Define "Celtic"

[Beorn]

A lot of people rightfully or wrongfully claim a Celtic link, but how do people define Celtic? Is it a genetic claim? A cultural claim or a mixture of the two, or perhaps some other reason?

[Lutiferre]

One might ask how meaningful it is to define Celticity genetically, when we know there have been ethnic groups that were Celts from the eastern parts of Germany to the western shores of Ireland.

[Allenson]

I'm not sure that it can be done genetically as there is so much cross over when speaking of Y-chromosomes & mtDNA between the various indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of Europe. Meaning, there are Celts who are R1a, there are Slavs that are R1b, etc.

However, with the greater refinements in subclades that have been uncovered in the past few years, there are surely trends within R1b that are commonly found in the Celtic fringe of the Isles. But then again, are these people the descendents of central European Celts who migrated to the Isles with/after the spread of agriculture or are they the descendents of the earlier arriving Paleo/Mesolithic settlers of the Isles/Doggerland who were later Celticized? My bet is on the latter of these two.

Surely though, we can define a Celt from a linguistic standpoint.

[Óttar]

I think Celticness could be defined linguistically, but Irish people speak English too it doesn't make them Germanic. The Gaels could have linguistically displaced an early group. There are music and dance styles shared by the Irish, Bretons, Gallegos, North Africans and possibly even central Asians, which I think is to be chalked up to extensive Atlantic trade routes historically. There are Irish legends of Greeks up in Ireland and it is said that Mil, the mythical Iberian ancestor who conquered Ireland and fathered the Milesians married a daughter of Pharaoh Nectanebo I. It is a myth yes, but in ancient times myth was considered part of history and people are too quick to dismiss their relevance.

[Osweo]

There are Irish legends of Greeks up in Ireland and it is said that Mil, the mythical Iberian ancestor who conquered Ireland and fathered the Milesians married a daughter of Pharaoh Nectanebo I. It is a myth yes, but in ancient times myth was considered part of history and people are too quick to dismiss their relevance.

It is NOT a myth. In the sense of a traditional story attached to a particular ethnos with origins in the ethnogenesis of that people, anyway.

Milesius is pure and simple early pseudohistory, concocted by the educated Gaelic elite to round off rough edges on their genealogical and religious theories. It is exactly the same as Snorri Sturluson and Saxo Grammaticus attempting to tie in Norse legend with Classical mythohistory. The supposed founder's blatantly Latin name is enough to prove this.

Anyroad... Celtic. What are we defining it FOR? THat's the question. Most people seek to define it in order to sell tacky jewellery and fantasy novels. Rather beneath our notice, really, were it not for the fact that it's poisoning the minds of our compatriots with drivel which they have taken for historical 'truth'.

Celtic was an ethnocultural reality in the Iron Age. Since then, it's just a loose heritage matter, something shared by otherwise extremely different peoples. To pretend otherwise is just silly. Unless you've got some cheap trinkets or tee shirts to sell, that is...

[Treffie]

It's a loaded question, Wat, but a good one

Personally, I don't accept an individual who can speak a Celtic language more Celtic than a native who lives in the same area. Due to pressures from other dominant languages, the Celtic languages have been pushed to the extreme and most are battling for survival - Welsh seems to be the only Celtic language that is relatively safe, so I don't think an individual's identity is diluted if they haven't had the opportunity to have been brought up through the medium of their native Celtic tongue. Having said all that though, being in possession of language skills is seen as more beneficial than not having any at all.

Ultimately, I think it boils down to identity and a sense of belonging. If one has an affinity towards their ancestry, the land, the language etc, then in my opinion they can consider themselves Celtic

[Amarantine]

What is interesting for me, is preoccupation about Celtic culture. For you, who live in British Isles is quite normal, but a lot of people, from different sides of world are interested in Celtic culture, and what is amazing they even derived some similarities in legends, culture, languages with Celtic. I noticed that no one Ancient Tribe, never obtain this level of interesting, from common people to scientists, as Celts.

[Barreldriver]

I'm not sure that it can be done genetically as there is so much cross over when speaking of Y-chromosomes & mtDNA between the various indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of Europe. Meaning, there are Celts who are R1a, there are Slavs that are R1b, etc.

