What does it mean to be Celt?

[Poltergeist]

The question is - obviously - addressed to the Celtic members of this forum. What does it mean to be a "Celt"? The most obvious and certain criterion is language, meaning that someone's Celticness is identified by him speaking one of the Celtic languages. But then again, what about the Irish who are not proficient in Gaelic? Does it make them less Celtic? The same goes for all other Celtic nationalities (Scots, Bretons, Welshmen), needless to say.

Is there anything else to Celticness, beside language?

[Equinox]

The same goes for all other Celtic nationalities (Scots, Bretons, Welshmen), needless to say.

Where are these Scots? In Scotland? I do not believe that Scotland is necessarily a Celtic nation, though others a quick to claim it as such.

[Poltergeist]

It is generally referred to as Celtic.

[Murphy]

Lajos, I shall leave you with this short chapter from Gilbert K. Chesterton's book Heretics:



XIII. Celts and Celtophiles

Science in the modern world has many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich. The word "kleptomania" is a vulgar example of what I mean. It is on a par with that strange theory, always advanced when a wealthy or prominent person is in the dock, that exposure is more of a punishment for the rich than for the poor. Of course, the very reverse is the truth. Exposure is more of a punishment for the poor than for the rich. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be a tramp. The richer a man is the easier it is for him to be popular and generally respected in the Cannibal Islands. But the poorer a man is the more likely it is that he will have to use his past life whenever he wants to get a bed for the night. Honour is a luxury for aristocrats, but it is a necessity for hall-porters. This is a secondary matter, but it is an example of the general proposition I offer—the proposition that an enormous amount of modern ingenuity is expended on finding defences for the indefensible conduct of the powerful. As I have said above, these defences generally exhibit themselves most emphatically in the form of appeals to physical science. And of all the forms in which science, or pseudo-science, has come to the rescue of the rich and stupid, there is none so singular as the singular invention of the theory of races.

When a wealthy nation like the English discovers the perfectly patent fact that it is making a ludicrous mess of the government of a poorer nation like the Irish, it pauses for a moment in consternation, and then begins to talk about Celts and Teutons. As far as I can understand the theory, the Irish are Celts and the English are Teutons. Of course, the Irish are not Celts any more than the English are Teutons. I have not followed the ethnological discussion with much energy, but the last scientific conclusion which I read inclined on the whole to the summary that the English were mainly Celtic and the Irish mainly Teutonic. But no man alive, with even the glimmering of a real scientific sense, would ever dream of applying the terms "Celtic" or "Teutonic" to either of them in any positive or useful sense.

That sort of thing must be left to people who talk about the Anglo-Saxon race, and extend the expression to America. How much of the blood of the Angles and Saxons (whoever they were) there remains in our mixed British, Roman, German, Dane, Norman, and Picard stock is a matter only interesting to wild antiquaries. And how much of that diluted blood can possibly remain in that roaring whirlpool of America into which a cataract of Swedes, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, and Italians is perpetually pouring, is a matter only interesting to lunatics. It would have been wiser for the English governing class to have called upon some other god. All other gods, however weak and warring, at least boast of being constant. But science boasts of being in a flux for ever; boasts of being unstable as water.

And England and the English governing class never did call on this absurd deity of race until it seemed, for an instant, that they had no other god to call on. All the most genuine Englishmen in history would have yawned or laughed in your face if you had begun to talk about Anglo-Saxons. If you had attempted to substitute the ideal of race for the ideal of nationality, I really do not like to think what they would have said. I certainly should not like to have been the officer of Nelson who suddenly discovered his French blood on the eve of Trafalgar. I should not like to have been the Norfolk or Suffolk gentleman who had to expound to Admiral Blake by what demonstrable ties of genealogy he was irrevocably bound to the Dutch. The truth of the whole matter is very simple. Nationality exists, and has nothing in the world to do with race. Nationality is a thing like a church or a secret society; it is a product of the human soul and will; it is a spiritual product. And there are men in the modern world who would think anything and do anything rather than admit that anything could be a spiritual product.

A nation, however, as it confronts the modern world, is a purely spiritual product. Sometimes it has been born in independence, like Scotland. Sometimes it has been born in dependence, in subjugation, like Ireland. Sometimes it is a large thing cohering out of many smaller things, like Italy. Sometimes it is a small thing breaking away from larger things, like Poland. But in each and every case its quality is purely spiritual, or, if you will, purely psychological. It is a moment when five men become a sixth man. Every one knows it who has ever founded a club. It is a moment when five places become one place. Every one must know it who has ever had to repel an invasion. Mr. Timothy Healy, the most serious intellect in the present House of Commons, summed up nationality to perfection when he simply called it something for which people will die, As he excellently said in reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, "No one, not even the noble lord, would die for the meridian of Greenwich." And that is the great tribute to its purely psychological character. It is idle to ask why Greenwich should not cohere in this spiritual manner while Athens or Sparta did. It is like asking why a man falls in love with one woman and not with another.

