Celtic Vs British

[McLean]

What does it actually mean to be "Celtic"? As far as I'm aware there is no distinct genetic group for "Celtic", it is largely a linguistic and cultural label and since the original Celtic tribes resided in mainland Europe would we not expect some genetic overlap between them if it truly was a genetic group?

From what I can tell, Celtic groups i.e. Irish, Scots, and Welsh can be identified simply because they became isolated and began to diverge resulting in small identifiable changes unique to their populations.

Is it the case that all populations on the British Isles are largely the same genetically? Originally seeded from the Bell-beaker people? Even the Anglo-Saxon tribes are largely much the same as "Celtic" tribes from mainland Europe too?

One distinction I've noticed being made is that Ireland seems to have more admixture from the Iberian peninsula than other populations? Other than that what does it actually mean to be British genetically (if we are following migration patterns, not within the last century of course)?

I'm just a Layman, but very interested to know the answers. Is there a current consensus?

[Leto]

The Neolithic British inhabitants were largely displaced by the Bronze Age invaders who were probably Indo-European speakers. The people that are now identified as Celts colonized the British Islands during the Iron Age, I guess sometime between 1,000 and 500 BC. And finally, the Anglo-Saxons came there from Western Europe sometime after 500 AD or so. That's all I know.

This is a good video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iVdy0s8ARE

[Sikeliot]

All of the British and Irish have more ancestry from people who once spoke Celtic languages on their islands, than from recent newcomers from continental Europe. Of the latter type of ancestry the English and Scottish do have more Germanic input than do the Irish and Welsh.

However, much of continental western and central Europe once did speak Celtic languages too, and now instead speak Romance or Germanic languages. So the linguistic lines do not neatly correspond to genes.

[Grace O'Malley]

Here's a breakdown of the Irish and British. This is from the Irish DNA Atlas.

http://i65.tinypic.com/28h0w7k.jpg

West Scotland1 is basically the same as the Irish clusters. Irish, West Scots and Orcadians have a higher Norse component with the other Scots also having more than the English and Welsh. The Irish have the lowest of the German/Danish input whilst the English have the highest. On the PoBI they interpreted this German/Danish input as an Anglo-Saxon signal. S Wales III has the highest French and then the Irish. This French component is mostly comprised of NW French i.e. Breton. In the Irish DNA Atlas they have called this a Celtic signal. Also of interest in these studies is that they found the western seaboard in both Ireland and Britain have the most diversity whilst the eastern seaboards of both countries have been somewhat homogenised due to more mixing. This is especially true of the eastern coast of England and to a lesser degree Ireland. So yes there are more differences between the Celtic groups. This obviously makes sense because they are more separated and generally live in more isolated pockets.

[Grace O'Malley]

What does it actually mean to be "Celtic"? As far as I'm aware there is no distinct genetic group for "Celtic", it is largely a linguistic and cultural label and since the original Celtic tribes resided in mainland Europe would we not expect some genetic overlap between them if it truly was a genetic group?

From what I can tell, Celtic groups i.e. Irish, Scots, and Welsh can be identified simply because they became isolated and began to diverge resulting in small identifiable changes unique to their populations.

Is it the case that all populations on the British Isles are largely the same genetically? Originally seeded from the Bell-beaker people? Even the Anglo-Saxon tribes are largely much the same as "Celtic" tribes from mainland Europe too?

One distinction I've noticed being made is that Ireland seems to have more admixture from the Iberian peninsula than other populations? Other than that what does it actually mean to be British genetically (if we are following migration patterns, not within the last century of course)?

I'm just a Layman, but very interested to know the answers. Is there a current consensus?

I think the largest input into both Britain and Ireland were the Bell Beakers. British and Dutch Bell Beakers are largely indistinguishable. Although calling them "British" and "Dutch" is just to identify the lands they were found in. I do think that Irish, Scots and Welsh are very similar populations along with the English. Regarding a larger "Celtic" ethnicity I don't believe there is really such a thing but then all "Germanics" aren't the same either.