Actually you can, because there are sublcades of these Haplogroups that are specific to certain regions and ethnic groups isolated therein. The presence of some of these haplogroups in odd places are attributed to military migratory patterns and traders.

For instance R1b-M222 is found exclusively in the British Isle's and among the descendants of the Scots-Irish abroad.

Then in my own case, my type of R1b is found exclusively among the British Celts.

Now my two cents is a combo system, this applies to all ethnic groups. It should be determined by anthropological traits, a combination of Genetics and physical taxonomy (biological anthropology), culture and customs (cultural anthropology, and language (linguistic anthropology). Now, it in my mind it is not necessarily all or nothing, but rather some combination of the three, it is obvious that he or she that falls under all three has the greatest link, but as long as a significant link is established and that person is willing to learn about or become involved in the three aspects and is significantly descended from the group in question they should be welcome.

I myself rely mostly on biological anthropology due to cultural disruption and enculturation. However, I am very willing to overcome the previous enculturation and am wiling to learn the language of those responsible for my biological origins.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
Is it a genetic claim? A cultural claim or a mixture of the two, or perhaps some other reason?

It’s important to clarify “culture”, I don’t perceive culture as material in an archaeological sense of the word, what you are looking at there are trinkets, I think a culture is more Spenglerian, it’s an organism rooted within a world view that can be understood by it’s symbolism, by it’s mythos.

In that sense there is/was a “Celtic” culture, but never an ethnos, the Celts were largely defined by outside people’s who saw similarity, doubtless the various ethnicities within the Celtic organism saw this as well, just as the pre-Norman English understood their shared ancestral ties with the peoples across the North Sea back in their original homelands, however the English understood their differences enough to withstand the Danish invasions of the mid 9th century onwards, this wasn’t a visit from people of “one blood and bone” but seen as an outside invasion. Just as degrees of commonality of culture amongst West/Central European states hasn’t prevented them from war or even outright hatred.

But that’s the past can we even really speak of a “Celtic” or “Germanic” culture in any meaningful sense of the word today?( even though I tend to see the Celtic/Germanic as somewhat artificial I still put that in Meta-Ethnicity!!) Can we really claim that the Scots have more in common with the “Celtic” Irish and the Bretons than they do the English? Can the English really claim to be more akin to the Dutch or Danes or (Gods forbid!) the Germans than they can the Scots or even the Welsh?

Personally I think the shared heritage within the British Isles makes “Celtic” and “Germanic” redundant, we can speak of an English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish identity, we may even quibble over degrees of “Celtic” or “Germanic” input but I don’t think we can realistically go further, it’s certainly not genetic, there is no genetic divide of any significance in northern Europe, amongst the indigenous population, and personally I don’t find much of significance in R1b or I or R1a, they don’t mean a great deal, I’m R1b that must mean I’m a “Celt” at least according to those nice people at Oxford Ancestors who make a fair amount of cash out of such pronouncements, funny that because I would say I’m English and who has ever heard of a Celtic Englishman? Has there ever been such an animal? Well according to the folks at this site there may be a case for it:

http://www.anglo-celtic.org.uk/

I guess it’s perception, whilst I, and others, would debate over the realistic existence of a “Celtic Fringe” (certainly in Scotland’s case) that’s probably not going to mean a great deal to folks who do wish to consider themselves “Celtic”. It’s what people see themselves as, and whether they are accepted as such that counts, a Celtic Englishman wouldn’t get far in a Dublin bar, but a Celtic Irishman, well surely that’s just common sense?

[Arne]

Acting in some Way as a Rebel..showing some freeminding Resistance Attitudes.. which divides you from other People..

For me it´s not only linguistical..
There are Signs of Culture but we all don´t know it where they gone.
So only the Irish are Celts ?
Blackhaired Celts ?
I have not much doubts about Celtic origin of them.

Maybe the Celts are a little more Temper.
Just a Suggestion from me.

Many Signs of their history are in South-Germany.
Can´t they be Celts because they didn´t speak galic ?
Much is lost and on the Continent were other terms.
Simply ignoring foreign german influences isn´t so easy.
If a pre-galic nearly language were spoken.