Now, of this great spiritual coherence, independent of external circumstances, or of race, or of any obvious physical thing, Ireland is the most remarkable example. Rome conquered nations, but Ireland has conquered races. The Norman has gone there and become Irish, the Scotchman has gone there and become Irish, the Spaniard has gone there and become Irish, even the bitter soldier of Cromwell has gone there and become Irish. Ireland, which did not exist even politically, has been stronger than all the races that existed scientifically. The purest Germanic blood, the purest Norman blood, the purest blood of the passionate Scotch patriot, has not been so attractive as a nation without a flag. Ireland, unrecognized and oppressed, has easily absorbed races, as such trifles are easily absorbed. She has easily disposed of physical science, as such superstitions are easily disposed of. Nationality in its weakness has been stronger than ethnology in its strength. Five triumphant races have been absorbed, have been defeated by a defeated nationality.

This being the true and strange glory of Ireland, it is impossible to hear without impatience of the attempt so constantly made among her modern sympathizers to talk about Celts and Celticism. Who were the Celts? I defy anybody to say. Who are the Irish? I defy any one to be indifferent, or to pretend not to know. Mr. W. B. Yeats, the great Irish genius who has appeared in our time, shows his own admirable penetration in discarding altogether the argument from a Celtic race. But he does not wholly escape, and his followers hardly ever escape, the general objection to the Celtic argument. The tendency of that argument is to represent the Irish or the Celts as a strange and separate race, as a tribe of eccentrics in the modern world immersed in dim legends and fruitless dreams. Its tendency is to exhibit the Irish as odd, because they see the fairies. Its trend is to make the Irish seem weird and wild because they sing old songs and join in strange dances. But this is quite an error; indeed, it is the opposite of the truth. It is the English who are odd because they do not see the fairies. It is the inhabitants of Kensington who are weird and wild because they do not sing old songs and join in strange dances. In all this the Irish are not in the least strange and separate, are not in the least Celtic, as the word is commonly and popularly used. In all this the Irish are simply an ordinary sensible nation, living the life of any other ordinary and sensible nation which has not been either sodden with smoke or oppressed by money-lenders, or otherwise corrupted with wealth and science. There is nothing Celtic about having legends. It is merely human. The Germans, who are (I suppose) Teutonic, have hundreds of legends, wherever it happens that the Germans are human. There is nothing Celtic about loving poetry; the English loved poetry more, perhaps, than any other people before they came under the shadow of the chimney-pot and the shadow of the chimney-pot hat. It is not Ireland which is mad and mystic; it is Manchester which is mad and mystic, which is incredible, which is a wild exception among human things. Ireland has no need to play the silly game of the science of races; Ireland has no need to pretend to be a tribe of visionaries apart. In the matter of visions, Ireland is more than a nation, it is a model nation.


Where are these Scots? In Scotland? I do not believe that Scotland is necessarily a Celtic nation, though others a quick to claim it as such.

It has a Celtic heritage that you cannot deny. In case you have forgotten, there are Scottish Gaels on the west coast...

Regards,
Eóin.

[Equinox]

It has a Celtic heritage that you cannot deny. In case you have forgotten, there are Scottish Gaels on the west coast...


If Celtic heritage is all it takes to constitute a Celtic nation or state, why exclude Australia from the list?

[Poltergeist]

If Celtic heritage is all it takes to constitute a Celtic nation or state, why exclude Australia from the list?

Where is Celtic heritage in Australia?

[Murphy]

If Celtic heritage is all it takes to constitute a Celtic nation or state, why exclude Australia from the list?

I don't have a list, so don't ask me. I also didn't say Scotland was a Celtic nation, simply that it had a Celtic heritage. Most people whom I come across who say they don't consider Scotland a "Celtic nation" tend to try and paint a picture of the Celts being nobodies in Scotland's history, minor players etc.

Regards,
Eóin.

[Treffie]

Where is Celtic heritage in Australia?

Well, Equinox has a good point - Australia can be considered Anglo-Celtic.:)

[Poltergeist]

Well, Equinox has a good point - Australia can be considered Anglo-Celtic.:)

Because of the Welsh and the Irish who settled there?

[Treffie]

Because of the Welsh and the Irish who settled there?

Anglo for the English and Scots for obvious reasons and yes, there was a large contingent from Ireland and Wales too.

[Atlas]

In dark green, the regions considered to be celtic :

Britanny, Wales, Ireland, Scotland mostly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png

The rest of Europe seems to have an influence.

[Ibericus]

Today's definition of Celt, is being a celti-speaking country. But, ethnically speaking, Wales and Scotland are more germanic than celt. France and Spain are about as celtic as Wales or Ireland, in celtic heritage.

[Wulfhere]

Today's definition of Celt, is being a celti-speaking country. But, ethnically speaking, Wales and Scotland are more germanic than celt. France and Spain are about as celtic as Wales or Ireland, in celtic heritage.

Can you please explain how Wales is more Germanic than Celtic? Be careful here because I know Wales, the Welsh people and their history very well. The fact is that Wales is far more Celtic even than Ireland, and the Welsh language is still the primary language across large areas of it.

[Ibericus]

Can you please explain how Wales is more Germanic than Celtic? Be careful here because I know Wales, the Welsh people and their history very well. The fact is that Wales is far more Celtic even than Ireland, and the Welsh language is still the primary language across large areas of it.
I doubt you know the history of Wales. Germanic tribes like the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings entered Wales. ethnically speaking they are a mix of Celt and Germanic.

[hereward]

Canister damage, the both of you.

[Wulfhere]

I doubt you know the history of Wales. Germanic tribes like the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings entered Wales. ethnically speaking they are a mix of Celt and Germanic.

