Oldest ethnicity in Europe?

[Wulfhere]

This is almost certainly the Greeks, but I think the English have a good claim to be the second oldest.

[The Ripper]

The Jews.

[Peyrol]

Basques, of course.

[Wulfhere]

The Jews.

Yes, that's true. But they're not native, though.

[Wulfhere]

Basques, of course.

When do we first find records of a Basque identity?

[gold_fenix]

well maybe the oldest european are the basques, is a very old ethnic group of Europe

[Sikeliot]

Basques without a doubt.

[Wulfhere]

Basques without a doubt.

This is a supposition based on their language, which is not the same as ethnicity. When do we first have records of Basques identifying themselves as a nation?

[Sikeliot]

I don't think that matters. The Basque language and culture has remained intact and in the same small geographic area for a very long time without much change.. thus they'd be the oldest culture at least.

[gold_fenix]

too are their hallogroup in the genetic aspect

[Wulfhere]

I don't think that matters. The Basque language and culture has remained intact and in the same small geographic area for a very long time without much change.. thus they'd be the oldest culture at least.

Maybe so, but that's not really the same thing. Without records, we have no way of knowing if the self-identified as a nation (as opposed to, say, having a clan based identity).

[Wyn]

The English ethnogenesis (6th-7th C.) was certainly one of the earliest in Western Europe. Though a case could be made that the Welsh ethnicity existed even before English and Scottish/Gaelic settlement in Britain.

Either way, the English, Welsh and Gaels had their ethnogeneses many centuries before those in other parts of Europe. One, or all of the three jointly, probably take the 'oldest European ethnicity' title.

[Rouxinol]

Portugal

Formation Conventional date for Independence is 1139
- Founding 868
- Re-founding 1095
- De facto sovereignty 24 June 1128
- Kingdom 25 July 1139
- Recognized 5 October 1143
- Papal Recognition 23 May 1179

[Wulfhere]

The English ethnogenesis (6th-7th C.) was certainly one of the earliest in Western Europe. Though a case could be made that the Welsh ethnicity existed even before English and Scottish/Gaelic settlement in Britain.

Either way, the English, Welsh and Gaels had their ethnogeneses many centuries before those in other parts of Europe. One, or all of the three jointly, probably take the 'oldest European ethnicity' title.

The Welsh and Scottish ethnicities formed in opposition to the English. We created them.

[Wyn]

Portugal

Formation Conventional date for Independence is 1139
- Founding 868
- Re-founding 1095
- De facto sovereignty 24 June 1128
- Kingdom 25 July 1139
- Recognized 5 October 1143
- Papal Recognition 23 May 1179

Noobs. ;)


The Welsh and Scottish ethnicities formed in opposition to the English. We created them.

Obviously we did not create the ethnicity of the Brythons - which is the ethnicity that the Welsh essentially are successors too.

The Scots are more complicated. The - original - Scots, Gaelic speakers, are hard to discuss when it comes to ethnicity because the word Góidel only appears - to my knowledge - around the 10th C. or so, and spreads from Ireland to Scotland.

So yes, in retrospect, we can rule the Scots out.

It's us or the Welsh. :D

[Wulfhere]

Noobs. ;)



Obviously we did not create the ethnicity of the Brythons - which is the ethnicity that the Welsh essentially are successors too.

The Scots are more complicated. The - original - Scots, Gaelic speakers, are hard to discuss when it comes to ethnicity because the word Góidel only appears - to my knowledge - around the 10th C. or so, and spreads from Ireland to Scotland.

So yes, in retrospect, we can rule the Scots out.

It's us or the Welsh. :D

Did the Brythons comprise a single ethnicity?

[Wyn]

Did the Brythons comprise a single ethnicity?

This is the million dollar question. The Anglo-Saxons were more than happy to refer to them collectively as Brytens, and to refer to Wales as Brytenlond, 'Briton-land.' Likewise, at least one Welsh chronicler refers to Vortigern as 'King of the Britons' or some such.

We have to remember that Gaelic and Anglic settlement in Britain are of massive importance in creating Welsh ethnicity. It just comes down to which of the two ethnicities, that of the Cymry or that of the English, was truly born first. We can rule that of the Scots out purely because the Gaelic ethnicity begins in Ireland and - presumably - then extends to all Gaelic speakers, including those in Scotland. The fact that Scotti is simply the Late Latin for 'Irishman' confuses matters even further.

[Wulfhere]

This is the million dollar question. The Anglo-Saxons were more than happy to refer to them collectively as Brytens, and to refer to Wales as Brytenlond, 'Briton-land.' Likewise, at least one Welsh chronicler refers to Vortigern as 'King of the Britons' or some such.

We have to remember that Gaelic and Anglic settlement in Britain are of massive importance in creating Welsh ethnicity. It just comes down to which of the two ethnicities, that of the Cymry or that of the Englisc, was truly born first. We can rule that of the Scots out purely because the Gaelic ethnicity begins in Ireland and - presumably - then extends to all Gaelic speakers, including those in Scotland.

Perhaps the English and Welsh ethnicities did indeed form at the same time, like two dragons locked in eternal struggle.

[Wanderlust]

Ancient Greek tribes arrived in Greece and Southern Balkans/Aegean area during the third millenium BC.

[Wulfhere]

Ancient Greek tribes arrived in Greece and Southern Balkans/Aegean area during the third millenium BC.

Yes. They beat the English, no doubt about that.

[Labeat]

Illyrians, Albanian ancestors

[Adrian]

Ancient Greek tribes arrived in Greece and Southern Balkans/Aegean area during the third millenium BC.

Let's make clear that ancient greeks doesn't have any connection with modern greeks.
Albanians, together with basks and armenians are the oldest people of the Europe.
If we talk about nations, I don't have any idea because in that time nations didn't exist....only tribes.

[Äike]

Setu People – The Oldest Settled People In Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251018&postcount=1)

[d3cimat3d]

Albanians(Illyrians)

*edit

someone beat me to it.

[Wanderlust]

As you probably saw I didn't quote anyone.I just shared a fact concerning History.Your comment about modern Greeks is off topic has no base but I guess your hate towards Greece can't let you see it.More in private if you wish.
So make it clear to yourself and those you share same opinions with you.
Is this Mother Teresa?

[Heretik]

Serbs of course. :laugh:

[Lahtari]

Almost certainly the Greeks. Or at least they have some direct evidence (written history).

Also, can we count the Italian ethnos as the successor of Rome, or was there some melting pot in between?

[Ibericus]

Iberians.

[Treffie]

The Welsh and Scottish ethnicities formed in opposition to the English. We created them.

As Gos stated, the Welsh self-identification term Cymry, came about after the Romans left Britain at around 400-500AD and wasn't as a result of the English.

[Wulfhere]

Let's make clear that ancient greeks doesn't have any connection with modern greeks.
Albanians, together with basks and armenians are the oldest people of the Europe.
If we talk about nations, I don't have any idea because in that time nations didn't exist....only tribes.

If the modern Greeks have no connection with the Ancient Greeks, how come they speak Greek?

When are the first records of an Albanian nation? Pretty recent, I would guess.

[Wulfhere]

Almost certainly the Greeks. Or at least they have some direct evidence (written history).

Also, can we count the Italian ethnos as the successor of Rome, or was there some melting pot in between?

The Italian ethnicity appears to have been a creation of the post-Roman period, as a result of the fall of the empire (and not until after the end of the Byzantine reconquests, either). Prior to that, there was a Roman ethnicity, which no longer exists.

[Wulfhere]

The Welsh self-identification term Cymry, came about after the Romans left Britain at around 400-500AD and wasn't as a result of the English.

Why did they stop calling themselves Britons, then? Welsh identity was forged in the struggle for territory and identity initiated by the English conquests.

[Jnovais]

Iberians.

:thumb001:

[Labeat]

If the modern Greeks have no connection with the Ancient Greeks, how come they speak Greek?

Its about genetic question, not only linguistic.

[Wulfhere]

Its about genetic question, not only linguistic.

So they have "no connection" with them? That's what was said.

[Wyn]

Why did they stop calling themselves Britons, then? Welsh identity was forged in the struggle for territory and identity initiated by the English conquests.

I think we may well just have to concede this point to the Welshies, Wulf. ;) Welsh = Briton. Thus, a pretty good argument can be made for them being the oldest ethnicity in W. Europe.

But we're second :D :


Praeterea omnes, ad quos haec eadem historia peruenire potuerit nostrae nationis [...]
Moreover, I beseech all men who shall hear or read this history of our nation [...]


Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum
(Ecclesiastical History of the English People)
c. 730

[Labeat]

So they have "no connection" with them? That's what was said.
Yes of course he was right, there not exist connection between today Greeks and ancient Greeks.

[Wanderlust]

Its about genetic question, not only linguistic.
I know,it's hard to believe that after so many years of Turkish rule we still speak Greek,haven't lost our identity and know our History hence the obvious hate from those unfortunately blessed with the opposite,but as you see it happened.Thank you for proving to others how unwilling and brainwashed most of you are towards a European country and fellow Balkan country right next to yours.All you have to do is answer WHY only Albanians have issues in this thread with Greece's identity although I assume you already know.Concluding,bare in mind that Greeks are like roaches,they would survive even after nuclear explosion.:thumb001:
And I don't give a damn about how you'll possibly use my words.

[Treffie]

Why did they stop calling themselves Britons, then? Welsh identity was forged in the struggle for territory and identity initiated by the English conquests.

I doubt that they called themselves Britons - this term was used by the Romans.

[Wulfhere]

I think we may well just have to concede this point to the Welshies, Wulf. ;) Welsh = Briton. Thus, a pretty good argument can be made for them being the oldest ethnicity in W. Europe.

But we're second :D :

Conceivably, but it does seem odd that they should change their name from Britons to "Compatriots" (Cymry). Ethnicities don't tend to change their name, and such may indicate an alteration in self-identity. And then we have the Cornish too - are both the Welsh and the Cornish the oldest ethnicity, since both are descended from Britons? Or did one split away? If so, which one?

[Wulfhere]

Yes of course he was right, there not exist connection between today Greeks and ancient Greeks.

Why do they speak Greek then?

[Treffie]

Conceivably, but it does seem odd that they should change their name from Britons to "Compatriots" (Cymry). Ethnicities don't tend to change their name, and such may indicate an alteration in self-identity. And then we have the Cornish too - are both the Welsh and the Cornish the oldest ethnicity, since both are descended from Britons? Or did one split away? If so, which one?

As I said earlier, they didn't call themselves Britons, but self identified by their tribal names, ie, Silure, Demetae, etc

[Wulfhere]

I doubt that they called themselves Britons - this term was used by the Romans.

The Britons certainly called themselves that. The question is, why did some of them later adopt a new name for themselves, i.e. Cymry?

[Wulfhere]

As I said earlier, they didn't call themselves Britons, but self identified by their tribal names, ie, Silure, Demetae, etc

Indeed. There was a tribal identity, not an ethnic one. There was probably no British identity, or if there was, it didn't survive the English settlement.

[Wyn]

Conceivably, but it does seem odd that they should change their name from Britons to "Compatriots" (Cymry). Ethnicities don't tend to change their name, and such may indicate an alteration in self-identity. And then we have the Cornish too - are both the Welsh and the Cornish the oldest ethnicity, since both are descended from Britons? Or did one split away? If so, which one?

Big questions. Ultimately I suppose it comes down to whether or not the Britons formed an ethnicity before contact with the Anglics. Assuming the term Cymry is attestable from before Anglic settlement, then the Welsh have effectively been referring to themselves under the same ethnonym for a few hundred years longer than we have.

How the Cornish and Bretons fit into all this is difficult to determine. I suppose theoretically one would conclude that the Cornish and Bretons are later offshoots of the Welsh or that the three originated at the same time and thus share the title equally. Or even that they are three manifestations of the very same ethnicity separated by historical events.

[Labeat]

I know,it's hard to believe that after so many years of Turkish rule we still speak Greek,haven't lost our identity and know our History hence the obvious hate from those unfortunately blessed with the opposite,but as you see it happened.Thank you for proving to others how unwilling and brainwashed most of you are towards a European country and fellow Balkan country right next to yours.All you have to do is answer WHY only Albanians have issues in this thread with Greece's identity although I assume you already know.Concluding,bare in mind that Greeks are like roaches,they would survive even after nuclear explosion.:thumb001:
And I don't give a damn about how you'll possibly use my words.

We are only saying the truth , and if that hurt that is your problem , we know how you save your language, only by giving your blood for your faith so your religion is your identity,your identity its not your ethnicity, if i am not correct prove me otherwise.

Nah opposite, of course also we manage to save our blood most important, then our language and traditions which make our identity most strongest one because we f..... all religions ,so you fail to make purposed conclusions.
Please anwer me how is possible that under ottoman empire you had schools and we not, your schools were opened only due to your loyality to ottoman empire, so this is your nuclear explosion surviving.

[Wulfhere]

Big questions. Ultimately I suppose it comes down to whether or not the Britons formed an ethnicity before contact with the Anglics. Assuming the term Cymry is attestable from before Anglic settlement, then the Welsh have effectively been referring to themselves under the same ethnonym for a few hundred years longer than we have.

How the Cornish and Bretons fit into all this is difficult to determine. I suppose theoretically one would conclude that the Cornish and Bretons are later offshoots of the Welsh or that the three originated at the same time and thus share the title equally. Or even that they are three manifestations of the very same ethnicity.

"Cymry" is first attested in 633.

The process whereby the indigenous population of 'Wales' came to think of themselves as Welsh is not clear. There is plenty of evidence of the use of the term Brythoniaid (Britons); by contrast, the earliest use of the word Kymry (referring not to the people but to the land—and possibly to northern Britain in addition to modern day territory of Wales) is found in a poem dated to about 633. The name of the region in northern England now known as Cumbria is believed to be derived from the same root.[30] Only gradually did Cymru (the land) and Cymry (the people) come to supplant Brython. Although the Welsh language was certainly used at the time, Gwyn A. Williams argues that even at the time of the erection of Offa's Dyke, the people to its west saw themselves as Roman, citing the number of Latin inscriptions still being made into the 8th century.[31] However, it is unclear whether such inscriptions reveal a general or normative use of Latin as a marker of identity or its selective use by the early Christian Church.

The word Cymry is believed to be derived from the Brythonic combrogi, meaning fellow-countrymen,[28] and thus Cymru carries a sense of "land of fellow-countrymen", "our country" - and, of course, notions of fraternity. The name "Wales", however, comes from the Germanic walha, a term meaning "stranger" or "foreigner" which was applied particularly to peoples who had been Romanised.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people

[Lithium]

The group of the Thracians, there are many new researches which prove it. It doesn't matter how we call them today but it sure that the oldest ethnicity in Europe are on the Balkan area.

[Wulfhere]

The group of the Thracians, there are many new researches which prove it. It doesn't matter how we call them today but it sure that the oldest ethnicity in Europe are on the Balkan area.

Er, no.

[Wanderlust]

Have you never ever heard of Secret Schools???Illegal underground schools for teaching the Greek language and Christian morals?You leave me speechless!
This is how morals,language,stories were kept.Do you have any idea how many teachers had died during these years out of devotion because of that?And here we are,trying to explain the obvious to an ignorant Albanian.Well,I guess Albanians didn't bother much so that's probably you didn't.You guys need group therapy.And a better education.
It needs biger effort than that to get me hurt.Now remind me..Why all this hate?

[Labeat]

Why do they speak Greek then?

If some africans for example, would be asimilated and integrated on your society and country , after many years how will they speak?

[Äike]

Setu People – The Oldest Settled People In Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251018&postcount=1)

lol at the people who even mention Iberia or the Balkan area in this thread.

I do not know that you are talking about, but I am talking about continuous cultural and genetic heritage. Iberia and the Balkan area has been run over by dozens of different ethnicities, while the Setus have been the same people for the last 5000 years.

I'll copy-paste some chapters:

South-East Estonia at the coasts of lake Pihkva there live a special people – the Setus. The land of Setus (in Estonian Setumaa and in Setu called Setomaa) is thought to be the most far-away place in Estonia and the Setus are also different from the so-called average Estonians. There are about 10 000 Setus. They speak Setu language, which differs from the standard Estonian like for example Norwegian differs from Swedish.