[Bobby Martnen]

Celtic = Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, and Breton people

[Fantomas]

Celtic = Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, and Breton people
Today they do speak English, so they're Germanic

[Bobby Martnen]

Today they do speak English, so they're Germanic

They're the 6 Celtic nations, even if they've been linguistically shifted.

[Fantomas]

They're the 6 Celtic nations, even if they've been linguistically shifted.
Half of Europe was shifted linguistically as well. So language is not the adequate criterion for topicstarter

[Grace O'Malley]

Today they do speak English, so they're Germanic

I think they can be called "Insular Celtic" which has a very specific meaning. They didn't originally speak a Germanic language like the Anglo-Saxons and it is only in recent historic times that they don't speak Celtic in the majority. There are still populations in Ireland, Wales and the Western Isles of Scotland that have spoken Celtic languages uninterrupted to the present day. In both Wales and Ireland the Celtic languages are still official languages of the countries.

All Americans speak a Germanic language but they aren't all "Germanic".

[Bobby Martnen]

I think they can be called "Insular Celtic" which has a very specific meaning. They didn't originally speak a Germanic language like the Anglo-Saxons and it is only in recent historic times that they don't speak Celtic in the majority. There are still populations in Ireland, Wales and the Western Isles of Scotland that have spoken Celtic languages uninterrupted to the present day. In both Wales and Ireland the Celtic languages are still official languages of the countries.

All Americans speak a Germanic language but they aren't all "Germanic".

Exactly. My grandmother's entire family was from Connaught. My great-grandmother was born in rural Galway, and her first language was Irish, and her parents couldn't even speak English fluently.

[Grace O'Malley]

They're the 6 Celtic nations, even if they've been linguistically shifted.

All the 6 Celtic nations all share genetic links as well as being the last holdouts of Celtic speakers. I do emphasis that they are more clearly defined as "Insular Celts". Even the Breton language is related to Cornish and the Bretons were Celts that were escaping from the Anglo-Saxons in Britain in the 5th Century.


They trace much of their heritage to groups of Brittonic speakers who immigrated from southwestern Great Britain, particularly Cornwall and Devon, to expand their territory onto the continent. They migrated in waves from the 3rd to 9th century (most heavily from 450–600) into Armorica, which was subsequently named Brittany after them.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretons

[Fantomas]

I think they can be called "Insular Celtic" which has a very specific meaning. They didn't originally speak a Germanic language like the Anglo-Saxons and it is only in recent historic times that they don't speak Celtic in the majority. There are still populations in Ireland, Wales and the Western Isles of Scotland that have spoken Celtic languages uninterrupted to the present day. In both Wales and Ireland the Celtic languages are still official languages of the countries.

All Americans speak a Germanic language but they aren't all "Germanic".
So,Cornish, in this logic, can not be Celtic nation because they lost language

[Grace O'Malley]

So,Cornish, in this logic, can not be Celtic nation because they lost language

They are still recognised as a Celtic nation and there is a Cornish language revival going on. It became extinct in the 18th Century and Cornish is currently a recognised minority language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There are also a growing number of people speaking the language.

A process to revive the language was begun in the early 20th century, with a number of orthographical systems still in use, although an attempt was made to impose a Standard Written Form in 2008. In 2010 UNESCO announced that its former classification of the language as "extinct" was "no longer accurate".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-11935464

[Fantomas]

They are still recognised as a Celtic nation and there is a Cornish language revival going on. It became extinct in the 18th Century and Cornish is currently a recognised minority language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. There are also a growing number of people speaking the language.

A process to revive the language was begun in the early 20th century, with a number of orthographical systems still in use, although an attempt was made to impose a Standard Written Form in 2008. In 2010 UNESCO announced that its former classification of the language as "extinct" was "no longer accurate".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-11935464
So if some enthusiastic people would decide to reconstruct Briton language, for the former Strathclyde or Deira kingdoms, some english became the Celtic nation, as well?

[Bosniensis]

Celts are I2 people

They used to live in Spain, Gaul and Britain

but Germanic peoples killed them all.

Modern British people have no connection to British Celts whatsoever...

Celts are I2a1, I2a2 etc..