I assure you I do know the history of Wales. As for Anglo-Saxon and Viking setttlement, there was actually virtually none (Anglesey, for example, was briefly occupied by Northumbrians). There was a fair bit of Irish settlement in the Dark Ages, but the Irish are Celts...

Wales has to be the least Germanic part of the British Isles, and this is evident as soon as you cross the border and look at the people. They are quintessentially Celtic.

[Ibericus]

I assure you I do know the history of Wales. As for Anglo-Saxon and Viking setttlement, there was actually virtually none (Anglesey, for example, was briefly occupied by Northumbrians). There was a fair bit of Irish settlement in the Dark Ages, but the Irish are Celts...

Wales has to be the least Germanic part of the British Isles, and this is evident as soon as you cross the border and look at the people. They are quintessentially Celtic.

All the Great Britain island has germanic heritage.
But my point was that a non-celtic speaking country like France or Spain (even though in the past they spoke Celtic languages) carry as much Celtic heritage as current celtic speaking countries. That is an evidence.

[Wulfhere]

All the Great Britain island has germanic heritage.
But my point was that a non-celtic speaking country like France or Spain (even though in the past they spoke Celtic languages) carry as much Celtic heritage as current celtic speaking countries. That is an evidence.

No, they do not. They just want to. Have you ever even been to a real Celtic country, such as Wales?

[Ibericus]

No, they do not. They just want to. Have you ever even been to a real Celtic country, such as Wales?

yes, and there are a lot of germanic-looking welsh people. The blondism , red-hair and fairness comes from the germanic side. But also you can find the more native Celtic look, which is also found in Iberia or France.
Atlanto-meditarraneans, paleo-atlantids, etc.

[Wulfhere]

yes, and there are a lot of germanic-looking welsh people. The blondism , red-hair and fairness comes from the germanic side. But also you can find the more native Celtic look, which is also found in Iberia or France.
Atlanto-meditarraneans, paleo-atlantids, etc.

And yet, as I've already told you, there was almost no Germanic settlement in Wales. The red hair and fairness you describe is, in fact, a typical Celtic trait. Your motive, which is patently obvious, is to try and show that Spaniards are Celts, even if it means claiming that real Celts, such as the Welsh, must be Germanic.

[Ibericus]

And yet, as I've already told you, there was almost no Germanic settlement in Wales. The red hair and fairness you describe is, in fact, a typical Celtic trait. Your motive, which is patently obvious, is to try and show that Spaniards are Celts, even if it means claiming that real Celts, such as the Welsh, must be Germanic.
First of all, I didn't say spanairds are Celt. I said, they have as much celtic heritage as the Welsh or Irish. But there are no pure Celts anywhere. The spanairds are Celt-Iberian, the british are celtic-germanic, etc.

And not only Wales was invaded by Normans, but also had received immigration from England in the 19th centruy.

"The killing of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in 1075 led to civil war and gave the Normans an opportunity to seize lands in North Wales.
Rhys ap Tewdwr of Deheubarth was killed in 1093 in Brycheiniog, and his kingdom was seized and divided between various Norman lordships.[42] The Norman conquest of Wales appeared virtually complete.

The Norman invasion of Wales began shortly after the Norman conquest of England. It was not undertaken with the fervor and intentionality of the invasion of England, and, as such, a specific date is difficult to pin down; nonetheless, it can be said that the invasion gradually played itself out through the 1060s into the 1070s, though the situation did not solidify until the early 1200s."

Another aspect of demographic change in the late 19th century was immigration, principally into the industrial districts of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Wales was the only area of the British Isles to experience net immigration from 1860 to 1914. Between 1881 and 1891, Glamorgan received a net inflow of more than 48,000 people from England.

Lloyd, J.E. A History of Wales p. 398.
Evans, D. Gareth (1989) A History of Wales 1815-1906. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

[Wulfhere]

First of all, I didn't say spanairds are Celt. I said, they have as much celtic heritage as the Welsh or Irish. But there are no pure Celts anywhere. The spanairds are Celt-Iberian, the british are celtic-germanic, etc.

And not only Wales was invaded by Normans, but also had received immigration from England in the 18th centruy.

"The killing of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in 1075 led to civil war and gave the Normans an opportunity to seize lands in North Wales.
Rhys ap Tewdwr of Deheubarth was killed in 1093 in Brycheiniog, and his kingdom was seized and divided between various Norman lordships.[42] The Norman conquest of Wales appeared virtually complete.

The Norman invasion of Wales began shortly after the Norman conquest of England. It was not undertaken with the fervor and intentionality of the invasion of England, and, as such, a specific date is difficult to pin down; nonetheless, it can be said that the invasion gradually played itself out through the 1060s into the 1070s, though the situation did not solidify until the early 1200s."

Lloyd, J.E. A History of Wales p. 398.

The Normans were not Germanic - they were French.

[Skandi]

An interesting argument. The Welsh are not celtic.. The French are as celtic... the Welsh are not Celtic because they were invaded by the French... hmm and how do you dilute Celtic blood with more Celtic blood? besides the actual numbers of Normans were not large. but that's a different point

[Ibericus]

An interesting argument. The Welsh are not celtic.. The French are as celtic... the Welsh are not Celtic because they were invaded by the French... hmm and how do you dilute Celtic blood with more Celtic blood? besides the actual numbers of Normans were not large. but that's a different point

Wheere I said that Welsh are not Celtic ? :confused: I said they are a mix of Celtic and Germanic.