But what makes the Setus a special people is not so much their religion but their ancient oral cultural heritage. The Setus remember their ancient customs, folk songs, tales, dances and rituals remarkably better than all other regions in Estonia. A subsistantial amount of folk song texts in the Estonian Literature Museum have been recorded in Setumaa. The remarkable aspect here is that the songs sung by some illiterate Setu singers have been estimated to be over 5000 years old and several experts claim the Setu people to be the oldest settled people in Europe – they have not participated in any migrations.
Next to Christianity the Setu people have held on to their ancient pagan beliefs. Until quite recently it would have been no surprise to find a primeval wooden statue of fertility god Peko hidden somewhere near to the picture of Jesus. Until the beginning of the 20th century the Setus made blood sacrifices to Peko in secret rituals – full-grown men would fight until blood is spilled. Worshipping the souls of dead ancestors is still a vital practice.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251018&postcount=1

[Wyn]

"Cymry" is first attested in 633.

Then they might just take it. :thumb001:

Here (http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/poetry/yrhengerdd/moliant_cadwallon.htm) is the poem in question, for anyone interested. Much easier to find than I thought it would be.

[Labeat]

Have you never ever heard of Secret Schools???Illegal underground schools for teaching the Greek language and Christian morals?You leave me speechless!
This is how morals,language,stories were kept.Do you have any idea how many teachers had died during these years out of devotion because of that?And here we are,trying to explain the obvious to an ignorant Albanian.Well,I guess Albanians didn't bother much so that's probably you didn't.You guys need group therapy.And a better education.
It needs biger effort than that to get me hurt.Now remind me..Why all this hate?
No no no no ,what you pretend!!! that you have somebody who dont know your history in front of you, dont spread your lies here like this one about illegal schools, no no these schools were legal because if you had illegal schools then ottoman regime would be more wild for you , only one example i will give you that in 1800-1900 a hundreds of your schools in colaboration with ottoman administrate were opened even in Albania ,otherwise no one single Albanian school was opened , so if you are trying to change topic about speaking for our behaviour i am living now this conversation with you.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Linguistically and genetically the Basques are the oldest.

Their language is unlike anything else so it broke off from other languages far earlier.

Also their genetics have the smallest foreign influences. (look at the paternal haplogroups found in the Basques!)

To determine who the oldest people are- it's wrong to look at who has the oldest records because people lived in Europe thousands of years before records.

Genetically and linguistically the Basques have held together for BY FAR the longest.

[Wyn]

I think a lot of people in this thread have misunderstood the question. Ethnicity is not the same as genetics or linguistics. Ethnicity follows ethnogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis), which can occur for any number of reasons. This is why looking at records is so important.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I think a lot of people in this thread have misunderstood the question. Ethnicity is not the same as genetics or linguistics. Ethnicity follows ethnogenesis, which can occur for any number of reasons. This is why looking at records is so important.


ethnogenesis is the process by which a group of human beings comes to be understood or to understand themselves as ethnically distinct from the wider social landscape from which their grouping emerges


That's stupid because every single group on the planet in the past thought of themselves as different than those around them. Tribal groups have always existed.

I still strongly stand by what I said about the Basques being the oldest. And evidence is linguistics and genetics.


This is why looking at records is so important.
^No because for some groups records don't exist. Not every tribe on the planet was literate. And some records were destroyed.

[Comte Arnau]

Lol at everybody mixing ethnicity, nationality and terminology.

If we're talking about ethnicity, the Basque/Vasconic one.

If we're talking about nation-states, then France.

[Wyn]

That's stupid because every single group on the planet in the past thought of themselves as different than those around them. Tribal groups have always existed.

I took the question to mean ethnic groups still in existence. Obviously Europe has had an un-knowable number of former tribal identities that no longer exist.


I still strongly stand by what I said about the Basques being the oldest. And evidence is linguistics and genetics.

Easy to say, but genetics and linguistics are not the same as ethnicity and do not 'evidence' ethnicity. In fact:


In Basque, Basques call themselves euskaldunak, singular euskaldun, formed from euskal- (i.e. "Basque (language)") and -dun (i.e. "one who has"); euskaldun literally means a Basque speaker. Not all Basques are Basque-speakers, and not all Basque speakers are Basques; foreigners who have learned Basque can also be called euskaldunak. Therefore the neologism euskotar, plural euskotarrak, was coined in the 19th century to mean an ethnically Basque person whether Basque-speaking or not. These Basque words are all derived from euskara, the Basque name for the Basque language.

So arguing for a continuous Basque ethnic identity is not so straightforward.


^No because for some groups records don't exist. Not every tribe on the planet was literate. And some records were destroyed.

I'll repeat what I said about the question presumably specifying still-extant ethnic groups. I don't know how you could actually argue that one ethnic group was older than another without some form of cultural evidence of the ethnicity having existed, rather than just a language.


If we're talking about nation-states, then France.

Presumably you're basing this answer on the flawed notion that nation-states are an 18th/19th century concept?

[Comte Arnau]

Presumably you're basing this answer on the flawed notion that nation-states are an 18th/19th century concept?

They are indeed.

But even if you don't think so, France is the expansion of Francia, already born in the 5th century. So in both cases it'd be the first.

[Wyn]

They are indeed.

Would you care to prove this? Also, please demonstrate why you think nation-states did not exist before this time.


But even if you don't think so, France is the expansion of Francia, already born in the 5th century. So in both cases it'd be the first.

Whether or not France has ever been a nation-state is rather debatable given that France is a state of many nations, but the Frankish Kingdom, by the time it had come close to equalling France's modern borders, had within its boundaries many (mostly?) non-Franks, so even then was not a nation-state.

[Peyrol]

When do we first find records of a Basque identity?

...or maybe the Welsh/Cymru and the Scots

[Wulfhere]

If some africans for example, would be asimilated and integrated on your society and country , after many years how will they speak?

But thats not "no connection", is it?

[Wulfhere]

lol at the people who even mention Iberia or the Balkan area in this thread.

I do not know that you are talking about, but I am talking about continuous cultural and genetic heritage. Iberia and the Balkan area has been run over by dozens of different ethnicities, while the Setus have been the same people for the last 5000 years.

I'll copy-paste some chapters:

South-East Estonia at the coasts of lake Pihkva there live a special people – the Setus. The land of Setus (in Estonian Setumaa and in Setu called Setomaa) is thought to be the most far-away place in Estonia and the Setus are also different from the so-called average Estonians. There are about 10 000 Setus. They speak Setu language, which differs from the standard Estonian like for example Norwegian differs from Swedish.

But what makes the Setus a special people is not so much their religion but their ancient oral cultural heritage. The Setus remember their ancient customs, folk songs, tales, dances and rituals remarkably better than all other regions in Estonia. A subsistantial amount of folk song texts in the Estonian Literature Museum have been recorded in Setumaa. The remarkable aspect here is that the songs sung by some illiterate Setu singers have been estimated to be over 5000 years old and several experts claim the Setu people to be the oldest settled people in Europe – they have not participated in any migrations.
Next to Christianity the Setu people have held on to their ancient pagan beliefs. Until quite recently it would have been no surprise to find a primeval wooden statue of fertility god Peko hidden somewhere near to the picture of Jesus. Until the beginning of the 20th century the Setus made blood sacrifices to Peko in secret rituals – full-grown men would fight until blood is spilled. Worshipping the souls of dead ancestors is still a vital practice.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251018&postcount=1

And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about self-identifying nations.

[Peyrol]

...also the sardinian...first king of Sardinia, Sardus the Great, ruled in a time when Rome was a swamp and Carthago never exist....

[Wulfhere]

Then they might just take it. :thumb001:

Here (http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/poetry/yrhengerdd/moliant_cadwallon.htm) is the poem in question, for anyone interested. Much easier to find than I thought it would be.

References to the English (or in Latin, Angli) predate that. Such as Pope Gregory's recognition of Ethelbert of Kent as Rex Angli around 600.

[Wulfhere]

Linguistically and genetically the Basques are the oldest.

Their language is unlike anything else so it broke off from other languages far earlier.

Also their genetics have the smallest foreign influences. (look at the paternal haplogroups found in the Basques!)

To determine who the oldest people are- it's wrong to look at who has the oldest records because people lived in Europe thousands of years before records.

Genetically and linguistically the Basques have held together for BY FAR the longest.

There's no evidence they had a national identity, and that's the question I asked.

[Wulfhere]

That's stupid because every single group on the planet in the past thought of themselves as different than those around them. Tribal groups have always existed.

I still strongly stand by what I said about the Basques being the oldest. And evidence is linguistics and genetics.


^No because for some groups records don't exist. Not every tribe on the planet was literate. And some records were destroyed.

You can't make an argument from absence of evidence.

[Wulfhere]

They are indeed.

But even if you don't think so, France is the expansion of Francia, already born in the 5th century. So in both cases it'd be the first.

The French state dates to the time of Hugh Capet, in 987.

[Labeat]

But thats not "no connection", is it?What a question is that, be more precisely please?

[Ouistreham]

France is the expansion of Francia, already born in the 5th century. So in both cases it'd be the first.

• France is arguably the oldest state in Europe (built as a geopolitical unit under one independent authority and upon one citizenship in the years 486 through 507).

Italy was in the same configuration as soon as 42 BC but inflated then into a humongous empire that finally collapsed, and it took one and a half millenium before a political unit called Italy showed up again on the scene.

The longest proven historical record under the same continued culture belongs to Greece (twenty-seven centuries) but here again, an independent Hellenic state wasn't created before 1830.

As an ethnicity with a continuous culture and language the Basques cannot be beaten. Everywhere else in Europe pre-IE cultures where wiped out, only the hardest core survived.

The Basques have proven to be one of the toughest peoples ever.

[Wulfhere]

• France is arguably the oldest state in Europe (built as a geopolitical unit under one independent authority and upon one citizenship in the years 486 through 507).

Italy was in the same configuration as soon as 42 BC but inflated then into a humongous empire that finally collapsed, and it took one and a half millenium before a political unit called Italy showed up again on the scene.

The longest proven historical record under the same continued culture belongs to Greece (twenty-seven centuries) but here again, an independent Hellenic state wasn't created before 1830.

As an ethnicity with a continuous culture and language the Basques cannot be beaten. Everywhere else in Europe pre-IE cultures where wiped out, only the hardest core survived.

The Basques have proven to be one of the toughest peoples ever.

Again, we have no evidence they had a national identity, which is what I asked.

[Wanderlust]

The longest proven historical record under the same continued culture belongs to Greece (twenty-seven centuries) but here again, an independent Hellenic state wasn't created before 1830.



That's probably what confuses people here.Greece among other Balkan countries was occupied hundreds of years by Ottoman Empire.

[Ouistreham]

Again, we have no evidence they had a national identity, which is what I asked.

There is of course no written record, no technical evidence they had any. But I assume they did have one.

Their behaviour under Roman rule was quite strange. Through history the Basques have proven they were able to successfully withstand any conqueror passing by — the Wisigoths, the Arabs, the Franks — but unlike all other Iberian tribes they never resisted the Roman conquest, they rather took part to it. Just as if they knew that Roman civilisation would not significantly affect their existence as a distinctive nation. Actually their relationship to the Romans was more of a partnership than simple submission.

[Wulfhere]

There is of course no written record, no technical evidence they had any. But I assume they did have one.

Their behaviour under Roman rule was quite strange. Through history the Basques have proven they were able to successfully withstand any conqueror passing by — the Wisigoths, the Arabs, the Franks — but unlike all other Iberian tribes they never resisted the Roman conquest, they rather took part to it. Just as if they knew that Roman civilisation would not significantly affect their existence as a distinctive nation. Actually their relationship to the Romans was more of a partnership than simple submission.

That's pure speculation. It's far easier simply to say that they submitted because they didn't have a distinctive identity of their own.

[Ouistreham]

That's pure speculation. It's far easier simply to say that they submitted because they didn't have a distinctive identity of their own.

• Except that the Basque country is neither an island or a cul de sac like the remaining Celtic peninsulas of Wales, Brittany, Scotland, nor a geopolitically unimportant area like Albania or the Caucasian slopes.

The homeland of the Basque is the most unlikely location for a specific culture to survive, it's the main gateway to Iberia, a narrow corridor between the Ocean and the virtually impassable Pyrenean mountains.

In their history the Basques have seen lots of invadors passing by, Celts among others, from the very beginning of IE expansion in Europe. They couldn't but have a clear conscience of 'us' and 'them'. And still their clinged to their impossible country. The more I think of it, the more I find it an enigma.

[Wulfhere]

• Except that the Basque country is not an island, a cul de sac

So what? The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know. And the chances are they had a clannish, rather than an ethnic, identity, just like all pre-literate peoples.

[Comte Arnau]

Would you care to prove this? Also, please demonstrate why you think nation-states did not exist before this time.

What do I have to prove? I just adhere to what is commonly regarded by political historians, with which I agree. Both the concepts of nation and state are very recent ones indeed, and hardly you will find any nation-state before the 18th century, when most political entities were based on rulers who ruled over a variety of ethnical nations.


Whether or not France has ever been a nation-state is rather debatable given that France is a state of many nations, but the Frankish Kingdom, by the time it had come close to equalling France's modern borders, had within its boundaries many (mostly?) non-Franks, so even then was not a nation-state.

To me, the only nation-state in Europe from centuries ago is Iceland. Others could be considered so too, such as Portugal and a few others where more than 97% of the citizens belong to the same ethnicity. France to me, rather than a nation-state is a state-nation: I mean, not an ethnic nation that became a state, but a political entity which has tried to assimilate all nations within into the core ethnic one, the Francian. When it's completed, it'll be a perfect nation-state. Same thing could be applied to many other European states.


And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about self-identifying nations.

You should say this from the beginning. You meant national identities instead of ethnicities.


The French state dates to the time of Hugh Capet, in 987.

That is the date of start of the Capetian Dinasty, not of the French nation.


• Except that the Basque country is neither an island or a cul de sac like the remaining Celtic peninsulas of Wales, Brittany, Scotland, nor a geopolitically unimportant area like Albania or the Caucasian slopes.

The homeland of the Basque is the most unlikely location for a specific culture to survive, it's the main gateway to Iberia, a narrow corridor between the Ocean and the virtually impassable Pyrenean mountains.

In their history the Basques have seen lots of invadors passing by, Celts among others, from the very beginning of IE expansion in Europe. They couldn't but have a clear conscience of 'us' and 'them'. And still their clinged to their impossible country. The more I think of it, the more I find it an enigma.

It is hard to say whether the Basques have continuously inhabited that area for such a long time. There is debate and hypotheses of all kind, and the fact that they inhabit that angle can also be seen as a place to which they have been pushed by others, not only Romans. It is quite likely that those living in modern Euskadi were Celtic speakers before the Roman invasion, having Basco-Aquitanians been pushed in there later. The natural borders between Aquitanians and Iberians might explain the distance between ancient Basque and the Iberian language, both of which are regarded as from the same family by some linguists.

[Ibericus]

Some historians consider there was already a formed spanish identity, or if you prefer hispanic consciouness, back in Visigothic times.

[Wulfhere]

You should say this from the beginning. You meant national identities instead of ethnicities.

They're the same thing, at least in this context. A nation is an ethnos. Forget concepts of state, or nation-state.

[Wulfhere]

Some historians consider there was already a formed spanish identity, or if you prefer hispanic consciouness, back in Visigothic times.

Is there any evidence of this? The Visigoths were a Germanic elite ruling a sub-Roman speaking populace. Very much like the Franks in Gaul, which is why there was no French nation at that time either, even though there might have been a state that much later became the French state.

[Oreka Bailoak]

And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about self-identifying nations.

No wonder you're arguing with me. You titled your own thread wrong.


An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".[4]
^Basques (which ever Basque group you feel like picking) are the oldest ethnicity (based on Language and Genetics). They are the only group in Europe that is the most different. It's not even close.

If you want to argue about the oldest nation state or whatever make a new thread.

[Wulfhere]

No wonder you're arguing with me. You titled your own thread wrong.


^Basques are the oldest. They are the only group in Europe that is most different.

National identity and ethnicity are the same thing, at least in European terms. What you're talking about are things like culture and language. This is not about states.

[Oreka Bailoak]

National identity and ethnicity are the same thing, at least in European terms. What you're talking about are things like culture and language. This is not about states.

I just posted the definition of what ethnicity is. Here it is again for comparison...

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".[4]


Here is the completely different definition of nationality.


Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state. Citizenship is determined by jus soli, jus sanguinis, or naturalization. In some areas of the world, one's nationality is determined by their ethnicity, rather than citizenship. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.
^ Read for yourself the gigantic difference.

[Wulfhere]

I just posted the definition of what ethnicity is. Here it is again for comparison...


Here is the completely different definition of nationality.


^ Read for yourself the gigantic difference.