Celts were part of Hellenic Civilization. They originate from Anatolia and Balkans.

[Grace O'Malley]

So if some enthusiastic people would decide to reconstruct Briton language, for the former Strathclyde or Deira kingdoms, some english became the Celtic nation, as well?

No it isn't that simplistic is it? You have to have spoken a Celtic language in recent history. It is true though that some parts of England spoke Celtic languages within the last 500 years but you can't resurrect a dead language. The Cornish are recognised as a Celtic nation because they had a long history of speaking a Celtic language. Unfortunately Gaulish and other continental Celtic languages died out too long ago in the past to be resurrected. I guess places like Ireland, Wales, parts of Scotland have the fortune of being a bit more isolated so that they have preserved the languages better.

Anyway people can argue about these sort of labels forever. Most people know the history of "the Isles" so I prefer labels like Gaels or Britons as I've found people on this forum get into a bit of a flap about Celts.

I'm sure we'll see some genomes from Hallstatt and La Tene Celts in the future and I don't expect them to be the same as Insular Celts but look forward to more analysing of European populations and understanding European history better.

[Fantomas]

No it isn't that simplistic is it? You have to have spoken a Celtic language in recent history. It is true though that some parts of England spoke Celtic languages within the last 500 years but you can't resurrect a dead language. The Cornish are recognised as a Celtic nation because they had a long history of speaking a Celtic language. Unfortunately Gaulish and other continental Celtic languages died out too long ago in the past to be resurrected. I guess places like Ireland, Wales, parts of Scotland have the fortune of being a bit more isolated so that they have preserved the languages better.

What are the frames of "recent time" and "long history" to consider some nations as Celtic and inconsistencies with these requirements, that make another nations not Celtic, 300-500-1000 ?

[Grace O'Malley]

What are the frames of "recent time" and "long history" to consider some nations as Celtic and inconsistencies with these requirements, that make another nations not Celtic, 300-500-1000 ?

I will give you the definition of the Celtic League. Personally I'm not too fussed and don't really care if people think of me as a Celt or not. My main identity is Irish and also Australian.


The Celtic League is a pan-Celtic organisation, founded in 1961, that aims to promote modern Celtic identity and culture in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Cornwall and the Isle of Man – referred to as the Celtic nations; it places particular emphasis on promoting the Celtic languages of those nations. It also advocates further self-governance in the Celtic nations and ultimately for each nation to be an independent state in their own right.[1] The Celtic League is an accredited NGO with roster consultative status to ECOSOC (The United Nations Economic and Social Council).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_League

This article goes more into the question of language.


Celtic is a linguistic term; a Celt is one who speaks or was known to have spoken within modern historical times a Celtic language. That is central. This brings us back to the future of the languages for if the languages and their attendant culture have no future then the Celts will become as extinct as the Etruscans. Celtic identity is intrinsically linked to language and culture and there can be no dilution of that fact. I was instrumental in persuading the Celtic League to reject an application from Galicia as a Celtic country. The last time a Celtic language was recorded as being spoken in Galicia was in the 9th Century. The language now spoken there (Galego) is a dialect close to Portuguese but influenced by Castilian. True, there are some Celtic words remaining. However, more Celtic words are remaining in French and indeed English. Indeed, Celtic was reported in Cumbria in England as late as the 14th century and even into the 20th century if one accepts the evidence of shepherds using Celtic prime numbers to count their sheep. So on the basis of accepting Galicia, the Celtic League would have to accept France, England (or at least Cumbria) as legitimate Celtic communities.


https://www.transceltic.com/pan-celtic/celtic-identity-language-and-question-of-galicia

So this is the definition that the Celtic League use. Modern historical times are obviously within the last 200 years so relatively recent times. There is an active process to revive these languages i.e. Manx and Cornish because they can be revived. They aren't lost to the mists of time.

This isn't my definition because I blow a bit hot and cold on the whole subject.

[Fantomas]

[/url]The Celtic League is a pan-Celtic organisation, founded in 1961,


Right. The only thing there should be added, that Celtic myth was created as an alternative concept to Germanic myt by romantic thinkers 300 years ago. Ironically, the term "Celts" was never used in realtion to Brit isles population.