[Ibericus]

The Normans were not Germanic - they were French.
The Normans were descendants of Danish Vikings.
Also, you forget the english immigration to Wales. All of this makes the germanic ancestry part of the Welsh.

[Skandi]

Your argument is circular you are arguing that the are mixed because they have mixed with a mixed race.. which would pretty much cancel out the mixing? a small amount of slightly Germanic people isn't going to add much to the resident population. But I don't disagree that there is some Germanic in Wales, but there is more Celtic there than Germanic. As to how much there may or may not be in France, well I expect that you cannot generalise like that, some parts of France will have much higher proportions than others, but I will leave you two too your argument :) it's more fun that way

[Wulfhere]

The Normans were descendants of Danish Vikings.
Also, you forget the english immigration to Wales. All of this makes the germanic ancestry part of the Welsh.

Most Normans are descended from the French peasants who were there when the Danes arrived. The Danes were quickly assimilated.

English immigration to Wales has never been very large, and though it may have increased in recent times, Welsh ethnicity was set long before that.

[Treffie]

Today's definition of Celt, is being a celti-speaking country. But, ethnically speaking, Wales and Scotland are more germanic than celt. France and Spain are about as celtic as Wales or Ireland, in celtic heritage.

Please don't let them hear you say that. Even though only 20% of the population of Wales speaks Welsh, it doesn't mean to say that they feel less Welsh than the Cymry (Welsh language speakers). The only difference being is that during the last 60 years many have lost their native language skills.

[Ibericus]

Please don't let them hear you say that. Even though only 20% of the population of Wales speaks Welsh, it doesn't mean to say that they feel less Welsh than the Cymry (Welsh language speakers). The only difference being is that during the last 60 years many have lost their native language skills.

Im not talking about language, but ancestry. I know the current definition of celtic is to be a celtic-speaking country. But I was takling about ancestry.

[Treffie]

Im not talking about language, but ancestry. I know the current definition of celtic is to be a celtic-speaking country. But I was takling about ancestry.

Well if ancestry if concerned, then most people are of Celtic descent ;)

[Ibericus]

And yet, as I've already told you, there was almost no Germanic settlement in Wales. The red hair and fairness you describe is, in fact, a typical Celtic trait. Your motive, which is patently obvious, is to try and show that Spaniards are Celts, even if it means claiming that real Celts, such as the Welsh, must be Germanic.

Actually the Celts, were mostly dark-haired, alpine/atlanto-mediterranean. Read Oppenheimer and others :

"Meanwhile, genetics, history, and archaeological researcher and writer Stephen Oppenheimer suggests the Celts were a Mediterranean people first established in what is now southern France by the end of the last glacial maxum, around 11,000 BC. From there through further integration with what might have been proto-Basque populations, these people spread outward into Italy, Spain, the British Isles and Germany."

[Wulfhere]

Actually the Celts, were mostly dark-haired, alpine/atlanto-mediterranean. Read Oppenheimer and others :

"Meanwhile, genetics, history, and archaeological researcher and writer Stephen Oppenheimer suggests the Celts were a Mediterranean people first established in what is now southern France by the end of the last glacial maxum, around 11,000 BC. From there through further integration with what might have been proto-Basque populations, these people spread outward into Italy, Spain, the British Isles and Germany."

No, that's just bollocks I'm afraid. Celts are white Northern Europeans. As I said earlier, you just need to go to a real Celtic country to see that, such as Wales (which has had virtually no Germanic settlement).

[Treffie]

No, that's just bollocks I'm afraid. Celts are white Northern Europeans. As I said earlier, you just need to go to a real Celtic country to see that, such as Wales (which has had virtually no Germanic settlement).

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Wales had virtually no Germanic settlement, in fact there was a large amount of Flemish immigrants (esp Pembrokeshire) during the 13th century and a lot of English immigrants from the Industrial Revolution onwards in South Wales, which makes up 75% of Wales` population.

[Wulfhere]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Wales had virtually no Germanic settlement, in fact there was a large amount of Flemish immigrants (esp Pembrokeshire) during the 13th century and a lot of English immigrants from the Industrial Revolution onwards in South Wales, which makes up 75% of Wales` population.

Those were later migrations though. But if you wanted to be absolutely sure you were looking at more or less pure Celts I suppose you could go to somewhere like Gwynedd, where they still speak Welsh. And they look just as white as any other Welsh people, and nothing at all like swarthy Spaniards.

[Ibericus]

No, that's just bollocks I'm afraid. Celts are white Northern Europeans. As I said earlier, you just need to go to a real Celtic country to see that, such as Wales (which has had virtually no Germanic settlement).

Celts were not northern europeans, as they didn't come from northern europe.
But yes, Celts were white, as are Spaniards of French, but this does not prove anything.

[Treffie]

Those were later migrations though. But if you wanted to be absolutely sure you were looking at more or less pure Celts I suppose you could go to somewhere like Gwynedd, where they still speak Welsh. And they look just as white as any other Welsh people, and nothing at all like swarthy Spaniards.

Gwynedd is a small area and relatively un-Anglicised, but if you take Wales as a whole, it is generally Anglicised - most Welsh speakers have some English ancestry down the line somewhere - myself included.

[Wulfhere]

Celts were not northern europeans, as they didn't come from northern europe.
But yes, Celts were white, as are Spaniards of French, but this does not prove anything.