No, you're confusing nationality with citizenship. The English are a nation, for example, but there is no such thing as English citizenship.

[Oreka Bailoak]

No, you're confusing nationality with citizenship. The English are a nation, for example, but there is no such thing as English citizenship.

I just showed you the difference in the definition of each word; nationality and ethnicity. They are not the same thing. If they were they would both have the same definition.

You titled your thread ethnicity not nationality.

[Wulfhere]

I just showed you the difference in the definition. They are not the same thing. If they were they would both have the same definition.

Then I can safely say that wherever you got that from is wrong. Or at least, is using one artificial definition of nationality and ignoring the older, more important one.

Are the English a nation?

[Comte Arnau]

Some historians consider there was already a formed spanish identity, or if you prefer hispanic consciouness, back in Visigothic times.

Certain Spanish historians are particularly fond of that theory, I wonder why... :rolleyes:


They're the same thing, at least in this context. A nation is an ethnos. Forget concepts of state, or nation-state.


National identity and ethnicity are the same thing, at least in European terms. What you're talking about are things like culture and language. This is not about states.

I almost agree, as I am a Catalan by ethnicity and by national identity, Spanish is only my current citizenship. But there has to be political will in the members of an ethnicity to form a nation. Otherwise, there can be ethnicities which don't identify themselves collectively as a nation. There can even be members of an ethnicity which identify with a national identity different from that of their real ethnicity, for whatever reason.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Are the English a nation?
Today the word "English" can be either or both an ethnicity and a nation (nationality).

But this thread asked the oldest ethnicity and not nationality.

The English ethnicity (remember linguistics are an important key of ethnicity) is a very new group that developed out of the native Celtic speaking Britons along with the waves of immigration of the Jutes, Frisians, Normans, Saxons, and Angles. And the language is not very old in the area and was brought over recently. So the English ethnicity is not very old.

If you look at the Basques they as a group have VERY VERY little immigration into their area as evidenced through genetics (through paternal lines). They as a group held onto their language more than another group (unlike all the other Indo-European groups). It is clear who the oldest ethnicity is.

[Wulfhere]

Certain Spanish historians are particularly fond of that theory, I wonder why... :rolleyes:





I almost agree, as I am a Catalan by ethnicity and by national identity, Spanish is only my current citizenship. But there has to be political will in the members of an ethnicity to form a nation. Otherwise, there can be ethnicities which don't identify themselves collectively as a nation. There can even be members of an ethnicity which identify with a national identity different from that of their real ethnicity, for whatever reason.

Is that actually possible? Certainly, different ethnicities can identify with a particular "nation-state", while separating this concept from that of nationhood.

[Lábaru]

Spanish is only my current citizenship.

:D:D:D

[Wulfhere]

Today English can be either or both an ethnicity and a nation (nationality).

But this thread asked the oldest ethnicity and not nationality.

The English ethnicity is a very new group that developed out of the native Celtic speaking Britons along with the waves of immigration of the Jutes, Frisians, Normans, Saxons, and Angles. And the language is not very old in the area and was brought over recently. So the English ethnicity is not very old.

If you look at the Basques they as a group have VERY VERY little immigration into their area as evidenced through genetics (through paternal lines). They as a group held onto their language more than another group (unlike all the other Indo-European groups). It is clear who the oldest ethnicity is.

Yes, it is indeed clear. The English are among the oldest ethnicities, i.e. self-identifying nations, in Europe. When did the Basques start calling themselves a nation?

[Comte Arnau]

Is that actually possible? Certainly, different ethnicities can identify with a particular "nation-state", while separating this concept from that of nationhood.

It is possible, of course. Renegades, they've always existed in history. :D

[Oreka Bailoak]

Yes, it is indeed clear. The English are among the oldest ethnicities, i.e. self-identyfying nations, in Europe. When did the Basques start calling themselves a nation?

I'm pissed off now. You ignore the dictionary definitions of ethnicity and nationality, then accuse the dictionary of having the wrong definitions for those words, then you combine the words into your own new definition. And now you're saying that the English- a cultural linguistic group that came over about 2,000 years ago into a land that was populated by an ancient Celtic group- AND is still populated by that much more ancient Celtic group- and you say that the English are "among the oldest ethnicities in Europe".

I don't have time for this anymore. lol

[Wulfhere]

I'm pissed off now. You ignore the definitions of ethnicity and nationality, make up your own definitions for those words, accuse the dictionary of having the wrong definitions for those words, then you combine the words into your own new definition. And now you're saying that the English- a cultural linguistic group that came over about 2,000 years ago into a land that was populated by an ancient Celtic group- AND is still populated by that much more ancient Celtic group- and you say that the English are "among the oldest ethnicities in Europe".

I don't have time for this anymore.

You are either being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely don't understand what an ethnic group or nation actually is.

[Wulfhere]

A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnicity, language and/or territory. The development and conceptualisation of a nation is related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although some nationalists would trace nations into the past along uninterrupted lines of historical narrative. Though the idea of nationality and race are often connected, the two are separate concepts, race dealing more with genotypic and phenotypic similarity and clustering, and nationality with the sense of belonging to a culture.

A nation is not necessarily equated with country in that a country is akin to a state which is defined as the political entity within defined borders. Although "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the political concept of "state" are called nation states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

[Comte Arnau]

Basque nationalism, as most ethnopolitical ones in Europe, is post-Romantic. But I'm convinced they had a clear feeling of being something different, as they fought constantly against both Franks and Wisigoths. After the Duchy of Wasconia, which was mainly one of the Frankish-created protective marches, the real political Basque entity for centuries has been the Kingdom of Navarre (824-1620), around the most important Basque city, Pamplona. Nowadays, however, things have changed a bit, as Navarre has been heavily Castilianized in the last five centuries.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Nationality

Though the idea of nationality and race are often connected, the two are separate concepts, race dealing more with genotypic and phenotypic similarity and clustering, and nationality with the sense of belonging to a culture.

Ethnicity

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".

Proved my point.

[Wulfhere]

Basque nationalism, as most ethnopolitical ones in Europe, is post-Romantic. But I'm convinced they had a clear feeling of being something different, as they fought constantly against both Franks and Wisigoths. After the Duchy of Wasconia, which was mainly one of the Frankish-created protective marches, the real political Basque entity for centuries has been the Kingdom of Navarre (824-1620), around the most important Basque city, Pamplona. Nowadays, however, things have changed a bit, as Navarre has been heavily Castilianized in the last five centuries.

When do we first hear of something called the Basque nation?

[Wulfhere]

Nationality


Ethnicity


Proved my point.

I never said anything about race. Please read what you've just posted very carefully, because it's actually precisely what I said - i.e., it's all about self-identification. We have no idea if the Basques self-identified as a nation in pre-literate times. A good guess would be that they didn't, since pre-literate peoples tend to self-identify along clan and tribal lines.

[Osweo]

As Gos stated, the Welsh self-identification term Cymry, came about after the Romans left Britain at around 400-500AD and wasn't as a result of the English.
No...

I doubt that they called themselves Britons - this term was used by the Romans.
Briton was a geographical term, possibly deriving by chance from one tribe or the like, which became an administrative term, which then became a provincial identity within the greater Romandom, subsequently, when faced with collapse of external rule and invasion, becoming an ethnic and linguistic term. It was later abandoned by some parts of its heirs in favour of Combroges or Cornish, surviving nowadays only among those that moved to Gaul.

Big questions. Ultimately I suppose it comes down to whether or not the Britons formed an ethnicity before contact with the Anglics. Assuming the term Cymry is attestable from before Anglic settlement, then the Welsh have effectively been referring to themselves under the same ethnonym for a few hundred years longer than we have.
It's not the case. Cambrian and Englishman grew up together, bouncing off each other.


How the Cornish and Bretons fit into all this is difficult to determine. I suppose theoretically one would conclude that the Cornish and Bretons are later offshoots of the Welsh or that the three originated at the same time and thus share the title equally. Or even that they are three manifestations of the very same ethnicity separated by historical events.
Only the Bretons retain the old name. The other British regions experienced their own peculiar ethnogeneses while geographically split off from each other.

Only gradually did Cymru (the land) and Cymry (the people) come to supplant Brython.
Yep, but your source neglects to specify that this was a phenomenon limited to the NORTH WEST of Britannia. The Dumnonians and Bretons, and probably the Britons of the South East, did not share in this new identity.

Although the Welsh language was certainly used at the time, Gwyn A. Williams argues that even at the time of the erection of Offa's Dyke, the people to its west saw themselves as Roman, citing the number of Latin inscriptions still being made into the 8th century.[31]
A political, civilisational and religious identity. Not national, as such.


The word Cymry is believed to be derived from the Brythonic combrogi, meaning fellow-countrymen,[28] and thus Cymru carries a sense of "land of fellow-countrymen", "our country" - and, of course, notions of fraternity.

It is very interesting how it was limited to the north-western highland zone of Britain. We might even suggest that there were serious substrate differences with the other Britons that were coming to the fore subconsciously or even consciously...

The remarkable aspect here is that the songs sung by some illiterate Setu singers have been estimated to be over 5000 years old and several experts claim the Setu people to be the oldest settled people in Europe – they have not participated in any migrations.
How on Earth can the age of these songs be so demonstrated~? :rolleyes:

And just because the migrations are not discernible by archaeology, doesn't mean that the Setu haven't experienced serious shifts in identity, ideology and wider relations.

Lol at everybody mixing ethnicity, nationality and terminology.
And lol at you too, Conde! :D


If we're talking about ethnicity, the Basque/Vasconic one.
Ethnicity is a package of cultural and blood aspects. The Vascos of today live in a much smaller area than their linguistic ancestors of pre-Roman days, and their blood cousins in the other areas now speaking other tongues have left this entity. The rump left behind can not therefore be considered the same as the former widespread ethnic entity. It is a sub-ethnos of the former that has survived, underwent a new historical process, and matured into a new ethnos of its own.

They're the same thing, at least in this context. A nation is an ethnos. Forget concepts of state, or nation-state.

National identity and ethnicity are the same thing, at least in European terms..
No Wulfhere. You need to read what Stalin had to say on the matter. ;)
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=401847#post401847
There is no 'official' set of perfect definitions, but I think it's workable to use 'nation' for natsiya and 'ethnicity' for narodnost', on the grounds that a tribalised group without proper awareness of itself, but nevertheless sharing in all the other aspects of nationhood, might well deserve a more particular term to define it. :chin:

[Comte Arnau]

When do we first hear of something called the Basque nation?

Here you have coins minted very probably in Pamplona in times of the Roman invasion (2nd/1st centuries BC).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Barscunes.jpg

Written in them, the word Bascunes in Iberian alphabet.

Whether they felt and considered themselves a nation in their political territory, is debatable.

[Wulfhere]

It is very interesting how it was limited to the north-western highland zone of Britain. We might even suggest that there were serious substrate differences with the other Britons that were coming to the fore subconsciously or even consciously...

No Wulfhere. You need to read what Stalin had to say on the matter. ;)
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=401847#post401847
There is no 'official' set of perfect definitions, but I think it's workable to use 'nation' for natsiya and 'ethnicity' for narodnost', on the grounds that a tribalised group without proper awareness of itself, but nevertheless sharing in all the other aspects of nationhood, might well deserve a more particular term to define it. :chin:

So, as I suspected, it was the Welsh who split off from the shared British identity and formed their own, new ethnicity.

Not sure I'd follow Stalin's definitions wholeheartedly though, to be honest.

[Osweo]

Here you have coins minted very probably in Pamplona in times of the Roman invasion (2nd/1st centuries BC).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Barscunes.jpg

Written in them, the word Bascunes in Iberian alphabet.

Whether they felt and considered themselves a nation in their political territory, is debatable.

:) Very nice!

I read 'Ba S Co Ta' and Ba S* Cu S'. :thumbs up

*This 'S' has a dot under the letter in my table of Iberian scripts. I'm not sure what sound this is supposed to convey, though. :shrug:

[Wulfhere]

Here you have coins minted very probably in Pamplona in times of the Roman invasion (2nd/1st centuries BC).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Barscunes.jpg

Written in them, the word Bascunes in Iberian alphabet.

Whether they felt and considered themselves a nation in their political territory, is debatable.

That's quite good evidence.

[Comte Arnau]

Ethnicity is a package of cultural and blood aspects. The Vascos of today live in a much smaller area than their linguistic ancestors of pre-Roman days, and their blood cousins in the other areas now speaking other tongues have left this entity. The rump left behind can not therefore be considered the same as the former widespread ethnic entity. It is a sub-ethnos of the former that has survived, underwent a new historical process, and matured into a new ethnos of its own.


I'll tell you what a close Basque friend of mine -who is beautiful and sensible, in spite of being Basque- would say to me, in her concise way of speaking: If he doesn't speak Basque, he's not Basque to me. So simple, so true.

Rather than sub-ethnos, post-ethnos. The English of five centuries ago were English too, even if they wouldn't understand modern inhabitants of England.

[Comte Arnau]

:) Very nice!

I read 'Ba S Co Ta' and Ba S* Cu S'. :thumbs up

*This 'S' has a dot under the letter in my table of Iberian scripts. I'm not sure what sound this is supposed to convey, though. :shrug:

The final letter is an N. It's something like BA-S'-KU-N.

The dot in the s is to indicate the difference regarding the other s sound. The actual pronunciation of it is a matter of debate. One can notice how modern Basques distinguish two types of S, an apical one and a very dorsal one.

[Ibericus]

Is there any evidence of this? The Visigoths were a Germanic elite ruling a sub-Roman speaking populace. Very much like the Franks in Gaul, which is why there was no French nation at that time either, even though there might have been a state that much later became the French state.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence, for example the writings of Isidoro de Seville, an archibishop of hispano-gothic descend.

"Todas estas palabras de San Isidoro, escritas hacia el año 630, alcanzada plenamente la unidad nacional-territorial, suponen el primer texto de un protonacionalismo ideológico en el seno de la cultura occidental. El nuevo ideal nacional que reflejan los textos del sabio sevillano se verifica en un territorio, la Península Hispánica, en un pueblo concreto, determinante de aquel ideal, los Godos, hasta identificar, de este modo, Tierra y Pueblo como la Patria común y diferenciada de todos, España.

Y España, en el Occidente, se opone a Bizancio, en el Oriente, sucesor del Imperio romano, un poder imperial bizantino considerado y sentido ya como algo extraño, ajeno, un poder invasor al que expulsar de sus amenazantes acuartelamientos en la franja sur peninsular. En aquel tiempo se hablaba de Toledo y Bizancio como los centros de dos polos de poder y civilización. Mientras en España con Toledo, su capital, se produce la fecunda fusión de un joven y dinámico pueblo germánico, los godos, con el civilizado conjunto de las gentes hispano- romanas, fusión que supone el embrión de la nueva cultura occidental, en Bizancio se amalgama la cultura euroasiática, sirio-helenística, de matiz oriental, que engendrará la civilización ortodoxa y las otras religiones cristiano-orientales. El reino hispano-godo derrota y expulsa a los bizantinos de todos los antiguos territorios del Imperio de Occidente, territorio donde se está generando una nueva interpretación y apreciación del mundo, la Civilización Occidental, resultado fundamental de la fusión de los pueblos germánicos (godos, francos, anglo-sajones) con los pobladores de los territorios del Imperio romano de Occidente (hispanos, galos, britanos, ). San Isidoro canta en alabanza a la Nación a la que pertenece, España, como una realidad ya inequívoca y distinta del Imperio romano así como del reino de los francos o de los mauritanos del Norte de Africa, destacando la decisiva acción del pueblo godo en la formación de la nueva patria; la conciencia isidoriana es expresión ya de un sentimiento nacional hispánico."



Certain Spanish historians are particularly fond of that theory, I wonder why...:rolleyes:
We better not talk of catalanist historians, and their aberrant manipulations

[Wulfhere]

I could, of course, throw a spanner in the works and say that the English identity, to which the Saxons and Jutes subscribed only after the crossing to Britain and their shared campaigns there, is actually far older. The Anglii are first mentioned by Tacitus, around AD 100.

[Lábaru]

Guys, not confuse the old "vascones" with current Basques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascones

the "vascones" were located in the East of the current Basque community, not the same land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Basque_tribes.gif/300px-Basque_tribes.gif

The current area of Basque country was inhabited by different tribes, many of Celtic origin, as Cantabria, Autrigones (Celts), Varduli, Berones ect...

