Among other things the Celtic culture became distinct in mainland Europe 1500 years after the Bell Beaker migration and scholarship still hasn’t clarified from what part of Europe besides definitely not Britain. A link as a related tongue to proto-Celtic is hypothetical, as it is to Italo-Celtic, but the point being it’s like calling Proto-Indo-European speakers “proto-Celts.”
Like, potentially, for some of them, but even if that ends up being the case but you’re skipping some ancestral steps, and because the Celtic proper migration was genetically distinct we can at least say they were different groups.
And this is all just basic facts on the bell beakers…
Bell Beakers displaced/genocided by modern terms the Neolithic Britons in ~2500 BC, Celtic migration occured around ~1000-800 BC, which also coincides with the recognition of Celts as a distinct group so that migration itself is probably a better target for the label proto-Celt. It was certainly the introduction of an actual Celtic language to the isles.
tl;dr;dr calling the Bell Beakers proto-Celts is like calling an early 5th Century Roman soldier stationed in Londinium a proto-Chav.
Like, maybe, but mostly by accident and there’s just so many important steps in between, first and foremost being that Roman soldier starting the tradition of leaving his pregnant British wife behind to go fuck around on the mainland and never coming back, which is just as well because the kid was actually a Saxon’s.
You know, I appreciate the info, but it’s weird how you sound like I personally offended you by writing an incorrect half sentence on a prehistoric topic.
Do you have a source for that? Your link doesn’t mention it.
Among other things the Celtic culture became distinct in mainland Europe 1500 years after the Bell Beaker migration and scholarship still hasn’t clarified from what part of Europe besides definitely not Britain. A link as a related tongue to proto-Celtic is hypothetical, as it is to Italo-Celtic, but the point being it’s like calling Proto-Indo-European speakers “proto-Celts.”
Like, potentially, for some of them, but even if that ends up being the case but you’re skipping some ancestral steps, and because the Celtic proper migration was genetically distinct we can at least say they were different groups.
And this is all just basic facts on the bell beakers…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Beaker_culture
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4
tl;dr
Bell Beakers displaced/genocided by modern terms the Neolithic Britons in ~2500 BC, Celtic migration occured around ~1000-800 BC, which also coincides with the recognition of Celts as a distinct group so that migration itself is probably a better target for the label proto-Celt. It was certainly the introduction of an actual Celtic language to the isles.
tl;dr;dr calling the Bell Beakers proto-Celts is like calling an early 5th Century Roman soldier stationed in Londinium a proto-Chav.
Like, maybe, but mostly by accident and there’s just so many important steps in between, first and foremost being that Roman soldier starting the tradition of leaving his pregnant British wife behind to go fuck around on the mainland and never coming back, which is just as well because the kid was actually a Saxon’s.
You know, I appreciate the info, but it’s weird how you sound like I personally offended you by writing an incorrect half sentence on a prehistoric topic.
Maybe next time get your 5000 year old facts straight before making a silly internet comment buster