Can't you see that you're only coming out with all this crap because you are desperate for a Celtic heritage? Celts are not swarthy Mediterraneans, but white northerners. To prove this all you have to do is go to where Celts live, such as North Wales, and look at them.

[Ibericus]

Those were later migrations though. But if you wanted to be absolutely sure you were looking at more or less pure Celts I suppose you could go to somewhere like Gwynedd, where they still speak Welsh. And they look just as white as any other Welsh people, and nothing at all like swarthy Spaniards.

How many times do I have to say that spaniards are Celt-Iberian, not just Celt. What part of this you dont understand ?The Welsh are Celtic with Germanic

[Wulfhere]

Gwynedd is a small area and relatively un-Anglicised, but if you take Wales as a whole, it is generally Anglicised - most Welsh speakers have some English ancestry down the line somewhere - myself included.

Maybe so, in which case I would advise those who wish to see pure Celts, complete with a living Celtic language, to go to Gwynedd.

[Ibericus]

Can't you see that you're only coming out with all this crap because you are desperate for a Celtic heritage? Celts are not swarthy Mediterraneans, but white northerners. To prove this all you have to do is go to where Celts live, such as North Wales, and look at them.

Actually lots of Welsh people would pass as spaniards in Spain. But like I said, they have so germanic mixed in them..There is no way to tell how the Celts were like.

[Treffie]

Celts were not northern europeans, as they didn't come from northern europe.
But yes, Celts were white, as are Spaniards of French, but this does not prove anything.

More Central Europe than Northern Europe

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpg

[Wulfhere]

Actually lots of Welsh people would pass as spaniards in Spain. But like I said, they have so germanic mixed in them..There is no way to tell how the Celts were like.

You keep saying that Welsh have Germanic in them because it's the only way you can explain the fact that the Welsh are white. Go and have a look at the Welsh of Gwynedd, there has been no Germanic settlement there at all. They are white just like all the other Welsh, and look nothing like Spaniards.

[Ibericus]

You keep saying that Welsh have Germanic in them because it's the only way you can explain the fact that the Welsh are white. Go and have a look at the Welsh of Gwynnedd, there has been no Germanic settlement there at all. They are white just like all the other Welsh, and look nothing like Spaniards.
No. If the welsh didn't have germanic in them they would still be white. The Celts were white.

[Wulfhere]

No. If the welsh didn't have germanic in them they would still be white. The Celts were white.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you! So if Celts are white, how can Spaniards be Celts?

[Ibericus]

Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you! So if Celts are white, how can Spaniards be Celts?

Spaniards are Celtiberians, and they are obviously white. What is your point ?? :confused:

[Wulfhere]

Spaniards are Celtiberians, and they are obviously white. Why it is so difficult to understand ?? :confused:

Why is it so difficult to understand that Spaniards are white? Because they aren't. Not in the way that Northern Europeans are. They are swarthy Mediterraneans. If any Celts ever migrated to Spain they were no doubt absorbed and assimilated into the local population, losing their ethnic identity.

[Ibericus]

Why is it so difficult to understand that Spaniards are white? Because they aren't.
Well, that's a personal opinion, but it is not the reality. I can show you genetical evidence that spaniards are typically European. They are as european as a Norwegian or a Swede, genetically.
Actually , Spaniards are connceted with Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French, that is , where the Celtic settlements were the largest


Not in the way that Northern Europeans are. They are swarthy Mediterraneans. If any Celts ever migrated to Spain they were no doubt absorbed and assimilated into the local population, losing their ethnic identity.
You are now confusing ethnicity with race. yes, a Norwegian has a different ethnicity than a Spaniard, but they are the same race. But The northern europeans are not more european than spaniards. Actually, the Basque people are the purest and oldest europeans of all.
And I would not say spaniards are mediterranean. Mostly Altanto-Meditarranean and Paleo-Atlantid.

[Osweo]

Iberia, you have absorbed the new sensationalist Iberian-origin theories too much. They remain purely speculative. I assure you that the pure Welsh - and they DO still exist in many parts - can very often be fair, ruddy, ginger AND dark. This internal diversity was already present in pre-Roman times. Tacitus and Caesar remarked upon it.

Very often, we hear of the 'Silurid' dark Welshman, and can see in Tacitus's Agricolahow a Roman observer saw an Iberian connection here. And yet equally Celtic Britons of the northeast were described as more like Germans in colouring and build. Those nearest Gaul were identical with their Celtic cousins across the sea.

I suppose that the area of Wales already had some diversity in Tacitus's day, despite his generalising comments, but that this was supplemented by refugees from eastern Britain at the time of the Adventus Saxonum. I can back this up with genealogical, palaeographic, folkloric and toponymic evidence, if I have to.

Norman conquest brought a few landlords and soldiers. There was considerable mixing (see the 'Geraldines' or 'Cambro-Norman swarm' that later invaded Ireland), but this will have had only minor effect on the masses of the peasantry, and whole areas remained with native lords. English mediaeval and early modern immigration was a purely urban affair, and again will have had little effect on the masses of the people. Modern immigration of English has not affected the Welsh, as the English there do not term themselves 'Welsh' nor are they accepted as such by the natives.