[Ibericus]

I'll tell you what a close Basque friend of mine -who is beautiful and sensible, in spite of being Basque- would say to me, in her concise way of speaking: If he doesn't speak Basque, he's not Basque to me. So simple, so true.
well, ironically the majority of old people in basque country, which racially are the purest basques, don't speak any basque. As a matter of fact, Castilian is the most spoken language in the whole Basqueland.

[Wulfhere]

Guys, not confuse the old "vascones" with current Basques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascones

the "vascones" were located in the East of the current Basque community, not the same land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Basque_tribes.gif/300px-Basque_tribes.gif

The current area of Basque country was inhabited by different tribes, many of Celtic origin, as Cantabria, Autrigones (Celts), Varduli, Berones ect...

I think it would be disingenuous to say that the two terms aren't connected though. Perhaps the Basques migrated to their current homeland from somewhere else.

[Osweo]

I'll tell you what a close Basque friend of mine -who is beautiful and sensible, in spite of being Basque- would say to me, in her concise way of speaking: If he doesn't speak Basque, he's not Basque to me. So simple, so true.

Rather than sub-ethnos, post-ethnos. The English of five centuries ago were English too, even if they wouldn't understand modern inhabitants of England.
Ah, but it wasn't the language bit I was talking about. It was the difference between a Vasconitas that spread over a huge area of Iberia and Gaul, and its linguistic descendants in the Vascongadas today. Those Vascones of the pre-Roman period were a different people in many ways, with a greater diversity in landscape they inhabited and thus in subsistence patterns and general outlook and mindset. Part of them kept the language, but also moved westward, absorbing many Celt(icised people)s. It's a new ethnicity, in effect.

Let's think of an example. If all English perished tomorrow, and only Wulfhere and his disciples survived (thanks to their Vril powers, no doubt), you'd get a quite different people out of them after a few generations. Would it still be 'the English'? If they then conquered a bit of Welsh territory and turned the genethiau there into their concubines, they'd be more different again.

The final letter is an N. It's something like BA-S'-KU-N.
Ah, okay, then I should probably be reading the 'heads' side as Be-N-Ko-Ta, then. The local king? Is there no Roman source with his name? :(

(I almost booked a hotel in Pamplona for next week, as I'll be in Spain then, but it's a real pain travelling that far. :( Your country is too big for an Englishman!! :D )

I could, of course, throw a spanner in the works and say that the English identity, to which the Saxons and Jutes subscribed only after the crossing to Britain and their shared campaigns there, is actually far older. The Anglii are first mentioned by Tacitus, around AD 100.
... and Tacitus himself states that we were part of the Suebian (Schwaben, Swaffe) ethnic group at the time. ;)

[Lábaru]

If he doesn't speak Basque, he's not Basque to me. So simple, so true.



Bullshit, is an AfroAmerican who speaks English an Anglo?


I think it would be disingenuous to say that the two terms aren't connected though. Perhaps the Basques migrated to their current homeland from somewhere else.

If we only look at the name, then the "Cantabri" are in the same area for thousands of years.

http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/bronceatlantico/400px-Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG

http://web.ua.es/es/elmolon/imagenes/bienvenida/historia/mapa-iberia.jpg

maybe you guys just looking for the oldest surviving European language.

[Wulfhere]

Ah, but it wasn't the language bit I was talking about. It was the difference between a Vasconitas that spread over a huge area of Iberia and Gaul, and its linguistic descendants in the Vascongadas today. Those Vascones of the pre-Roman period were a different people in many ways, with a greater diversity in landscape they inhabited and thus in subsistence patterns and general outlook and mindset. Part of them kept the language, but also moved westward, absorbing many Celt(icised people)s. It's a new ethnicity, in effect.

Let's think of an example. If all English perished tomorrow, and only Wulfhere and his disciples survived (thanks to their Vril powers, no doubt), you'd get a quite different people out of them after a few generations. Would it still be 'the English'? If they then conquered a bit of Welsh territory and turned the genethiau there into their concubines, they'd be more different again.

Ah, okay, then I should probably be reading the 'heads' side as Be-N-Ko-Ta, then. The local king? Is there no Roman source with his name? :(

(I almost booked a hotel in Pamplona for next week, as I'll be in Spain then, but it's a real pain travelling that far. :( Your country is too big for an Englishman!! :D )

... and Tacitus himself states that we were part of the Suebian (Schwaben, Swaffe) ethnic group at the time. ;)

No, he says they were beyond them.

I must now proceed to speak of the Suevians, who are not, like the Cattans and Tencterians, comprehended in a single people; but divided into several nations all bearing distinct names, though in general they are entitled Suevians, and occupy the larger share of Germany. This people are remarkable for a peculiar custom, that of twisting their hair and binding it up in a knot. It is thus the Suevians are distinguished from the other Germans, thus the free Suevians from their slaves. In other nations, whether from alliance of blood with the Suevians, or, as is usual, from imitation, this practice is also found, yet rarely, and never exceeds the years of youth. The Suevians, even when their hair is white through age, continue to raise it backwards in a manner stern and staring; and often tie it upon the top of their head only. That of their Princes, is more accurately disposed, and so far they study to appear agreeable and comely; but without any culpable intention. For by it, they mean not to make love or to incite it: they thus dress when proceeding to war, and deck their heads so as to add to their height and terror in the eyes of the enemy.

Of all the Suevians, the Semnones recount themselves to be the most ancient and most noble. The belief of their antiquity is confirmed by religious mysteries. At a stated time of the year, all the several people descended from the same stock, assemble by their deputies in a wood; consecrated by the idolatries of their forefathers, and by superstitious awe in times of old. There by publicly sacrificing a man, they begin the horrible solemnity of their barbarous worship. To this grove another sort of reverence is also paid. No one enters it otherwise than bound with ligatures, thence professing his subordination and meanness, and the power of the Deity there. If he fall down, he is not permitted to rise or be raised, but grovels along upon the ground. And of all their superstition, this is the drift and tendency; that from this place the nation drew their original, that here God, the supreme Governor of the world, resides, and that all things else whatsoever are subject to him and bound to obey him. The potent condition of the Semnones has increased their influence and authority, as they inhabit an hundred towns; and from the largeness of their community it comes, that they hold themselves for the head of the Suevians.

What on the contrary ennobles the Langobards is the smallness of their number, for that they, who are surrounded with very many and very powerful nations, derive their security from no obsequiousness or plying; but from the dint of battle and adventurous deeds. There follow in order the Reudignians, and Aviones, and Angles, and Varinians, and Eudoses, and Suardones and Nuithones; all defended by rivers or forests. Nor in one of these nations does aught remarkable occur, only that they universally join in the worship of Herthum; that is to say, the Mother Earth. Her they believe to interpose in the affairs of man, and to visit countries. In an island of the ocean stands the wood Castum: in it is a chariot dedicated to the Goddess, covered over with a curtain, and permitted to be touched by none but the Priest. Whenever the Goddess enters this her holy vehicle, he perceives her; and with profound veneration attends the motion of the chariot, which is always drawn by yoked cows. Then it is that days of rejoicing always ensue, and in all places whatsoever which she descends to honour with a visit and her company, feasts and recreation abound. They go not to war; they touch no arms; fast laid up is every hostile weapon; peace and repose are then only known, then only beloved, till to the temple the same priest reconducts the Goddess when well tired with the conversation of mortal beings. Anon the chariot is washed and purified in a secret lake, as also the curtains; nay, the Deity herself too, if you choose to believe it. In this office it is slaves who minister, and they are forthwith doomed to be swallowed up in the same lake. Hence all men are possessed with mysterious terror; as well as with a holy ignorance what that must be, which none see but such as are immediately to perish. Moreover this quarter of the Suevians stretches to the middle of Germany.

[Osweo]

No, he says they were beyond them.

Ah fuck, yeah. :D Well... Ingvaeones, then!

[Comte Arnau]

Guys, not confuse the old "vascones" with current Basques:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascones

the "vascones" were located in the East of the current Basque community, not the same land.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Basque_tribes.gif/300px-Basque_tribes.gif

The current area of Basque country was inhabited by different tribes, many of Celtic origin, as Cantabria, Autrigones (Celts), Varduli, Berones ect...

Aha. The Vascones were precisely situated in the heart of the Basqueland, Pamplona.


I think it would be disingenuous to say that the two terms aren't connected though. Perhaps the Basques migrated to their current homeland from somewhere else.

It's very likely that the modern Community of the Basque Country is the last to have been inhabited by Basques, being an expansion westwards from Aquitania and Navarre.


Ah, but it wasn't the language bit I was talking about. It was the difference between a Vasconitas that spread over a huge area of Iberia and Gaul, and its linguistic descendants in the Vascongadas today. Those Vascones of the pre-Roman period were a different people in many ways, with a greater diversity in landscape they inhabited and thus in subsistence patterns and general outlook and mindset. Part of them kept the language, but also moved westward, absorbing many Celt(icised people)s. It's a new ethnicity, in effect.

Let's think of an example. If all English perished tomorrow, and only Wulfhere and his disciples survived (thanks to their Vril powers, no doubt), you'd get a quite different people out of them after a few generations. Would it still be 'the English'? If they then conquered a bit of Welsh territory and turned the genethiau there into their concubines, they'd be more different again.

Don't Jews consider themselves an ethnicity, in spite of the huge diaspora, genetical diversity and different historical backgrounds and phenotypes they have?

History changes us all and no generation is the same as the one before. To me, ethnicity has always been more cultural than genetical, specially when the other group is particularly close. There are even theories which say that Basques might have come along with Indo-Europeans, particularly Celtic ones, instead of coming before. So go figure.


Ah, okay, then I should probably be reading the 'heads' side as Be-N-Ko-Ta, then. The local king? Is there no Roman source with his name? :(

You're right there, it says Benkota or Bengoda. Not a king, but the placename where the coins were minted, which many think is Pamplona or a place nearby.


Bullshit, is an AfroAmerican who speaks English an Anglo?

To her, a Basque-speaking foreigner is not a Basque. But a non-Basque speaker from the Basque country isn't a Basque either, ethnically speaking.

[Wulfhere]

Ah fuck, yeah. :D Well... Ingvaeones, then!

Yes indeed. And the Ing in Ingaevones may well by connected, making the Angles synonymous with them in some way.

[Lábaru]

Aha. The Vascones were precisely situated in the heart of the Basqueland, Pamplona.
.


Pamplona is the present capital of Navarra (not basque community), Pamplona was founded by a Roman general named Pompeyo.

[Osweo]

Don't Jews consider themselves an ethnicity, in spite of the huge diaspora, genetical diversity and different historical backgrounds and phenotypes they have?
You should find out how Ashkenazim and Sefardim regard one another! :D (Not to mention all the other little groups) Jewishness is perhaps more of a family of ethnicities or super-ethnos.


History changes us all and no generation is the same as the one before. To me, ethnicity has always been more cultural than genetical, specially when the other group is particularly close.
Sure, but the Romanisation of the greater part of an original people is a pretty drastic event. Similar in a way to that which made the Welsh from the Britons, perhaps. I like to stress the 'shared historical fate' and 'national narrative' aspect. From this point of view, the Basques of today are quite markedly distinct from their ancient ancestors.


You're right there, it says Benkota or Bengoda. Not a king, but the placename where the coins were minted, which many think is Pamplona or a place nearby.
:)



To her, a Basque-speaking foreigner is not a Basque. But a non-Basque speaker from the Basque country isn't a Basque either, ethnically speaking.
She's surely a pretty extreme radical? For every one like her, surely you can find three speakers who recognise their Romanophone peers as kin, and twelve Romance speaking Basques who would tell her to piss off for being so awkward!

I've never heard a Welsh speaker be like that to English-speaking countrymen, indeed. And it would be hilarious from an Irishman!

[Comte Arnau]

Pamplona is the present capital of Navarra (not basque community),

Really? Oh thank you for that info, how could I forget that?

So what? I was talking from a historical perspective, not from the present statu quo of things.


Pamplona was founded by a Roman general named Pompeyo.

And? Vascones called it The City.

Not to say that most of the times Romans simply 'founded' cities on top of or nearby previous ones.


You should find out how Ashkenazim and Sefardim regard one another! :D (Not to mention all the other little groups) Jewishness is perhaps more of a family of ethnicities or super-ethnos.

I'd rather say meta-ethnos. Super-ethnos looks kinda... :p


Sure, but the Romanisation of the greater part of an original people is a pretty drastic event. Similar in a way to that which made the Welsh from the Britons, perhaps. I like to stress the 'shared historical fate' and 'national narrative' aspect. From this point of view, the Basques of today are quite markedly distinct from their ancient ancestors.

I'm not saying the opposite. I'm the first to think that modern Basques are markedly distinct. Specially if they're as old as expected.


She's surely a pretty extreme radical?

Nothing like it. She's very Basque -hardly ever used Spanish before she was twelve- and is not interested at all in politics. It's just she feels akin to people who look alike, share her language and culture, in the simple traditional way of a peasant --she's from a baserritarra family, in a little town in Gipuzkoa. It's not she doesn't like foreigners, it's just that she feels more connected to Basque-speaking Navarrese, so to speak, than to many Castilian-only speakers from Bilbao.

[Lábaru]

To her, a Basque-speaking foreigner is not a Basque. But a non-Basque speaker from the Basque country isn't a Basque either, ethnically speaking.

For me she's a very radical girl, perhaps I have more blood of the ancient Basque than her, some people treat the language of a despotic way, in any case (both) are personal opinions.

[Comte Arnau]

For me she's a very radical girl, perhaps I have more blood of the ancient Basque than her,

Maybe. But people don't speak with erythrocites. People speak with people they can understand.

[Lábaru]

Really? Oh thank you for that info, how could I forget that?

So what? I was talking from a historical perspective, not from the present statu quo of things.

.

Exactly, you may know it, but there are more people reading, thinking that the vascones are the current inhabitants of the Basque community, for thousands of years.

[Ibericus]

Nothing like it. She's very Basque -hardly ever used Spanish before she was twelve- and is not interested at all in politics. It's just she feels akin to people who look alike, share her language and culture, in the simple traditional way of a peasant --she's from a baserritarra family, in a little town in Gipuzkoa. It's not she doesn't like foreigners, it's just that she feels more connected to Basque-speaking Navarrese, so to speak, than to many Castilian-only speakers from Bilbao.
I wonder if she is a leftist pro-multiculti , pro-immigration..It would be such a contradiction, not rare in this kind of nationalism.

[Comte Arnau]

I wonder if she is a leftist pro-multiculti , pro-immigration..It would be such a contradiction, not rare in this kind of nationalism.

Lol. You're so into politics that you can't conceive some people just don't give a shit about it. But of course, everyone in Catalonia and the Basquelands is a nationalist and smells of sulphur.

[Ibericus]

Lol. You're so into politics that you can't conceive some people just don't give a shit about it.
She might give a shit about politics, actually I do, but she surely has an opinion of what's going on in her location, digo yo. If she has an opinion in terms of who is basque or not ..that's already a political opinion.

[Comte Arnau]

She might give a shit about politics, actually I do, but she surely has an opinion of what's going on in her location, digo yo. If she has an opinion in terms of who is basque or not ..that's already a political opinion.

Obviously she has her opinion. Old grannies who don't know a thing about politics also have their opinions, but you can only speculate about their political stance. I'd say she's rather leftist in some aspects but maybe rightist in ethnic matters.

[Lábaru]

I'd say she's rather leftist in some race/ethnic aspects but maybe rightist/despot in language issue.

:thumb001: Fixed. Classic nationalist from Spain.

[Ibericus]

well, the leader of Basque nationalism, Sabino Arana, didn't even speak Basque, if that guy is not basque, apaga y vamonos. Basque nationalism is very recent, from the late 19th century. Before that, most basques (including those who only spoke basque language) felt part of Spain, as described by Arana himself. Before that, Arana was only Vizcain patriot, not basque.

[Loddfafner]

Maybe so, but that's not really the same thing. Without records, we have no way of knowing if the self-identified as a nation (as opposed to, say, having a clan based identity).

Record-keeping is a culturally distinct practice and so distorts history so as to exaggerate the importance of those nations that practiced it.

[Wulfhere]

Record-keeping is a culturally distinct practice and so distorts history so as to exaggerate the importance of those nations that practiced it.

But without it, we simply don't know, so nothing can be said.

Actually, I would go further. I know of no pre-literate society that had a national, ethnic identity. All of them that have been studied had, instead, tribal and clan identities. So it seems that being literate is an important factor in developing a national identity. Perhaps because it allows wider, and more uniform, communication and historical record keeping, which are important in fostering a shared identity. So national identity, therefore, develops alongside literacy.

[Amapola]

What about Tartessos?

