Well, the first major wave of incomers that we know of, where we can actually see proportionally large numbers of people coming into the country, is really Roman.
So, I suppose that one could consider the Iron Age Tribes of Britain and Ireland as being the indigenous folks.
There are tales in Irish and Welsh about incoming peoples, but there's no real substantial changes that would have shown to be a large influx of people.
Usually, the 'conquerors' marry in to the local hegemony and just settle down within a generation or two.
I'm not saying that there weren't movements of people pre Roman, what I am saying is that numbers wise they seem to be very small. Usually they bring in slightly different methods or styles that allow us to seperate them in the archaeological record, but it is also true to say that indigenous development of new ideas, methods and exploitation of resources could account for some of those changes too. The idea that every 'improvement' originated in the middle east and spread from there has long been debunked.
It's a fascinating topic.
Incidentally, there's a lady in Germany (don't know if she is anthro or archaeo ? ) but she believes she can tell where your family originates by the shape of your feet. Indigenous to here she said had narrow heels, broad ball, high arches, second toes shorter than the big one.
Random quote about this......though *Celtic* is such a dreadfully confusing word to use
Because of the paucity of written records, the scope of Celtic settlement across Europe has not been easy to establish. One feature already mentioned that is strongly associated with Celtic blood lines is red hair; a great majority of people in the world who have red hair will be found to have a Celtic ancestor. But that feature is not uniquely associated with the Celts, so the spread of Celtic people in such areas as present-day Germany and Scandinavia has not been accepted by all authorities. During World War II, a discovery was made that only recently has received meticulous research. A couple of doctors in medical centers in England noticed that there was a feature of Scots and Welsh soldiers wounded in battle that was not present with English, Germans, and other nationalities. The former frequently had a big toe (or great toe) that was the same length as the next toe; all others had great toes markedly longer. They marked that down for research after the war ended, but it was only a few years ago that definitive research was done that has led to a remarkable discovery. They found that there were burial sites across Britain where the skeletons were completely of one ethnic group, such as Celtic burial sites on islands along the Scottish northwest coast, and pre-Celtic burial sites in southern England. Results from studies of those burial sites showed that to a 95 probability Celtic remains had a big toe the same length as, or shorter than, the next toe, while pre-Celtic remains had a big toe longer than the one next to it. That study was expanded to cover burial sites in other parts of Europe and Asia, with the same results. Because the so-called Celtic toe can disappear after many generations of intermarriage, it is not a necessary condition to having a Celtic ancestor, but it is a sufficient one: if a person has the Celtic toe, he or she is almost certain to be of Celtic descent.
That discovery should allow a much better mapping of the extent of Celtic settlement across Europe. The Celtic toe has been found in abundance in southern and central Germany and across western and central Scandinavia. It has been found in present-day descendants of the Dutch Boers who settled in South Africa over a hundred years ago; the only source of that gene is from the Celtic Dutch of two thousand years ago. It could be used to map the Scottish migration route from the central Atlantic down through the Carolinas and into Georgia in the 1700s. http://www.electricscotland.com/fami...2002/celts.htm
cheers,
Toddy..........definitely got pre-celtic toes
please can we keep the thread to this and not bring in political conflict.
whom if I understand the root question of this thread properly, are to be considered indigenous. 
