Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[Kosios]

Hi; i don't write often on this forum, but i want to add my "2 cents".

The other aspect of it that unsettles me is the fact that the (supposed) modern surviving heartland of Celticism i.e. the British Isles, may be nothing of the sort. There is a paradox there in my opinion. If there is no real proof that out islands were ever invaded by Celts (as opposed to say being affected by imported culture) then why do so many people feel attracted to the contrary notion?

There are many puzzling aspects about celtic speakers in Britain. For example, the Brigantes, who we think spoke a celtic language, show a good deal of continuity from the Bronze age. Their neighbours in East Yorkshire however show a sudden change around 450BC. Whether this change was cultural or demic is something which is debated but it at least tells us that the 'celtic' Brigantes are older, in terms of archaeology, than the 'celtic' Parisii and that they don't fit into the old 'iron age' series of invasions model. It becomes a question, 'when did groups like the Brigantes enter Britain?'

Here i will use Celts meaning only "speakers of languages of the Celtic group of Indoeuropean family".

The theory of some scholars (e.g. Venceslas Kruta) is that Celts settled in most of their territories, including Britain and Ireland, during the Indoeuropean expansion (Bronze age). At this time they was not already speaking "Celtic", maybe not even "protoceltic", but a kind of "proto-protoceltic" who evolved in Celtic in most of the regions; in some other regions, it evolved in other languages (like Ligurian) who are not considered part of Celtic group but have strong similarities with it.

So, following this theory (recognised also by Kruta as hypotetic, and refused by some others), there was no Celtic invasion in Ireland during Iron Age because Celts was already there!