So this is the definition that the Celtic League use. Modern historical times are obviously within the last 200 years so relatively recent times.Modern historical times are obviously within the last 200 years so relatively recent times. There is an active process to revive these languages because they can be revived. They are lost to the mists of time.
The nation that not used "Celtic" language longer than 200 years have no right to be "Celtic", but if the language was forgotten 200 years ago the nation automatically got this right, hmmm... interesting theory

[Grace O'Malley]

Right. The only thing there should be added, that Celtic myth was created as an alternative concept to Germanic myt by romantic thinkers 300 years ago. Ironically, the term "Celts" was never used in realtion to Brit isles population.


The nation that not used "Celtic" language longer than 200 years have no right to be "Celtic", but if the language was forgotten 200 years ago the nation automatically got this right, hmmm... interesting theory

Well Celtic myth or not they speak Celtic languages and also if you try to find any information about the Celts they use the Irish and Welsh literature extensively. So not sure what is so "mythic" about it? They were Celtic speaking populations and the Anglo-Saxons brought Germanic language to Britain. Is this really controversial? Whether they are called "Celtic" or Gaelic or Brittonic it's only a label. They are not Germanic languages but from the Celtic group of languages. You'd can't argue with that.

The definition is from the Celtic League and I understand that their main reasoning is to preserve whatever Celtic languages they can. That is one of their main objectives so they have made language their prime identifier. It is understandable as otherwise how to define what is Celtic when so many Europeans claim some Celtic association? If they want to preserve the languages you can understand their reasoning. It's quite simple otherwise the term becomes meaningless as was explained by Beresford.

[Fantomas]

Well Celtic myth or not they speak Celtic languages and also if you try to find any information about the Celts they use the Irish and Welsh literature extensively. So not sure what is so "mythic" about it? They were Celtic speaking populations and the Anglo-Saxons brought Germanic language to Britain. Is this really controversial? Whether they are called "Celtic" or Gaelic or Brittonic it's only a label. They are not Germanic languages but from the Celtic group of languages. You'd can't argue with that.
.
That's what i meant by modern Celtic myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Revival

This romanticist Celtic construct doesn't have to do with historical reality and we're back where we started , according to these pan-Celtic standards if people dont speake Celtic, though in the past their ancestors do, they can not be a "Celtic"

[Albannach]

If the term Celtic has no genetic validity then why are the nations with a Celtic culture and a history of Celtic language predominantly R1b-L21 to this day? and what makes it any less of a valid label than Germanic, Latin or Slavic ect?

[Grace O'Malley]

That's what i meant by modern Celtic myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Revival

This romanticist Celtic construct doesn't have to do with historical reality and we're back where we started , according to these pan-Celtic standards if people dont speake Celtic, though in the past their ancestors do, they can not be a "Celtic"

What are you trying to say? Are you disputing that Irish, Welsh, Scots are Celtic? From your sentence above and previously you appear to be trying to say that it is a construct which makes no sense. They are undoubtedly Celtic in language, literature and even their deities. I agree with Albannach and find it odd the way certain people are always trying to dispute the Celticity of Irish, Welsh and Scots.

In plain language what is your definition of a Celt? Also I've always wondered about your extreme interest in the topic.

[Fantomas]

and what makes it any less of a valid label than Germanic, Latin or Slavic ect?


What are you trying to say? Are you disputing that Irish, Welsh, Scots are Celtic? From your sentence above and previously you appear to be trying to say that it is a construct which makes no sense. They are undoubtedly Celtic in language, literature and even their deities. I agree with Albannach and find it odd the way certain people are always trying to dispute the Celticity of Irish, Welsh and Scots.

In plain language what is your definition of a Celt? Also I've always wondered about your extreme interest in the topic.

All of these terms are 17-18 century romanticist concepts. and based just on relative languages, and in that way outdated surely today. If we use these words, so all aspects must be taken into account, historical context, archaeology, anthropology, genetic,language, ethnic background and its nature of changes in time. It is either should be used in this way or have no value at all.