It appears in sources from Greece and the Near East starting in the middle of the first millennium BC, for example Herodotus, who describes it as beyond the Straits of Hercules (modern Gibraltar).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Tartessos.svg/800px-Tartessos.svg.png

[Wulfhere]

What about Tartessos?

It appears in sources from Greece and the Near East starting in the middle of the first millennium BC, for example Herodotus, who describes it as beyond the Straits of Hercules (modern Gibraltar).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Tartessos.svg/800px-Tartessos.svg.png

It doesn't exist any more. If we were talking about ones that no longer exist (which I wasn't) it would probably be the Minoans.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

This is almost certainly the Greeks, but I think the English have a good claim to be the second oldest.

Rubbish.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Basques, of course.

Also rubbish.

[Wulfhere]

Rubbish.

Since Greek identity dates to the 8th century BC at least, and the English to the 6th century AD at least, can you suggest any others? We've already discussed the Welsh and accepted they may be co-equal with the English.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

After going through the entire thread to find one reasonable post I can re-instate my position, rubbish.
To single out the oldest ethnicity in Europe is a futile task. Ethnicities evolve all the time.

[Lábaru]

After going through the entire thread to find one reasonable post I can re-instate my position, rubbish.
To single out the oldest ethnicity in Europe is a futile task. Ethnicities evolve all the time.

However, although controversial, we can certainly take the oldest ethnic group in one of these three, Basques, Sardinian and Greeks.

[Wulfhere]

After going through the entire thread to find one reasonable post I can re-instate my position, rubbish.
To single out the oldest ethnicity in Europe is a futile task. Ethnicities evolve all the time.

Once an ethnicity evolves, it tends to stick around, unless destroyed.

[Wulfhere]

However, although controversial, we can certainly take the oldest ethnic group in one of these three, Basques, Sardinian and Greeks.

Basques and Sardinians have no records of any national identity going back anywhere near as far as the Greeks, who no one has disputed are the oldest.

[Labeat]

Most absurd joke is that when some Spaniard try to make his ethnicity the oldest in Europe!!!!.

[Lábaru]

Basques and Sardinians have no records of any national identity going back anywhere near as far as the Greeks, who no one has disputed are the oldest.

Well, the Basques have their own language for 4000 years old, probably much more, other aspects can be discussed but that is indisputable.

[Wulfhere]

Well, the Basques have their own language for 4000 years old, probably much more, other aspects can be discussed but that is indisputable.

Yes, but if you had read this thread you would know that that's not what we're talking about.

In any case, we've all had a language for more than 4000 years.

[Lábaru]

Yes, but if you had read this thread you would know that that's not what we're talking about.

In any case, we've all had a language for more than 4000 years.

But still alive? Basque language is probably the oldest living language in Europe, Spanish Cantabrian area, the oldest inhabited place in Europe.

I am merely presenting facts.

[Wulfhere]

But still alive? Basque language is probably the oldest living language in Europe, Spanish Cantabrian area, the oldest inhabited place in Europe.

I am merely presenting facts.

Yes, and you are presenting facts that are totally irrelevent to the question of ethnic identity.

And yes, of course the Indo-European languages are still alive. Far more so than Basque, in fact.

The oldest inhabited place in Europe is, if memory serves, the Aegean area.

[Lábaru]

Yes, and you are presenting facts that are totally irrelevent to the question of ethnic identity.

And yes, of course the Indo-European languages are still alive. Far more so than Basque, in fact.

The oldest inhabited place in Europe is, if memory serves, the Aegean area.

Although I am the first to submit questions about the Basques, I am even less agree with your reasoning.

[Wulfhere]

Although I am the first to submit questions about the Basques, I am even less agree with your reasoning.

What reasoning? You have fundamentally misunderstood the question.

[Lábaru]

What reasoning? You have fundamentally misunderstood the question.

The survival of language and age of the population are important to define an ethnic group, and certainly the Basques are older than the Greeks in these two aspects.

[Ibericus]

Most absurd joke is that when some Spaniard try to make his ethnicity the oldest in Europe!!!!.
And we are.

[Wulfhere]

The survival of language and age of the population are important to define an ethnic group, and certainly the Basques are older than the Greeks in these two aspects.

They might be important in the modern Basque identity, but that's a wholly different matter. When did the Basques achieve an ethnic, national identity? We simply don't know but, as I said, pre-literate peoples don't tend to have one.

But you're wrong anyway. Indo-European languages are just as old as Basque, and have been a tad more successful too.

[Wulfhere]

And we are.

Spanish identity was formed during the very gradual expulsion (and partial assimilation) of the Moors.

[Labeat]

And we are.
Only in your dreams.

[Ibericus]

Spanish identity was formed during the very gradual expulsion (and partial assimilation) of the Moors.
lol, spanish identity goes back to visigothic times. Read the writings of Isidoro of Seville, about the hispanic nation. Btw there was no partial assimilation of moors whatsoever.

[Lábaru]

Spanish identity was formed during the very gradual expulsion (and partial assimilation) of the Moors.

Basques, like the Cantabrian, are Spanish, your argument sucks ;)

[Wulfhere]

lol, spanish identity goes back to visigothic times. Read the writings of Isidoro of Seville, about the hispanic nation. Btw there was no partial assimilation of moors whatsoever.

Whatever might have existed in Visigothic times was destroyed by 700 years of African colonisation.

[Wulfhere]

Basques, like the Cantabrian, are Spanish, your argument sucks ;)

If Basques are Spanish, then they don't even have an ethnic identity any more (though in fact I'm sure they do, and I'm equally sure it's of medieval formation).

[Ibericus]

Only in your dreams.
Prove it.

[Labeat]

Basques, like the Cantabrian, are Spanish, your argument sucks ;)

I have only one question, are you rational, are you knowing what are you talking about??

[Ibericus]

Whatever might have existed in Visigothic times was destroyed by 700 years of African colonisation.
There has never been african colonisation. Being ruled by a minority of muslims is not the same as being colonised.

[Lábaru]

If Basques are Spanish, then they don't even have an ethnic identity any more (though in fact I'm sure they do, and I'm equally sure it's of medieval formation).

Within Spain there are several identities, interrelated, forming the Spanish country. The Basques are a remnant of the ancient Iberians, with their ancestral language alive.

[Wulfhere]

There has never been african colonisation. Being ruled by a minority of muslims is not the same as being colonised.

Tell that to the Egyptians. Or Syrians. Or Persians. Etc.

[Wulfhere]

Within Spain there are several identities, interrelated, forming the Spanish country.

Rather like the "British" identity, then. I.e. one based on political expediency.

[Labeat]

Prove it.
If i try to prove it that mean that your claim have sense, so i dont need to repeal something which is not valid and without sense like your claims here.

[Ibericus]

"[...], a similar 2007 study found that the most prominent genetic stratifications in Europe run from the north to the south-east [northern Europe to the Balkans], with another stratification running on an east-west axis across the continent. This latter study points to a strong Paleolithic element in the Iberian gene-pool, confirming earlier findings that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. "

Bauchet et al. 2007

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

[Lábaru]

Rather like the "British" identity, then. I.e. one based on political expediency.

and? does not change anything, I think you have no valid arguments.

[Wulfhere]

"[...], a similar 2007 study found that the most prominent genetic stratifications in Europe run from the north to the south-east [northern Europe to the Balkans], with another stratification running on an east-west axis across the continent. This latter study points to a strong Paleolithic element in the Iberian gene-pool, confirming earlier findings that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. "

"The Spanish and Basque groups are the farthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestion that the Iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry.12,13 "

Bauchet et al. 2007

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

That's not the question I asked, though.

[Wulfhere]

and? does not change anything, I think you have no valid arguments.

No valid arguments about what? I haven't even disputed what you've been saying, for the simple reason that you haven't actually understood the question.

[Ushtari]

What is the "oldest language"?
In my opinion, we don't know the answer to this question, although some people will give one anyway. Here are some criteria people use, and reasons why linguists don't think they really work.

1. Oldest written form
Some people base their answer on which language got written down first. If you're counting absolute oldest, probably Sumerian or Egyptian wins because they developed a writing system first (both start appearing in about 3200 BC). If you're counting surviving languages, Chinese is often cited (first written in 1500 BC), but Greek is a possible tie because it was written in Linear B beginning ca. 1500 BC.*

*Data from "Ancient Scripts of the World" ( http://www.ancientscripts.com )

But all of this is irrelevant, because writing is not equal to speaking.

In 3200 BC, there were many, many languages spoken besides Sumerian and Egyptian, but they weren't fortunate enough to have a writing system. These languages are just as old. To take one interesting case, the Albanian language (spoken north of Greece) was not written down until about the 15th century AD, yet Ptolemy mentions the people in the first century BC.* The linguistic and archaeological evidence suggests that Albanians were a distinct people for even longer than that. So Albanian has probably existed for several millennia, but has only been written down for 500 years. With a twist of fate, Albanian might be considered very "old" and Greek pretty "new".
http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.cfm

:cool:

[Lábaru]

"[...], a similar 2007 study found that the most prominent genetic stratifications in Europe run from the north to the south-east [northern Europe to the Balkans], with another stratification running on an east-west axis across the continent. This latter study points to a strong Paleolithic element in the Iberian gene-pool, confirming earlier findings that Iberia holds the most ancient European ancestry. "

"The Spanish and Basque groups are the farthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestion that the Iberian Peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry.12,13 "

Bauchet et al. 2007

http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

this is a fact, a valid argument, Basque language is another argument, I waiting for listen the opposing valids arguments, not nonsense about Moors and shits.

[Wulfhere]

this is a fact, a valid argument, Basque language is another argument, I waiting for listen the opposing valids arguments, not nonsense about Moors and shits.

The only valid argument I can offer is a very simple one: please go back and read what I asked. I didn't ask about race, or language, or genetics, or whatever. I asked about ethnic identity.

[Lábaru]

http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.cfm

:cool:

Albanian is a Indo-European language, so is more recent than basque.

[Lábaru]

The only valid argument I can offer is a very simple one: please go back and read what I asked. I didn't ask about race, or language, or genetics, or whatever. I asked about ethnic identity.

A ethnic group, when join a larger state, they loses the identity? then the Greeks lost their identity several times over the centuries.

[Wulfhere]

A ethnic group, when join a larger state, they loses the identity? then the Greeks lost their identity several times over the centuries.

I never said any such thing, why on earth would I? Otherwise, for example, the Welsh identity would have been lost, which it most certainly hasn't been.

[Lábaru]

I never said any such thing, why on earth would I? Otherwise, for example, the Welsh identity would have been lost, which it most certainly hasn't been.




If Basques are Spanish, then they don't even have an ethnic identity any more (though in fact I'm sure they do, and I'm equally sure it's of medieval formation).

Focus.

[Comte Arnau]

Spanish identity was formed during the very gradual expulsion (and partial assimilation) of the Moors.

Very true. Only the gradual Castilianization of the peninsula is what creates a coherent common identity to most people inhabiting it. Before that, it simply didn't exist, because Roman Hispania, the Wisigothic Kindgom and modern Spain are totally different realities. Obviously Spanish unionists like Iberia and Lábaru have to cry out that this is bullshit and blah blah blah.

[Albion]

When do we first find records of a Basque identity?

The Romans recorded them as Vascones, god only knows if the Basques saw themselves as one group though.


The English ethnogenesis (6th-7th C.) was certainly one of the earliest in Western Europe. Though a case could be made that the Welsh ethnicity existed even before English and Scottish/Gaelic settlement in Britain.

There was a British identity but the Welsh aren't the sole descendants of the Britons, the Cornish, Southern Scottish and absorbed remnants in England are too.


Perhaps the English and Welsh ethnicities did indeed form at the same time, like two dragons locked in eternal struggle.

The Welsh formed in opposition to the others, the "Saxons" as they still essentially call the English.


As Gos stated, the Welsh self-identification term Cymry, came about after the Romans left Britain at around 400-500AD and wasn't as a result of the English.

Compatriots? Or is that a myth? What would compatriots be fighting against if not invaders? Themselves?


If the modern Greeks have no connection with the Ancient Greeks, how come they speak Greek?

Some people believe that few of the modern Greeks are actually Greek and that the last of the Greeks were scattered throughout the modern territory of Greece.
Then British romanticists came along and expressed an interest in Greek history and found the last of the Greeks and supported their fight for independence from the Ottomans.
The story then goes that the Greeks imposed their culture on the other native peoples of Greece, the Aromanians, Vadarskans, Bulgarians, etc.. and that these peoples were assimilated.

That theory is mainly supported by Vadarskans / Macedonians.

However it probably contains some truth, people were assimilated (as was common practice in Europe at the time) in the border areas of Greece but I think its over-estimated, especially by Vadarskans and Albanians.


Welsh = Briton.

Not really. You might as well say Roman = Italian or Helvetians = Swiss. Not very convincing.


But even if you don't think so, France is the expansion of Francia, already born in the 5th century. So in both cases it'd be the first.

Ah, but did the French exist or were they still identifying as Romans?


The English ethnicity (remember linguistics are an important key of ethnicity) is a very new group that developed out of the native Celtic speaking Britons along with the waves of immigration of the Jutes, Frisians, Normans, Saxons, and Angles. And the language is not very old in the area and was brought over recently. So the English ethnicity is not very old.

Illyrians, Dacians, Thracians, Tartessians, Nordwestblok, etc - don't exist any more. Apart from a few Finnic peoples and Basques most European ethnicities date back to just after the migration period or latter.

But hey, what does a couple of thousand years matter? :rolleyes2:


by that much more ancient Celtic group- and you say that the English are "among the oldest ethnicities in Europe".

Good lord.

Celtic doesn't equal an ethnicity!, they're a culture made up of multiple ethnicities.

And the Welsh are probably older than the English but claiming them to be a straight continuation of the Britons whilst disregarding the other Britons of Cornwall, Scotland and the remnants in England is ridiculous.
Its like listening to the Welsh nationalists who try to knick English history and say Boadica was Welsh when she happened to live in Norfolk and there's increasing evidence that the Angles didn't push out the Britons from all areas.
Its as bad as the English claiming King Arthur as their own in the Middle Ages.


You are either being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely don't understand what an ethnic group or nation actually is.

If he's claiming Celts are an ethnic group then he really has no idea.


An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".

Britons and Welsh compared:

Common culture: No, but some cultural continuation. Also applies to the Cornish and Scottish Britons.

Shared religion: Yes. Britons converted to Christianity, Welsh continued it. Also applies to the Cornish and Scottish Britons.

Ideology that stresses common ancestry: Yes. Also applies to the Cornish and formerly to Scottish Britons.

Welsh aren't some sole survivors of the Britons as many people try to claim. I think its quite disrespectful to the Cornish in fact.


Bullshit, is an AfroAmerican who speaks English an Anglo?

No. Besides, Anglo is quite an artificial way of describing Americans or colonials with English heritage.

I think it goes something like this:


Basques
Greeks
Armenians
Romansch (or whatever the hell they call themselves - the inhabitants of the southern Alps)
Aromanians
Irish
Welsh + Cornish
English
Danes, Swedes and Norwegians
French
Portuguese
Magyars

[Ushtari]

Illyrians, Dacians, Thracians, Tartessians, Nordwestblok, etc - don't exist any more. Apart from a few Finnic peoples and Basques most European ethnicities date back to just after the migration period or latter.

But hey, what does a couple of thousand years matter? :rolleyes2:

Albanian is developed from one of these.

[Ibericus]

Very true. Only the gradual Castilianization of the peninsula is what creates a coherent common identity to most people inhabiting it. Before that, it simply didn't exist, because Roman Hispania, the Wisigothic Kindgom and modern Spain are totally different realities. Obviously Spanish unionists like Iberia and Lábaru have to cry out that this is bullshit and blah blah blah.
So you want to erase all the Wisigothic writings about the hispanic nation, there was already a coherent sense of belonging to the same nation, after that, During muslim era, this perception didn't change at all, the people were and remained the same, religion didn't affect a different perception of identity. In fact, the Reconquista, was nothing but the idea of going back to the status of visigothic times, a unified hispanic kingdom.

[Comte Arnau]

So you want to erase all the Wisigothic writings about the hispanic nation, there was already a coherent sense of belonging to the same nation, after that, During muslim era, this perception didn't change at all, the people were and remained the same, religion didn't affect a different perception of identity. In fact, the Reconquista, was nothing but the idea of going back to the status of visigothic times, a unified hispanic kingdom.

