contemporary population) and where'd we
> pop up from?
We (or basicaly, most of us) are the descendants of those people who at a
certain time in the past were Celts, whose descendants some time later
became either Roman (or Romanoceltic) or German or Slavic or whatever. Or,
in other words, most of us, at least most likely, did pop up from more or
less where we are now. No distant ancestral homelands, no wild warriors
replacing earlier populations. Most of us still live, where our distant
paleolithic ancestors did.
Raimund Karl <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Research Fellow for European Archaeology
Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies
National Library of Wales
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru, UK