[Wulfhere]

Well, that's a personal opinion, but it is not the reality. I can show you genetical evidence that spaniards are typically European. They are as european as a Norwegian or a Swede, genetically.
Actually , Spaniards are connceted with Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French, that is , where the Celtic settlements were the largest


You are now confusing ethnicity with race. yes, a Norwegian has a different ethnicity than a Spaniard, but they are the same race. But The northern europeans are not more european than spaniards. Actually, the Basque people are the purest and oldest europeans of all.
And I would not say spaniards are mediterranean. Mostly Altanto-Meditarranean and Paleo-Atlantid.

You can come up with as much scientific evidence as you like - just like the people who use such things to try and prove that all humans are a single race - but the fact is that a race recognises itself. Northern Europeans recognise that Mediterraneans are a different race. Are they Europeans? Yes, since they live in Europe. All this tells us is that Europe is home to both whites and swarthies.

[Ibericus]

You can come up with as much scientific evidence as you like - just like the people who use such things to try and prove that all humans are a single race - but the fact is that a race recognises itself. Northern Europeans recognise that Mediterraneans are a different race. Are they Europeans? Yes, since they live in Europe. All this tells us is that Europe is home to both whites and swarthies.
Northern Europeans are a different race ? Do you have any evidence ?
Again, Celts were not Northern Europeans, since they did not come from northern Europe.

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

[Wulfhere]

Northern Europeans are a different race ? Do you have any evidence ?
Again, Celts were not Northern Europeans, since they did not come from northern Europe.

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

Didn't you read what I said? Scientific evidence is irrelevant in the face of what people know and feel to be true. Southern Europeans are swarthy, with a different type of culture, than the white people of the north.

[Amapola]

:stop :no000000: :zzz
What do I care? Whatever I am, I can assure you, Wulffie, than I am better than you in any single possible aspect .

:jump0000:

[Ibericus]

Didn't you read what I said? Scientific evidence is irrelevant in the face of what people know and feel to be true. Southern Europeans are swarthy, with a different type of culture, than the white people of the north.
Scientific evidence irrelevant ? Idiot, race is based on science, not on "preferences".
And you said another lie. most europeans consider spaniards to be white.
And the european cultures are all related. In Western Europe and Iberia you can find the celtic and germanic origin cultures and relationship.
Do not talk about something that you do not have any idea about.

[Grey]

Celts were not northern europeans, as they didn't come from northern europe.
But yes, Celts were white, as are Spaniards of French, but this does not prove anything.

By that logic, no Indo-Europeans are European.


Anyway, as for what celts (or gauls at the very least) looked like:

"Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond."
-Diodorus Siculus


It's also important to remember that Celtic and Germanic, are mainly cultural divisions that don't really indicate physical appearance.

[Ibericus]

By that logic, no Indo-Europeans are European.
What logic ? Indo-euroepans were european, because they came from the Pontic Steppes in Eastern Europe.
And Celts were central europeans, since what is known as celts, originated in central Europe , not in northern europe.




Anyway, as for what celts (or gauls at the very least) looked like:
"Gauls are tall of body, with rippling muscles, and white of skin, and their hair is blond."
-Diodorus Siculus

Well, the percentage of blondism in France is not that high.

[Grey]

What logic ? Indo-euroepans were european, because they came from the Pontic Steppes in Eastern Europe.

Sorry, I meant to say that if Celts aren't Northestern then neither are the Germanics.




Well, the percentage of blondism in France is not that high.

The modern French are not a perfect, or even a close, approximation of what the Gauls would have looked like. You seem to forget the Roman and other admixture. Spain is no different.

[Stefan]

None of these ethno-lingual groups have much relation with racial lineage in my opinion. Not all of our ancestors were Indo-Europeans(though it is arguable), and because of that you can't connect any group with a racial type. You could of course mention where these ethno-lingual groups had the most influence, but you surely can't say that they are native to that region. I personally don't think anybody can look "Germanic", "Celtic", "Romance", or "Slavic" as in the people who have spread these langauges and are truly ethnically fitting, though somebody could be compared to modern peoples who are part of those ethno-lingual groupings.

[Treffie]

Actually lots of Welsh people would pass as spaniards in Spain. But like I said, they have so germanic mixed in them..There is no way to tell how the Celts were like.

There are some people in Wales who can pass as Spaniards, but this I doubt would have arisen from the Celtic population settling here. Instead, I see these types originating before the Celts arrived.

[Beorn]

...a lot of English immigrants from the Industrial Revolution onwards in South Wales, which makes up 75% of Wales` population.

One of which was my Great-Grandad Britton (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67635&postcount=1766). Although I expect he came back some weekends to live in a proper country. :swl


...most Welsh speakers have some English ancestry down the line somewhere - myself included.

Some more than others.

Tom Jones isn't Welsh! (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5267)

;)

[Peachy Carnahan]

Where is Celtic heritage in Australia?

In the pub probably.

[Liffrea]

Hating the English!!:p

……..oh wait now, that’s not an exclusive Celtic trait…:D

Truly, though, the word “Celt” has become somewhat fluid and I think it can mean different things. For a start we can probably distinguish between the Celts as a linguistic/archaeological people and the more nationalist slant put on the word since the 18th century largely as an opposition to English cultural encroachment. A Scot from Edinburgh might well proclaim to be a “Celt” even though what is now south-east Scotland was part of England before it became part of Scotland….remember the “big head?” and folks say the Scots were passive victims of English aggression, lol I’ve never encountered a Scot who is passive anything yet!