I don't want to erase anything and I don't even deny the perception that they felt united as a nation. I'm just stating a fact to any unbiased historian: that the Wisigothic Kingdom and modern Spain are two completely different realities and any attempt at seeing a continuation has an obvious political intention.

[Albion]

Albanian is developed from one of these.

Yeah, like Germans and Danes developed from Germanics but neither the Germanics or Illyrians exist in pure form any more, cultures evolve.

[Ushtari]

Yeah, like Germans and Danes developed from Germanics but neither the Germanics or Illyrians exist in pure form any more, cultures evolve.
http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/454.jpg

[Albion]

Well don't imply it then.

[Ouistreham]

I know of no pre-literate society that had a national, ethnic identity. All of them that have been studied had, instead, tribal and clan identities. So it seems that being literate is an important factor in developing a national identity. Perhaps because it allows wider, and more uniform, communication and historical record keeping, which are important in fostering a shared identity. So national identity, therefore, develops alongside literacy.

I fear you're awfully right about that.

Widespread ethnic identities are a product of literacy. And literacy was chiefly fostered by Reformation and book printing. And educated classes pioneered the concept of ethnic/national identities.

Consequentlty the earliest record of explicit ethnic identity is Italian. It was a brainchild of poet Dante Alighieri, who claimed that a cluster of peoples between the Alps and Sicily speaking mutually understandable dialects (when contiguous) should gather into a united sovereignity. Which was a bit later on made more vocal by Nick Macchiavelli.

[Wulfhere]

Focus.

Notice that I said if, there. I pointed out immediately that I don't accept such an assertion.

[Wulfhere]

I fear you're awfully right about that.

Widespread ethnic identities are a product of literacy. And literacy was chiefly fostered by Reformation and book printing. And educated classes pioneered the concept of ethnic/national identities.

Consequentlty the earliest record of explicit ethnic identity is Italian. It was a brainchild of poet Dante Alighieri, who claimed that a cluster of peoples between the Alps and Sicily speaking mutually understandable dialects (when contiguous) should gather into a united sovereignity. Which was a bit later on made more vocal by Nick Macchiavelli.

Bede predates Dante by quite a few centuries. When he wrote An Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 he explicitely confirmed that there was such a thing as the English people. How many other nations can beat that?

[Oreka Bailoak]

Bede predates Dante by quite a few centuries. When he wrote An Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 he explicitely confirmed that there was such a thing as the English people. How many other nations can beat that?

Alright if you want to keep saying that Nationality is what counts...

the name English today didn't mean English 1000 years ago. The group has changed considerably since. And the group considered English didn't consider themselves English and they didn't consider all the groups called English the same because they were different 1000 years ago.

the original linguistic/cultural ethnic group of people to the west (bede included) just for simplicity called these diverse immigrants (called the Angle, Saxon, Jute, Frisians) that came and took over and the native Britons that they mixed with and who spoke Germanic languages "English" for short even though the people who were called "English" wouldn't call themselves English and they were not the same group all throughout England.

Then came the Norman invasions and totally changed the English language and they mixed genetically about as much as the Vikings did (both of which were relatively SMALL based on genetic studies like "Origin of the British" by oppenheimer on England as a whole). So they easily could have called the "English people" a different name after this massive transformation genetically and linguistically but they didn't. It was merely chance alone that they were called the same name- they were no longer the same group as before.

A name isn't as important because people had different names for different groups. And sometimes people such as Tacitus mixed names up and called Celtic tribes German in Germania for example and they frequently overgeneralize. Using Bede as a source for the "English ethnicity" is just as illogical because he was an outsider trying to overgeneralize an entire group by one name.

All the while for thousands of years down in Basque country- the Basque groups have held onto their linguistic culture, and ethnicicty from invasions far stronger than any other group in Europe. The Basque groups thought of themselves as different from other non-Basque language speakers and from other Basque groups and they were.

The evidence for their ancient ethnicity is in their language and in their DNA- which is far unlike anything else in Europe.

The names the Basques call themselves (either tribally or nation wise) and the names outsiders called them may have changed but the people themselves have not genetically or linguistically- which is the definition of ethnicity- changed much at all. (while English geographic area has totally transformed linguistically and a little genetically 1500 years ago during the Frisian, Angle, Saxon, Jute immigration waves and conquest AND 1000 years ago during the Norman times- thus a new ethnicity multiple times throughout history- but of course outsiders just oversimplified and called them English the same way Tacitus called German tribes- Germans- and that confuses you)

[Osweo]

For fuck's sake, Oreka, Bede was an Englishman from Jarrow, where my great grandmother was from.
http://www.postcode-info.co.uk/jarrow-map-66376.png

Look, here's his own poetry:
Fore them neidfaerae naenig uuiurthit
thoncsnottura than him tharf sie,
to ymbhycggannae, aer his hiniongae,
huaet his gastae godaes aeththa yflaes
aefter deothdaege doemid uueorthae.

The grammar has changed a lot, but some words are clear. Deathday, doomed, after....

Before that needful-journey no-one becomes
wiser than it is necessary for him
to consider, before his going-hence,
what his soul by way of good or evil
may be deemed, after the death-day.

http://tastedthefruit.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/translation-the-death-of-bede/

You seem to be mixing him up with Nennius or somebody.


Anyway, the Normans had piss all actual impact on the dialects.

[Oreka Bailoak]

The grammar has changed a lot, but some words are clear. Deathday, doomed, after....
So then you can just say that the German tribes talked about in Tacitus' Germania in the year 97 are the same ethnicity as the Germans today. Tacitus said that Germans are distinct racial group of the same language and obviously different than others even though they belong to different tribes (different tribes of the same ethnicity).

Like Germany, England wasn't one group back in those days under one rule. They had tribal factions that had wars against each other just like Germany.


Anyway, the Normans had piss all actual impact on the dialects.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg/600px-Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg.png
^most important words are Germanic but a lot of the vocabulary is also Norman.

[Osweo]

So then you can just say that the German tribes talked about in Tacitus' Germania in the year 97 are the same ethnicity as the Germans today. Tacitus said that Germans are distinct racial group of the same language and obviously different than others even though they belong to different tribes (different tribes of the same ethnicity).
:tsk:

The modern Deutschers have a name that wasn't heard back then as a clear accepted ethnonym. Major parts of them split off, to join or found other new ethnoses in the Migration period. The modern national identity is more a product of Frankish rule and the founding of the HRE, which saw the Germani of all their varieties consolidated into an organic whole. Previously, they had been more an ethnographic entity than a nation as such. Look again at Stalin's definitions. ;) :D


Like Germany, England wasn't one group back in those days under one rule. They had tribal factions that had wars against each other just like Germany.
We had our Bretwaldas.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg/600px-Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg.png
^most important words are Germanic but a lot of the vocabulary is also Norman.
Dialects, I said. :tsk: I bet my own grandmother wouldn't have used 4/5 of the 'Latin' words in that chart, and would have used a few Germanic ones that barely make it into the dictionaries, like 'skrike' and 'myther'.

[Oreka Bailoak]

The modern Deutschers have a name that wasn't heard back then as a clear accepted ethnonym. Major parts of them split off, to join or found other new ethnoses in the Migration period.
^LOL Split off to form the English ethnicity! There's no denying that. lol
(comprised of Germanic linguistics and mainly native Briton ancestry with a little Saxon,Jute,Frisian and Angle mixed in).

Anyways like I said the name that people call them isn't that important. Germany had lots of immigration leaving but not much coming in. So linguistically and genetically it didn't change much. I don't see how the name they call themselves matters much- Germany is the exact same group today as when Tacitus called them- the German race. The same cannot be said for the group Caesar saw in modern day England which changed only a little genetically but totally linguistically.

[Osweo]

^LOL Split off to form the English ethnicity! There's no denying that. lol
:suomut: What are you LoLling at?


(comprised of Germanic linguistics and mainly native Briton ancestry with a little Saxon,Jute,Frisian and Angle mixed in).
We're talking about identity, not genetics. That the Iberian and Albanian members should get confused on this is understandable, given their native language.

And I don't date the birth of English national identity to the Continental phase, anyway. :shrug:

You mentioned Oppenheimer earlier, so I assume you've been reading the sanctioned PC versions of our history. ;) Fact is, Old Angeln was emptied. A LOT of people came over. The proportion of this ancestry in modern English varies from region to region, but it's likely to be very high in some.


Anyways like I said the name that people call them isn't that important. Germany had lots of immigration leaving but not much coming in. So linguistically and genetically it didn't change much. I don't see how the name they call themselves matters much- Germany is the exact same group today as when Tacitus called them- the German race.
Again; the thread is about national identity, NOT genetic and linguistic continuity. ID EST how ethnographic unities SAW themselves, how they defined themselves, and the nebulous but real factor of 'national character'.


The same cannot be said for the group Caesar saw in modern day England which changed only a little genetically but totally linguistically.

Why 'a little'? 'A fair bit' in East Anglia, Suffolk and Yorkshire seems a fair assessment.

I bet that if the average pedigree of an Englishmen were drawn up, and the tier of his ancestors in the year 400 were looked at, then a good quarter or third would be on the Continent.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I liked this so I'll repost it...
" I think our main and only problem is probably our different definitions for what makes an ethnicity (I think it's mainly genetic, then linguistic then cultural in that order of significance). (I feel like you think it's 1) Name 2) nothing else matters lol)" - Oreka Bailoak
^notice that my definition of ethnicity matches the dictionary definition.


What are you LoLling at?
Because you were saying that the Germans migrated so they weren't the same group anymore. But then you don't mention that the place they migrated to (British isles) became English because of their migration. The Germans created the English ethnicity! And then you say English are one of the oldest groups in Europe (but of course you don't say that the German group that created them, and was around far before the English creation and is still around today culturally and linguistically in southern Denmark is older? lol). That IS really funny.


You mentioned Oppenheimer earlier, so I assume you've been reading the sanctioned PC versions of our history.
Yes, I trust genetic testing. lol


Again; the thread is about national identity, NOT genetic and linguistic continuity. ID EST how ethnographic unities SAW themselves, how they defined themselves, and the nebulous but real factor of 'national character'.
No, this thread asks ethnicity not nationality. I looked up the definition of both and ....

Ethnicity- relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common

Nationality- the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization: the nationality of an immigrant.
^Notice how nationality has nothing to do with race or language.

Again, the thread says ethnicity not nationality.


I bet that if the average pedigree of an Englishmen were drawn up, and the tier of his ancestors in the year 400 were looked at, then a good quarter or third would be on the Continent.
Genetic testing says that Angle, Saxon, Jute and Frisians impact on England during the Viking immigrations was about 5% average. In some areas it's 10% in Eastern England only in a tiny place and never more than 10% anywhere. Some areas of eastern Scotland it's 50%. Genetic testing doesn't lie. To me 5% is small.

Basques are probably the oldest in Europe. The genetic evidence says so (smallest level of foreign immigration out of all of Europe as evidenced by paternal lineages) and the linguistic evidence says so (by far the most foreign language).

[Osweo]

I liked this so I'll repost it...
" I think our main and only problem is probably our different definitions for what makes an ethnicity (I think it's mainly genetic, then linguistic then cultural in that order of significance). (I feel like you think it's 1) Name 2) nothing else matters lol)" - Oreka Bailoak
^notice that my definition of ethnicity matches the dictionary definition.
The opening poster has already been told several times of his inappropriate wording in the thread title. He has taken on board these criticisms, and explained what he really means. CONTEXT, mein Kamerad.

And dictionaries are not Gospel. Dictionaries reflect the time they were written in. Many are written for specific purposes (like special ones for schoolkids). There are methodological consideration in lexicography over which many lexicographers can argue. Some can stress the primacy of 'current usage' (itself seen through their own subjective eyes and coloured, even if only subconsciously, by their own proclivities), while others would stress a more etymological approach.

Either way, a dictionary definition is a fit subject for debate among educated people. Bowing down to authority, in this case as many others, has no place here.


Because you were saying that the Germans migrated so they weren't the same group anymore. But then you don't mention that the place they migrated to (British isles) became English because of their migration.
It is tiresome to revisit posts and explain what was meant, but I was talking there of the Germans on the continent. The Germani of the time before the separation of the English, Franks, Langobards etc. were clearly a different entity than those which remained in Charlemagne's time.

I wasn't talking about those Germanics that came to Britain.

I like to stress the 'common story' aspect of nationhood. A man of pure English blood in the USA (there may still be one or two!) has a very different story than his cousins still in England. His ancestors have lived through very different experiences, which have shaped them and made them a new thing. The Germans who remained in Germania experienced the tumultuous events of the founding of the Holy Roman Empire, and the reconquest of the East from the encroaching Wenden. They were sons of a peculiar set of landscapes, to which their cousins in Britain, Gaul, Hispania and Italia were now quite alien.


The Germans created the English ethnicity! And then you say English are one of the oldest groups in Europe (but of course you don't say that the German group that created them, and was around far before the English creation and is still around today culturally and linguistically in southern Denmark is older? lol). That IS really funny.
The Germanics of that distant time were vastly different to the Germans of today, in their national identity, which is what this thread is about!!!


Yes, I trust genetic testing. lol
There is no such thing.
There is data, and there are approaches to tackling that data. And there are individual scientists, and schools of thought among scientists.

Data can be interpreted in many ways.

I have followed the growth of historic genetics, and have often been appalled at the poor historical knowledge of the specialists involved, which have led them to see things in the data that another man wouldn't.

Your 'argument for authority' is misplaced, again.



No, this thread asks ethnicity not nationality. I looked up the definition of both and ....

Ethnicity- relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common

Nationality- the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization: the nationality of an immigrant.
^Notice how nationality has nothing to do with race or language.

Again, the thread says ethnicity not nationality.
Do you not realise that 'nationality' can mean different things to different people? Are you unaware of the major American/European difference in its understanding?


Genetic testing says that Angle, Saxon, Jute and Frisians impact on England during the Viking immigrations was about 5% average. In some areas it's 10% in Eastern England but not often never more. Some areas of eastern Scotland it's 50%. Genetic testing doesn't lie. To me 5% is small.
This is rather hilarious. Scotland is more English than England, by your own definitions.

I would argue that the estimates are too low, and above all that they are fit to be argued over. Genetics is interpretation of data, and 'facts' are few and far between in it, when looking at its application to historical realities.

[Osweo]

(but of course you don't say that the German group that created them, and was around far before the English creation and is still around today culturally and linguistically in southern Denmark is older? lol).
You are assuming continuity in the stem of the Jutland peninsula. This is an error.

The great statesman Aelfred stated unequivocally that Angeln was STILL underpopulated even in HIS day. Bede earlier stated that it had been emptied. The break in the dialect continuum seen in the area today is further witness to their statements, with Danish not flowing quite as organically as it could into the Saxon dialects spoken there.


Genetic testing says that Angle, Saxon, Jute and Frisians impact on England during the Viking immigrations
LoL, I missed that one! Be more CAREFUL! 450 =/= 800!


Basques are probably the oldest in Europe. The genetic evidence says so (smallest level of foreign immigration out of all of Europe as evidenced by paternal lineages) and the linguistic evidence says so (by far the most foreign language).

Other people use other considerations. As I've already said, this thread is about the more sociological and psychological matter of national identity.

The Vasconic coins shown by the Count are quite pertinent and help build an impressive case for the Basque claim, BUT there is more to ethnic identity than a word on a coin, and there is still room to argue for revolutions in Vasconic national identity in the meantime.

[Oreka Bailoak]

So I'm supposed to believe that the dictionary is wrong but your alternative definitions are correct.

And I'm supposed to believe that Genetic testing doesn't work. LOL

So much of what you say just sounds like hogwash to me and I don't have the time to critique it all. I really don't like how you're treating Northern Germany as changed too much to be the same group but then you say England is the same group (even though England has had tons more linguistic and genetic change in the past 1000 or even 1500 years)


This is rather hilarious. Scotland is more English than England, by your own definitions.
Parts like the Shetlands are more Scandinavian.
"After the islands were transferred to Scotland, thousands of Scots families emigrated to Shetland in the 16th and 17th centuries but studies of the genetic makeup of the islands' population indicate that Shetlanders are just under half Scandinavian in origin."

Here is the scientific article...
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v95/n2/full/6800661a.html#bib14

This sure is hard work to argue these things with somebody who doesn't believe in genetic testing or the dictionary. You can really say whatever you want and back it up with those weak arguments. (whatever I say you just say- the dictionary is wrong and genetic tests don't work lol)

I just don't have anymore time for this. Let's call a truce and say we're done. If you don't agree with me genetics and the dictionary now then you never will.
Truce.

