Theory that \'Celts\' are a myth

[authun]

But, well, I'll let him speak for himself. You've possibly/probably seen this:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/ ... revisited/

I've also read the Richard Coates article:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/doc ... ritons.pdf

Oppenheimer is not quoted or referenced by any peer science publication. He has to speak for himself because no one else does. When he does speak, he states things like:

"R1b expanded from the Basque Ice Age refuge and predominates in extreme western Europe,"

This is simply wrong and as I explained, based on an old and out of date hypothesis.

Richard Coates' paper needs to be read in the context in which it was presented, stated at the top of the paper, for a conference hosted at Manchester by Nick Higham. Higham is at the minimalist end of the acculturation model for the transition from Roman Briton to Anglo Saxon England, arguing for a takeover by a small military elite. A problem for this argument is the sudden and swift change in language, why are there so few celtic placenames, why are there so few celtic loanwords in English and so on. Both Higham and Coates agree that celtic was spoken in Britain during the Roman period and that the germanic language entered Britain after the roman period, though they disagree as to the numbers involved during the transition. Neither support any hypothesis that a germanic language was spoken in Britain during the pre roman iron age. In fact, no one does and the idea appears to have been dropped. Even at the time it was seen as outrageous because there was simply no evidence and flew in the face of linguistic research.

I enjoyed reading Sampson. He is both informative and entertainingly witty. I can see the logic in all of his comments. Whether he is 100% correct or not remains to be seen. He might be. I'm keeping an open mind on this and will digging further (in both directions). By the way - with my mixed heritage, believe me I have no particular agenda. I'm not a little englander and have stressed my belief in the inclusive value of Britishness (either ancient or modern).

Geoffrey Sampson's view is very much in line with other linguists. You won't find any linguist even considering that english was spoken in Britain in the pre roman period. You'll see Oppenheimer quoting the specialists but not the specialists quoting Oppenheimer.

Although historians, linguists, archaeologists and geneticists argue about the scale of immigration during the 5th and 6th cents and the same demic versus cultural diffusion debate exists about how celtic languages entered Britain, you'll find Oppenheimer is more or less in a club of one. I am aware of one attempt from an archaeologist to support him but the argument was so flawed that it never made it to publication. There is no support in peer journals for genetics or lingusitics. Meanwhile, the Oppenheimer Test continues to be sold for $489 to people who have read his book and want to see how they fit into it.

best
authun