Personally I’m more comfortable speaking of an English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity than I am a Celtic or Germanic one, that might be due to my own background, I have relations from Ireland and Scotland as well as England, so I’m not solely “Saxon” myself (even though I consider myself 100% English) and perhaps also because the English are really neither, despite valid efforts to study the impact of Celtic words on the English language (there was, perhaps, more impact than traditionally thought) and to emphasise the reality that the “Celts” weren’t all wiped out nor did they all bugger off west and north, many staid put and became English, the English would never really be considered “Celtic”. As Alistair Moffat wrote for the English a Celtic past “happened in another country” yet where I live in Derbyshire Celtic names and even customs are still here…as Moffat goes onto write “Buxton and the Peak District are rarely included in any definition of Celtic Britain, but the survival of well dressing and other rituals argue strongly that they should be. Much of England retains some connection, however elusive, with the culture that existed over most of Britain before the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and the Normans came……There is a Celtic England which is not the England we know, a layer of experience not often seen as part of a traditional sense of Englishness.” There, perhaps, is the rub, the English have, paradoxically, took the Welshman Arthur as a symbol of themselves far more than they have Alfred, yet the Arthur of legend is a thoroughly Anglo-Norman character, can the English accept their Celticness? Would the Irish, Scots and Welsh accept them as such? Probably not in both cases.

As for “Germanic” well, personally I consider it stretching the word to the limit to include the English within it. Our roots, culturally at least, are Germanic, but that was then and this is now. England has stood at a cross roads between the north and the Mediterranean and has been influenced by both regions. I suppose that any real progress will only be made when the several nations that do inhabit the British Isles come to terms with that fact and perhaps on a more equal footing, if not then “Celtic” is likely to remain for a long time as much a political label as anything else.

[Osweo]

I’m not solely “Saxon” myself (even though I consider myself 100% English)
Exactly the right way of looking at it! :thumb001:

As Alistair Moffat wrote for the English a Celtic past “happened in another country”
That wretch is a charlatan, fool and writes socially irresponsible shite, you should bear in mind...

There is a Celtic England which is not the England we know, a layer of experience not often seen as part of a traditional sense of Englishness.”
God, I hate that man.
I grew up reading Nineteenth Century editions of folklore and legends, and they were always commenting on this 'layer'. Moffat makes shit up. I'd knock his block off if I met him. I can't believe I spent a fiver on his rubbishy 'Sea Kingdoms' book! :mad:

[Turkophagos]

Being a native Celtic speaker. Very few left today.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Being a native Celtic speaker. Very few left today.

Yeah, I won't be too surprised if Celtic languages went extinct by the time the next century rolls around.

[slaog]

The modern French are not a perfect, or even a close, approximation of what the Gauls would have looked like. You seem to forget the Roman and other admixture. Spain is no different.

Thats something people can't get their head around.

I saw pictured of Portugese and Northern Spanish who were red headed with light eyes and pale skin. Really beautiful and wouldn't look out of place in the 'Celtic' lands. It was no surprise to hear that those really Celtic looking people in Spain and Portugal came from rural areas and that allowed their DNA to remain pure and look like their ancestors.

Celtic people might have come from Spain during the last ice age but it doesn't mean my ancestors resembled modern Iberians.

When the Romans conquered land they raped the local women and spread their genes everywhere.

[Ibericus]

Celtic people might have come from Spain during the last ice age but it doesn't mean my ancestors resembled modern Iberians.
lol, during the ice age the celts didn't exist, since celts are indo-european ,


When the Romans conquered land they raped the local women and spread their genes everywhere.
Acutally the roman influence in Spain was not large. They were a minority.

[slaog]

lol, during the ice age the celts didn't exist, since celts are indo-european ,


'Celtic' is a loose term. ;)

[Guapo]

We are all Celts(heavy drinkers)

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpg

[Treffie]

We are all Celts(heavy drinkers)

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpg

Sorry, don't touch the stuff! :p

[Óttar]

We are all Celts [...]

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpg

Celtic is a linguistic and cultural term, and people who are descended from historically Celtic speaking people may identify as Celts. Celts were widespread throughout continental Europe, as the Wop's map shows.

I am unsure how to define Celtic. I recommend people see The Atlantean Quartet by Bob Quinn, whether or not you agree with it. He also wrote a book on it, dealing with migration, trade, and sea-routes. He claims that just because the Irish spoke Gaelic that doesn't mean they were Celts. He claims there could have been another wave of invaders who adopted Gaelic. I abstain from judgment on that particular claim. I simply don't know, and genetics are not my forte. I think in any event, that the Celts were largely absorbed in one way or another.


This internal diversity was already present in pre-Roman times. Tacitus and Caesar remarked upon it.

Where does Caesar say the Celts were dark? I'm only aware of him describing Celts as ruddy, fair complected, fair haired and very tall.

[Don]

Celtic people might have come from Spain during the last ice age but it doesn't mean my ancestors resembled modern Iberians.


The "iberians" you have in mind, as I deduce, for sure not.
Neither I.

The true modern Iberians are, for sure much more unaltered from those ancient years than legends and typical lies tell.

http://www.pentatlonmoderno.org/fotos%20pentatlon/reconocimientos%20deporte%20asturiano%2007.jpg
http://hopkinspain.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/image104.jpg
http://www.mogrogolf.com/malaga/junquera.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/__o3lz3BRQbI/SJnYtv39ZDI/AAAAAAAAA8M/YaV0-T0ngzU/No+hay+fiesta+sin+gaita.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4V23JupJaeI/SvaaWAquJJI/AAAAAAAAAMY/Z6sfgL6zezA/s400/Imagen117.jpg

If you don't resemble these, then you are not as atlantic/celtic as you thought because.