[Osweo]

You miss all the nuances in my comments. Never mind. :shrug:

[Raikaswinþs]

This is a supposition based on their language, which is not the same as ethnicity. When do we first have records of Basques identifying themselves as a nation?

. It is widely held that most likely the Basques are the last surviving ethno-linguistic group descended from populations of Neolithic Europe before the intrusion of Indo-European languages and peoples. Nationalism the way you´re asking, however, is a XIX century thing. But so is for most europeans, if not all. In this sense I would say that the newest are the baltic republics and some of the balcans (such as kosovar, or bosnia,or the slovenes) whereas the oldest are more or less everybody else. My bet would be that French , Iberians,British - Islanders , Italians and Germans would be the oldest along with gradually Poles who were deprived of their statehood for much of the rise of nationalism period, then Russians, we could discuss wether modern russian nationalistic feeling roots from the last decades of the Empire or if it started with the Bolchevike revolution. Dutch and Swiss , of course, and a number of other nationalities that rose and fell and disappeared forever or evolved or merged with greater pan-nationalism

[Amapola]

It doesn't exist any more. If we were talking about ones that no longer exist (which I wasn't) it would probably be the Minoans.

Oh well... I refer to them as one of the (if not the oldest) civilization in Europe as the thread tittle lacked verb which indicated "time" or any other time contextual item.

Under this logic, I reaffirm myself nevertheless, since ethnicity in the sense of nation, (not in the modern sense) would make the Tartessos as one of the oldest in Europe with no doubt, given their common origin, language and tradition.

Ethnicity in the Spanish sense of race (aka, caste or descent) would make the tartessos one of the oldest in Europe too.

and finally, ethnicity in the sense of ethnic group (racial, cultural, linguistic affinities) would also make them one of the oldest of Europe.

NOW, if the question is: which is the oldest ethnicity in Europe that has survived until our days?


My reply is that the actual reality of the Basques would not even let them fully fit that category...

[Raikaswinþs]

Oh well... I refer to them as one of the (if not the oldest) civilization in Europe as the thread tittle lacked verb which indicated "time" or any other time contextual item.

Under this logic, I reaffirm myself nevertheless, since ethnicity in the sense of nation, (not in the modern sense) would make the Tartessos as one of the oldest in Europe with no doubt, given their common origin, language and tradition.

Ethnicity in the Spanish sense of race (aka, caste or descent) would make the tartessos one of the oldest in Europe too.

and finally, ethnicity in the sense of ethnic group (racial, cultural, linguistic affinities) would also make them one of the oldest of Europe.

NOW, if the question is: which is the oldest ethnicity in Europe that has survived until our days?


My reply is that the actual reality of the Basques would not even let them fully fit that category...


so many people fantasizes and uses the poor old Tartessos to fill gaps in twisted political agendas, when we actually know only a tad on them, and have only a handful of historical sources,or, to be more precise, mentions.


Tartessos as the oldest european nations?for God´s sake we don´t even know if they where a cohesive culture or just a city state that acted as a trading port of the westernmost mediterranean corner, with a ruling cast of very eastern-ized (through phoenitian influence) southern iberians

[Osweo]

Oh well... I refer to them as one of the (if not the oldest) civilization in Europe as the thread tittle lacked verb which indicated "time" or any other time contextual item.
...
NOW, if the question is: which is the oldest ethnicity in Europe that has survived until our days? ...


Interesting. This confirms for me that there is a very subtle thing in Wulfhere's manner of expression that makes for confusion with second language speakers. I understood it implicitly to mean 'Extant ethnicity', yet on reflection, I find it difficult to say why. This must be a matter of exposure to certain ways of speaking English. Some Americans have interestingly not 'got' it either. ;)

[Amapola]

so many people fantasizes and uses the uneven history of Al-Andalus or Sefarad to fill gaps in twisted political agendas,
Fixed for you.

Like.... hmmmmm you? Averroes, viva España!


Tartessos as the oldest european nations?for God´s sake we don´t even know if they where a cohesive culture or just a city state that acted as a trading port of the westernmost mediterranean corner, with a ruling cast of very eastern-ized (through phoenitian influence) southern iberians

Archaeological discoveries in the region have built up a picture of a widespread culture, regardless the material shape or distribution, that made them different to the Celts and/or the Iberians; nevermind the reasons. And this was the agreement of the historians of the Ancient world.

.....


By the way, I remember how you were claiming the name of Averroes as a product of Spanish culture. Insane! you better claim Tartessos as a civilization of the old than Averroes as a sign of Spanishness! :eek:

[Comte Arnau]

I keep on thinking that no element is more attached to ethnicity than a distinct language. Even Jews, whose element of cohesion has always been religion, once together resorted to revive their distinct own language. Once a language has died, there can be genetic continuation, but the ethnicity has died, or has become a 'sub-ethnos', in Osweo's words, of the one which has assimilated it.

This said, it's obvious that many ethnogeneses in Europe are from any time between 700 and 1400, and that many national identities wouldn't even be forged until centuries later. Political nationalisms would even have to wait until the 18th and 19th centuries.

So to me, any ethnogenesis clearly produced before 700 AD and continued until today -even if, logically, somewhat modified- deserves all my respect. It doesn't matter if it's the oldest, it's old enough to be worthy of it.



The names the Basques call themselves (either tribally or nation wise) and the names outsiders called them may have changed but the people themselves have not genetically or linguistically- which is the definition of ethnicity- changed much at all.

Exactly. I don't know what's all that about names. A rose, with any other name, smells just the same.

[Osweo]

I keep on thinking that no element is more attached to ethnicity than a distinct language.
You are thinking too much of your own case. If the other elements are strong enough, a failing in the linguistic aspect can be compensated for. Like with the Irish. There, the 'national story' is the most powerful factor, I think.



Exactly. I don't know what's all that about names. A rose, with any other name, smells just the same.

Sometimes. Returning to the Welsh, it was a truly seminal moment when the term 'combroges' became a popular one. An ideological coup, perhaps. A revolution in British self-consciousness. Sometimes the appearance of a new name is a very significant event.

I don't know enough about the Germans, to be honest, but I'd at least suspect that the moment that 'deutscher' took on its familiar connotations would be the turning point. A man in northern Germany in 400 AD would easily understand what theodiskaz meant in straight forward etymological terms, but it wouldn't be his first words out of his mouth when asked what he was. (I'd be delighted to be corrected on this by those in the know!)

Somewhat relevant, though too Anglocentric;

DUTCH

late 14c., used first of Germans generally, after c.1600 of Hollanders, from M.Du. duutsch, from O.H.G. duit-isc, corresponding to O.E. þeodisc "belonging to the people," used especially of the common language of Germanic people, from þeod "people, race, nation," from P.Gmc. *theudo "popular, national" (see Teutonic), from PIE base *teuta- "people" (cf. O.Ir. tuoth "people," O.Lith. tauta "people," O.Prus. tauto "country," Oscan touto "community").

As a language name, first recorded as Latin theodice, 786 C.E. in correspondence between Charlemagne's court and the Pope, in reference to a synodical conference in Mercia; thus it refers to Old English. First reference to the German language (as opposed to a Germanic one) is two years later. The sense was extended from the language to the people who spoke it (in German, Diutisklant, ancestor of Deutschland, was in use by 13c.).

Sense narrowed to "of the Netherlands" in 17c., after they became a united, independent state and the focus of English attention and rivalry. In Holland, duitsch is used of the people of Germany. The M.E. sense survives in Pennsylvania Dutch, who immigrated from the Rhineland and Switzerland.

[Peasant]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg/600px-Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg.png
^most important words are Germanic but a lot of the vocabulary is also Norman.

Do these graphs use a ton of words only the pretentious use? Oh god pretentious is a French/Latin word. :shakefist

[Comte Arnau]

You are thinking too much of your own case. If the other elements are strong enough, a failing in the linguistic aspect can be compensated for. Like with the Irish. There, the 'national story' is the most powerful factor, I think.

My case is an extreme case. No, I can be a bit more laxed, but still can't see how any ethnicity can still be regarded as a distinct one without a language, instead of part of the assimilating one, no matter how different from that assimilating one it is still seen. The case of the Irish has a lucky aspect that makes it different from other similar ones around Europe: having obtained political independence at a time when the language issue could be still seen as an identitarian one. But even so, if the language definitely dies and stops being used as an identitarian symbol even if not spoken, it'll be but a regional variety of an ethnicity, a Hiberno-English ethnicity. Take into account that I distinguish between ethnicity and identity quite distinctly too.

[Wulfhere]

Interesting. This confirms for me that there is a very subtle thing in Wulfhere's manner of expression that makes for confusion with second language speakers. I understood it implicitly to mean 'Extant ethnicity', yet on reflection, I find it difficult to say why. This must be a matter of exposure to certain ways of speaking English. Some Americans have interestingly not 'got' it either. ;)

I would probably have titled it, "First ethnicity in Europe?" if I wanted to include ones that no longer exist.

[Albion]

Because you were saying that the Germans migrated so they weren't the same group anymore. But then you don't mention that the place they migrated to (British isles) became English because of their migration.

:rolleyes2: How very simple minded. Germania was occupied by a collection of Germanic tribes that hadn't forged a common identity until united as East Francia.
The existence of Germania and Germanics means shit, a few tribes with no common identity doesn't prove anything whatsoever.

The difference with England is that the Anglo-Saxons formed a common identity very early on in response to the other inhabitants of the islands who they saw as drastically different from themselves (the Celts).

A German identity only really developed after the Frankish Empire split, except it.


The Germans created the English ethnicity!

Wrong again. Wow, that is what primary school kids are taught about the Anglo-Saxons, to put it into simple terms so as not to confuse them with notions such as Germanic. :rolleyes:

Germans did not exist at that time because the Germanic tribes that inhabited Germany had not developed a common identity and did not see themselves as one ethnicity.


And then you say English are one of the oldest groups in Europe (but of course you don't say that the German group that created them,

Because German's couldn't have created them if Germans did not exist! :rolleyes:

Germanics existed, not Germans. Arminius or Herman the German was a Germanic who united Germanic tribes to fight against the Romans, calling him "the German" is simply a geographical expression since he was from Germania, coupled with German nationalism and romanticism of their history in the 18th and 19th century.


and was around far before the English creation and is still around today culturally and linguistically in southern Denmark is older? lol). That IS really funny.

I think you're referring to Schelswig Holstein. Germanics (Germanics doesn't equal Germans! Please grasp that!) developed initially in Denmark, Southern Sweden and Northern areas of Germany.
They weren't an ethnicity at this time and no such identity as Germans had developed. So no, Germans again did not exist yet.



Yes, I trust genetic testing. lol

Good, then you'll be interested in this then - haplogroups identified as Germanic in Britain could have been here since before the Great Migrations.

Why is this? Because after the last glacial maximum (LGM) Britain was initially settled by people from NW Spain travelling up the Atlantic coast of Europe.

Latter it is theorized that a second migration occurred, bringing people from the present area of the Germany and the Netherlands, travelling up the rivers to Eastern Britain - Eastern England - the Germanic parts of Britain. This second migration left a genetic legacy that today can be confused with Anglo-Saxon or Viking settlement.
However I'm sure you'll be aware of founder affect? Well this theory hypothesizes that an initial founding population will maintain the larger numbers and this is what has occurred in Britain, with most British deriving their haplogroups from the NW Spain glacial refuge.


No, this thread asks ethnicity not nationality. I looked up the definition of both and ....

Wow, aren't you clever.


Ethnicity- relating to or characteristic of a human group having [B]racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common

Yes, and all of the above mentioned could easily include the Danes or Swedish with the Germans. :rolleyes2:


Nationality- the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization: the nationality of an immigrant.
^Notice how nationality has nothing to do with race or language.

Again, the thread says ethnicity not nationality.

Yes, and we're talking about how a group identifies, if it identifies as one - namely when did a collection of Germanic tribes in Germania start seeing themselves as one people and adopt the name "Germans" or any other designation?


Genetic testing says that Angle, Saxon, Jute and Frisians impact on England during the Viking immigrations was about 5% average. In some areas it's 10% in Eastern England only in a tiny place and never more than 10% anywhere. Some areas of eastern Scotland it's 50%. Genetic testing doesn't lie. To me 5% is small.

5% is small but this is about identity of a group, not genetics. If they looked hard enough they'd find areas of Eastern England with 50% "Germanic" input, I know the 5% for a start only applies to all of England, I think it was something more like 35% in areas of East Anglia.
Don't cherry pick figures please.


[B]Basques are probably the oldest in Europe. The genetic evidence says so (smallest level of foreign immigration out of all of Europe as evidenced by paternal lineages) and the linguistic evidence says so (by far the most foreign language).

True, no one said the English were the oldest group, but amongst the oldest. Really, its as if you have tall poppy syndrome, where you have to cut everyone down to your level.
The Basques are the oldest group genetically but what we are asking is what is the oldest people to see themselves as an ethnicity, as a distinct group.
Do we have any evidence of when the Basques saw themselves as such a group?

[Albion]

So I'm supposed to believe that the dictionary is wrong but your alternative definitions are correct.

We are talking about the ethnicity with the oldest common identity, not when an ethnicity formed per se.
Self identification!

Example: To many people the Vadarskans (Macedonians) formed centuries ago but in regards to self-identification they saw themselves as Bulgarian for centuries until recently.

And I'm supposed to believe that Genetic testing doesn't work. LOL


So much of what you say just sounds like hogwash to me and I don't have the time to critique it all.

And as I said before, your view on history is what I'd expect to see in a Primary School text book. A very simple, patchy and in places wrong view on history.

The English came from the Germans - Well no they can't have done if no such German identity existed!!


I really don't like how you're treating Northern Germany as changed too much to be the same group but then you say England is the same group (even though England has had tons more linguistic and genetic change in the past 1000 or even 1500 years)

Northern Germany has experienced change. Maybe you're history for dummies text book didn't tell you this, but Northern Germany has changed in may ways.

Didn't it tell you of the Slavs (more specifically Wends)? They're just Poles right? Wrong, they inhabited Rugen, much of East Germany and right up to the Limes Saxoniae. A bit further and they would have hit North Frisia - the North Sea - the Anglo-Saxon homeland!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Limes.saxoniae.wmt.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/West_slavs_9th-10th_c..png/723px-West_slavs_9th-10th_c..png

Invaders come and go, some settle and cultures change through contact and evolution.
Tell me, are North Germans very similar to the ancient Germanic tribes of old? Heathenry? Agrarian economy? Same ancient art styles? Clothes? Same construction techniques? same proto-Germanic language?

No, thought not. :rolleyes2:

And why is this? Because cultures and ethnicities evolve!

The modern French, Germans, English, Scottish or whatever will all look very different from their ancient name-bearers and forefathers. Beacause cultures change, stop thinking of them as being static and unalterable.


Parts like the Shetlands are more Scandinavian.

Don't state the obvious will you. Shetland has more in common with the Faroe Islands than to London. :D


"After the islands were transferred to Scotland, thousands of Scots families emigrated to Shetland in the 16th and 17th centuries but studies of the genetic makeup of the islands' population indicate that Shetlanders are just under half Scandinavian in origin."

Yes, Shetland is slowly becoming assimilated, its worse in Orkney, I've already seen one Highland pipe band there.
Its in Scotland's interest to passively assimilate the Northern Isles, after all its additional territory, fishing grounds and where much of Scotland's resources (oil+gas) derive from but 600 or so years latter its probably too late for Denmark to ask for them back.


This sure is hard work to argue these things with somebody who doesn't believe in genetic testing or the dictionary.

You know what Wulfhere meant, you're simply sticking by dictionary quotes to prop up your ethnicity argument when what Wulfhere actually meant to say was self identification.
Besides, remember how Negroes used to be represented in dictionaries? Well maybe that can tell you something about how descriptions in dictionaries change with trends and the thoughts of the writers.


You can really say whatever you want and back it up with those weak arguments. (whatever I say you just say- the dictionary is wrong and genetic tests don't work lol)

Your arguments are piss poor when you argue against a question that has not been asked. You knew after it had been explained what Wulfhere meant, you simply wanted to save face.

And just for the record, I know a lot of this was addressing Osweo but I had to add my bit. Fin.

[Wulfhere]

There's always the Frisians, of course, who are referenced in Tacitus's Annals from AD 28 onwards.

[Oreka Bailoak]

How very simple minded. Germania was occupied by a collection of Germanic tribes that hadn't forged a common identity until united as East Francia.

