>Earlier archaeologists maintained that everything came to Britain from the east by waves of migrations. Then that theory was rubbished and we were told of parallel but unconnected development and then the current one of diffusionism. Reputations are made and lost as theories come and go and sometimes even the most respected archaeologists are selective about evidence if they wish to protect their own theory or attack that of a rival.<
I tend to agree with you Peter (that archaeologists are sometimes selective about there evidence) but I'm still trying to grasp your perception of the 'Celts'. Perhaps you could outline for me just who... no, let's not go down that route... perhaps you could outline for me just <i>how</i> you see the influence of these people (people we now casually call the Celts) on the indigenous population of these islands when the former started arriving here - given that "...their advanced computations, their astronomy and 'speculation from the stars'..." had not only impressed the classical world but, more interestingly, was coming into contact with the equally imposing (possibly older) megalithic culture(s) of these islands?
In other words, if I may quote you again, "Forget national boundaries - they didn't exist." If national boundaries didn't exist (and again I tend to agree with you) might it not be reasonable to assume that cultural boundaries (in 'Europe' at this time) where also fluid and that it's not really relevant to talk in terms of foreign (as in foreign-cultural) invasions. A parallel may be drawn from a later stage in history when the northern Germanic tribes were 'on the move' - they may have come here form Saxony and Scandinavia but they shared much the same culture and much the same language.
Likewise I suspect that the 'Celts' in these islands and the people before them were all much of a muchness and it's hardly worth drawing distinctions.
