There is no record of population expulsions however, and ancients were more then willing to mix with whoever was around. Even if they didn't have to it would happen. They didn't remove the original population, they replaced the rulling structure, and joined the natives, and where very agressive about increasing the size of their kingdom.i agree in general with what you are saying but you are surely wrong about the galatians.
They were an aggressive tribe who moved on mass into Asia minor (~30,000 initially with subsequent celtic immigration to supplement that number).
In theory they might have expelled all the natives (for lack of a better word) and theoretically they might have then stuck to the tribe, and theoretically if the great mortality of the ancient world didn't kill too many women it might have been possible for them to increase in numbers that way, I highly doubt that, this was a long time before the creation of racialist theories and the Greco-Persian locals would have had a lot to offer the incoming Celts.
Other languages were kept through interbreeding, just ask anyone in Wales, it doesn't mean they stuck to themselves. Culture was very important to the ancients, blood however was not.Given that they maintained their own language and culture for centuries, it would suggest that they stuck together,
Interbreeding didn't happen because it was neccessary to avoid inbreeding, it happened whenever it was possible, virtually all of Caesar's Legionaries got Gallic wives for themselves, and there certainly was no need for that.furthermore with such large numbers of their own people there would have been no pressure to interbreed with the local population, and i imagine initially at least it was fairly rare. a such i think they would have been a visibly distinct group for much more than 50 years! think centuries
Bookmarks