Same as the English tribes. You guys had to fight wars to unify the different groups. (but outsiders called all the diverse groups the same- English. Bede had the intent of "showing the unity of the English, despite the disparate kingdoms that still existed when he was writing"- according to literary critics. This is no different than Tacitus saying that the German tribes are similar and used one name to call them.)


The four main kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England were:


Anglo-Saxon and British kingdoms c.800 AD

Major Kingdoms:
Wessex
East Anglia
Mercia
Northumbria, including sub-kingdoms Bernicia and Deira

Minor kingdoms:
Kent
Sussex
Essex

Other minor kingdoms and territories
Isle of Wight, (Wihtwara)
The Meonwara The Meon Valley area of Hampshire
Surrey
Kingdom of the Iclingas, a precursor state to Mercia
Lindsey
The Hwicce
Magonsæte
Pecsæte
Wreocensæte
Tomsæte
Haestingas
Middle Angles


If you go and ask them what group are you? They probably wouldn't say- I'm English! They'd say the group they were from. They fought each other the same way the German tribes fought each other and there were similar differences in language between the English tribes (old English had many diverse regional variants) as there was between the German tribes of Germany (either old high or low German).



Because German's couldn't have created them if Germans did not exist!
You're right- I used the wrong word. The English ethnicity was created by Anglo, Saxon, Frisian and Jute immigrants imposing their culture and language on Britons. Germanics created the English ethnicity.

My mom says I'm gong to have a heart attack so I need to quit right here before I waste another day arguing.

(If you notice the main thing we are arguing over is simply the definition of Ethnicity. That is all that matters, I already know everything you've said, and you already know everything I've said. This is just pointless bickering. )

[Wulfhere]

Same as the English tribes. You guys had to fight wars to unify the different groups. (but outsiders called all the diverse groups the same- English. Bede had the intent of "showing the unity of the English, despite the disparate kingdoms that still existed when he was writing"- according to literary critics. This is no different than Tacitus saying that the German tribes are similar and used one name to call them.)



If you go and ask them what group are you? They probably wouldn't say- I'm English! They'd say the group they were from. They fought each other the same way the German tribes fought each other and there were similar differences in language between the English tribes (old English had many diverse regional variants) as there was between the German tribes of Germany (either old high or low German).



You're right- I used the wrong word. The English ethnicity was created by Anglo, Saxon, Frisian and Jute immigrants imposing their culture and language on Britons. Germanics created the English ethnicity.

My mom says I'm gong to have a heart attack so I need to quit right here before I waste another day arguing.

(If you notice the main thing we are arguing over is simply the definition of Ethnicity. That is all that matters, I already know everything you've said, and you already know everything I've said. This is just pointless bickering. )

The English identity came about very early, no doubt through the shared experience of conquering a new land. And despite the disparate kingdoms, there was almost always a single overlord, later called a bretwalda. None of this was the case in Germany. As the lovely Svanhild pointed out, the earliest reference to such an identity in Germany is 1090, by which time the English had self-identified as a nation for 500 years. So strong, indeed, was this identity, that it survived hostile takeover bids from both the Danes and the French, eventually absorbing them.

[Albion]

My mom says I'm gong to have a heart attack so I need to quit right here before I waste another day arguing.

(If you notice the main thing we are arguing over is simply the definition of Ethnicity. That is all that matters, I already know everything you've said, and you already know everything I've said. This is just pointless bickering. )

OK, I won't bother. Take it easy, its only a forum after all, don't get too frustrated over it, if you don't agree with something just prove people wrong or don't think about it.

[Svanhild]

As the lovely Svanhild pointed out, the earliest reference to such an identity in Germany is 1090
You're quoting me wrong. I haven't said it's the earlierst reference, I used it because it's one of the first visible on paper. As a matter of fact, the common German identity began to form with the creation of the Ostfrankenreich in 843. The king was Ludwig the German.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Treaty_of_Verdun.svg/660px-Treaty_of_Verdun.svg.png

The forming of the German identity increased after the victory of King Otto I. in the Battle of Lechfeld 955 against the hungarian horde.


The Battle of Lechfeld (10 August 955), was a decisive victory by Otto I the Great, King of the Germans, over the Hungarian leaders, the harka (military leader) Bulcsú and the chieftains Lél (Lehel) and Súr. Located south of Augsburg, the Lechfeld is the flood plain that lies along the Lech River. The battle appears as the Battle of Augsburg in Hungarian historiography. It was followed up by the Battle of Recknitz in October.

http://www.bayern-blogger.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Lechfeld.jpg

[Comte Arnau]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Treaty_of_Verdun.svg/660px-Treaty_of_Verdun.svg.png


A very accurate map... There were no Mauren in Ancient Catalonia by 843. :rolleyes2:

[Ibericus]

You're quoting me wrong. I haven't said it's the earlierst reference, I used it because it's one of the first visible on paper. As a matter of fact, the common German identity began to form with the creation of the Ostfrankenreich in 843. The king was Ludwig the German.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Treaty_of_Verdun.svg/660px-Treaty_of_Verdun.svg.png

Very crap map, is it me or Iberia looks deformed ? And by 843 like Ibex said the north of Iberia was not muslim. Acutally 'mauren' is very incorrect, this land has never been 'mauren' , it has always belonged to the vast majority of native population.

[Comte Arnau]

Acutally 'mauren' is very incorrect, this land has never been 'mauren' , it has always belonged to the vast majority of native population.

True. It belonged to the Caliphate for less than a century, and the presence of Moors consisted of a few thousands in military positions. The population was always completely local.

[Wulfhere]

You're quoting me wrong. I haven't said it's the earlierst reference, I used it because it's one of the first visible on paper. As a matter of fact, the common German identity began to form with the creation of the Ostfrankenreich in 843. The king was Ludwig the German.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Treaty_of_Verdun.svg/660px-Treaty_of_Verdun.svg.png

The forming of the German identity increased after the victory of King Otto I. in the Battle of Lechfeld 955 against the hungarian horde.



http://www.bayern-blogger.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Lechfeld.jpg

843 is still quite late, and there's no reference to a German self-identity from then. I agree though that those events were important in the later formation of such an identity.

[Wulfhere]

True. It belonged to the Caliphate for less than a century, and the presence of Moors consisted of a few thousands in military positions. The population was always completely local.

If the Moors comprised merely soldiers, they must have raped and fucked local women all the time, over many hundreds of years.

[Wyn]

Same as the English tribes.

No, not the same at all. Englishmen used the English ethnonym in reference to themselves (which they would do, having a common identity).


You guys had to fight wars to unify the different groups.

Yes, we were politically divided.


(but outsiders called all the diverse groups the same- English.

Outsiders and Englishmen, yes.


Bede had the intent of "showing the unity of the English, despite the disparate kingdoms that still existed when he was writing"- according to literary critics.

As a native Englishman I expect he did, absolutely. He was writing a history of his own ethnic group. That was exactly the point.


This is no different than Tacitus saying that the German tribes are similar and used one name to call them.)


Similar? Bede writes as a native and uses the phrase nostrae nationis - 'our nation.'

[Comte Arnau]

If the Moors comprised merely soldiers, they must have raped and fucked local women all the time, over many hundreds of years.

I repeat: they stayed in Ancient Catalonia for less than a century (in some places they hardly were 20 or 30 years) and their presence was mainly reduced to a few thousand people in military garrisons and the like, just with the mission of controlling things. It almost worked as a sort of protectorate rather than a conquered land. That's why you'll hardly find anything Muslim in the area.

Did they fuck local women during their stay? Who knows, probably they did in those places where they were in real control of the situation. But certainly not for long and not en masse at all.

[Svanhild]

Very crap map, is it me or Iberia looks deformed ?
I'd say the creator of the map was more interested in showing the segmentation of Charlemagne's Reich after his death than in depicting the situation in Iberia. That's just periphery in this context and not the topic of the graphics. Which is, surprise surprise, the fate of Charlemagne's Reich. Same goes for the areas eastwards. I'm dead sure the creator of the map had no intension to insult Iberians, he just wanted to show that the Iberian peninsula had to handle the Moors at the time, nothing else. Please don't blow up every fly-crap to an emotional outcry. The letters aren't assigned accurate to the millimetre...there should be more important problems. Catalunya's proud heart should have the power to cope with it.

[Peyrol]

This is a more accurated map, but the german situation don't change, compared to Svanhild's map.

http://www.storiologia.it/russia/immagine09.jpg

[Albion]

As a matter of fact, the common German identity began to form with the creation of the Ostfrankenreich

Just as I have said.

[Äike]

This is a more accurated map, but the german situation don't change, compared to Svanhild's map.

http://www.storiologia.it/russia/immagine09.jpg

That is a very inaccurate map.

[Magister Eckhart]

Irish. Untouched by the Romans, relatively well-preserved even after the Norman conquest and the Scottish resettlement, the core of their ethnicity goes back to Roman Republican times.

[Osweo]

Irish. Untouched by the Romans, relatively well-preserved even after the Norman conquest and the Scottish resettlement, the core of their ethnicity goes back to Roman Republican times.

Ireland was not an ethnic whole at any period prior to the Middle Ages, arguably never ever. In Roman Republican times, the island was crawling with pre-Gaelic Britonnic speakers and even pre-Celtic aborigenes.

The seeds of Goidelic Irishness were, even at the time of Patrick, more of a ´class´ thing than true nationhood. The Christianity that Patrick brought was arguably of more import in uniting these various layers of population into a more or less coherent role than anything else.

[Äike]

Setu People – The Oldest Settled People In Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251018&postcount=1)

...But what makes the Setus a special people is not so much their religion but their ancient oral cultural heritage. The Setus remember their ancient customs, folk songs, tales, dances and rituals remarkably better than all other regions in Estonia. A subsistantial amount of folk song texts in the Estonian Literature Museum have been recorded in Setumaa. The remarkable aspect here is that the songs sung by some illiterate Setu singers have been estimated to be over 5000 years old and several experts claim the Setu people to be the oldest settled people in Europe – they have not participated in any migrations.
Next to Christianity the Setu people have held on to their ancient pagan beliefs. Until quite recently it would have been no surprise to find a primeval wooden statue of fertility god Peko hidden somewhere near to the picture of Jesus. Until the beginning of the 20th century the Setus made blood sacrifices to Peko in secret rituals – full-grown men would fight until blood is spilled. Worshipping the souls of dead ancestors is still a vital practice.

The answer to this thread is rather obvious...

[safinator]

Basques and Sardinians

[gandalf]

To me people of France have a very old ethnicity .

When Cesar fought Vercingetorix at Alesia in 52 AD
the arverne king called for a rescue army ,
and from nearly all celtic or belgian tribes of Gaul ,
an army came to help Vercingetorix .

So even though the Gaulish tribes were not united ,
they felt that they had enough in common to fight for,
and that this common culture was threatened .

Of course Gauls became French and knew more changes ,
and a long unification of what is France now ,
but France was desired for a long time .

[Sikeliot]

Basques and Sardinians

I agree.

[Turkophagos]

"FOUR THOUSAND YEARS OF GREEK HISTORY have produced four Greek heritages, each of which has had an effect on the life of the Greeks in later stages of their history. The Hellenic (Classical) Greeks received a heritage from the Mycenean Greeks, the Byzantine Greeks received on from the Hellenic Greeks, the Modern Greeks have received one heritage from the Byzantines and a second from the Hellenes. (...)

Few, however, of the peoples that possess distinctive identities today have had as long a history as the Greeks, if we interpret history as meaning, not simply chronological duration of existence, but continuity which has never ceased to be recognized and to be remembered."


The Greeks and their Heritage, A.J. Toynbee



Case closed.

[Riki]

Abstract
HLA-A, -B, -DRB1, -DQA1, and DQB1 alleles were studied in Iberian and Algerian populations by serology and DNA sequence methodologies. The genetic and cultural relatedness among Basques, Spaniards, and paleo-North Africans (Berbers or Tamazights) was established. Portuguese people have also maintained a certain degree of cultural and ethnic-specific characteristics since ancient times. The results of the present HLA study in Portuguese populations show that they have features in common with Basques and Spaniards from Madrid: a high frequency of the HLA-haplotypes A29-B44-DR7 (ancient western Europeans), A2-B7-DR15 (ancient Europeans and paleo-North Africans), and A1-B8-DR3 (Europeans) are found as common characteristics. Portuguese and Basques do not show the Mediterranean A33-B14-DR1 haplotype, suggesting a lower admixture with Mediterraneans; Spaniards and Algerians do have this haplotype in a relatively high frequency, indicating a more extensive Mediterranean genetic influence. The paleo-North African haplotype A30-B18-DR3 present in Basques, Algerians, and Spaniards is not found in Portuguese either. The Portuguese have a characteristic unique among world populations: a high frequency of HLA-A25-B18-DR15 and A26-B38-DR13, which may reflect a still detectable founder effect coming from ancient Portuguese, i.e., oestrimnios and conios; Basques and Algerians also show specific haplotypes, A11-B27-DR1 and A2-B35-DR11, respectively, probably showing a relatively lower degree of admixture. A neighbor-joining dendrogram place Basques, Portuguese, Spaniards, and Algerians closer to each other and more separated from other populations. Genetic, cultural, geological, and linguistic evidence also supports the hypothesis that people coming from a fertile Saharan area emigrated towards the north (southern Europe, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean Islands, and the North African coast) when the climate changed drastically to hotter and drier ca 10 000 years B.C.

PMID: 9382919 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances

LinkOut - more resources

[Svartálfar]

I would say the Saami.

[rhiannon]

This is an educated guess...but recent information has told me that it could be the Welsh, courtesy of recent DNA analysis, which shows a direct tie to some of NW Europe's earliest settlers.

[Svartálfar]

This is an educated guess...but recent information has told me that it could be the Welsh, courtesy of recent DNA analysis, which shows a direct tie to some of NW Europe's earliest settlers.

Yes but we are talking about ethnicity not race. The ethnic celtic britons arrived in Wales during the bronze age. So they are not the oldest ones.

[gold_fenix]

This is an educated guess...but recent information has told me that it could be the Welsh, courtesy of recent DNA analysis, which shows a direct tie to some of NW Europe's earliest settlers.

curious, Welsh are the people with higher percentage of haplogroup R1b followed by basques

[safinator]

Welsh show also E-V13 haplogroup.

[Svartálfar]

Welsh show also E-V13 haplogroup.

Which is berberid.

[safinator]

Which is berberid.
Wrong.
This Subclade is only present in Europe, specifically Balkans.

It's virtually absent outside of Europe.

[rhiannon]

Yes but we are talking about ethnicity not race. The ethnic celtic britons arrived in Wales during the bronze age. So they are not the oldest ones.

The Welsh are related to the peoples who were in Britain even before the Celts...the Beaker Peoples.

[rhiannon]

curious, Welsh are the people with higher percentage of haplogroup R1b followed by basques

The Welsh and the Basque share a strong genetic link...so this makes sense.

[Wulfhere]

Why are so few people apparently aware of what an ethnicity actually is? We're not talking about race, or genetics, but self-identity.

[rhiannon]

Why are so few people apparently aware of what an ethnicity actually is? We're not talking about race, or genetics, but self-identity.

It means different things I guess, but my views may be skewed because I'm American.
I do not consider my ethnic group as American, for example.

[Wulfhere]

It means different things I guess, but my views may be skewed because I'm American.
I do not consider my ethnic group as American, for example.

Indeed - a new American ethnicity was never created.

[Pallantides]

The Sámi might be one of the oldest peoples
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N5N83NDcMqk/TaHq14-oDAI/AAAAAAAAAFU/Vbd6FIqUycg/s1600/sami4.jpg

Their lifestyle had many similarities with the early European hunter & gatherers
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7021/cromagnonman.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7966/cromagnonself.jpg

[gold_fenix]

A new theory speaks about origin someting we could to name "pre-celtic" whose origin could be in Ireland or North of Spain and they could be very old, too have meaning because the rest anthropoligal in Spain are very old and too Spain was one of the shelters,so there seems to be a strong tendency for the oldest ethnic groups were in Western Europe

The sami too have strong meaning, Siberia is yet litle studied and there very interesting human rest found

I would like to know about something in the Balkans because too was a shelter and unfortunally i know nothing

[Comte Arnau]

It means different things I guess, but my views may be skewed because I'm American.
I do not consider my ethnic group as American, for example.

Well, what your ethnicity is certainly not is "German / Irish / Scottish / English / Welsh / Norwegian(?) / Dutch / French", lol. That's your ancestry.

[El Palleter]

Which is berberid.I think that it's more related to E-V12 and to Somalid E1b1b

[CelticTemplar]

I feel like it would be the Greeks.