Don't confuss the germanic hordes' traits with the ones of the ancient westerners.

[Treffie]

Celtic is a linguistic and cultural term, and people who are descended from historically Celtic speaking people may identify as Celts. Celts were widespread throughout continental Europe, as the Wop's map shows.

I am unsure how to define Celtic. I recommend people see The Atlantean Quartet by Bob Quinn, whether or not you agree with it. He also wrote a book on it, dealing with migration, trade, and sea-routes. He claims that just because the Irish spoke Gaelic that doesn't mean they were Celts. He claims there could have been another wave of invaders who adopted Gaelic. I abstain from judgment on that particular claim. I simply don't know, and genetics are not my forte. I think in any event, that the Celts were largely absorbed in one way or another.



Where does Caesar say the Celts were dark? I'm only aware of him describing Celts as ruddy, fair complected, fair haired and very tall.

As far as I'm concerned, Tacitus described the Silures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silures) of South Wales as having a dark complexion and currly hair.

Let's not forget, the Celts weren't the original inhabitants of the Isles, so languages came and went.

[Aviane]

Thats something people can't get their head around.

Celtic people might have come from Spain during the last ice age but it doesn't mean my ancestors resembled modern Iberians.

When the Romans conquered land they raped the local women and spread their genes everywhere.

Well thats it because Celts were probably different as even Germanic groups are sometimes different from each other, so more likely modern peoples will have different mixes to them.

[Aviane]

'Celtic' is a loose term. ;)

Well also in a another case it is.

[slaog]

If you don't resemble these, then you are not as atlantic/celtic as you thought because.

Don't confuss the germanic hordes' traits with the ones of the ancient westerners.

I think Irish people are mostly like the ancient westeners. Groups of Spanish kids come to Ireland during the summer and they don't look like the local population. They even wear coats during the summer!

I think there are Iberians who look like Irish/ancient westeners and no doubt theres a genetic link there.

[Bridie]

They even wear coats during the summer!
Any sane person would (during an Irish "summer"). :D How you fellows get about in short-sleeved shirts when it's only 18 degrees c. out is beyond me. :eek: :p

[Don]

I think Irish people are mostly like the ancient westeners. Groups of Spanish kids come to Ireland during the summer and they don't look like the local population. They even wear coats during the summer!
Spain is quite big and variated land, with different weathers.
Some spanish regions, in particular mediterranean zones, have a soft winter and the population "suffers" the cold as, for example, a kid from Soria does not suffers, used to cruel winters.



I think there are Iberians who look like Irish/ancient westeners and no doubt theres a genetic link there.

Apart of that, the historical good relations between 2 cultures are a fact, with irish volunteers among the Conquistadores or Tercios. Recurrently we see Irish Troops in Spanish Empire, sharing fate and weapons with Spaniards.
Still today a lot of spaniards love the irish culture. Some things never change when the roots are the same.

I am sure a lot more of Iberians look more as ancient westerners than Irishmen, due to the massive immigrations in Britain, of nordic and germanic tribes, that "altered" the western stock in an important way, something that, despite the legends, did not happen in the Iberian Stock, incredibly unaltered in many cases for thousands of years.
http://www.filmotecavasca.com/files/Image/img/gal/gal_ez00291.jpg (a film that I saw just today about navarre countrymen from an isolated region, as many, of Ancient Spain)

[Bridie]

I am sure a lot more of Iberians look more as ancient westerners than Irishmen, due to the massive immigrations in Britain, of nordic and germanic tribes, that "altered" the western stock in an important way, something that, despite the legends, did not happen in the Iberian Stock, incredibly unaltered in many cases for thousands of years.
http://www.filmotecavasca.com/files/Image/img/gal/gal_ez00291.jpg (a film that I saw just today about navarre countrymen from an isolated region, as many, of Ancient Spain)Don't try to deny your Gothic heritage Cristiano! :icon_wink:


Anyway, back to the original question....


Is there anything else to Celticness, beside language? Well yes, I think we shouldn't forget potatoes. I can't believe that no one has even mentioned them yet. Cabbage rates pretty high too, of course. If you don't love them, then you're not Celtic. End of story.

[Ibericus]

Celtiberians and Irish shared some celtic gods. The celtiberian god Nemedus was Nemed in irish. The celtiberian Crouga was the irish Crom Cruach, the celtiberian Neton was the irish Neit, etc.

[Don]

Celtiberians and Irish shared some celtic gods. The celtiberian god Nemedus was Nemed in irish. The celtiberian Crouga was the irish Crom Cruach, the celtiberian Neton was the irish Neit, etc.

The list of common folklore is infinite.

Of course when I am talking about Spanish folklore, I am not referring to that one of Gypsies with muslim influence doing Flamenco. Those are multicultural folklore, not truly spaniard, only Spaniard in the Castilian lyrics and the Instruments they use.

NOTE: I like flamenco, although.

[Amapola]

For me it's pretty easy, a celt is what the ancient Greeks and Romans -like Herodoto-referred to as a celt. Avieno, Herodoto and Hecateo of Mileto located Keltoi/keltiké North of the Alps.

[Amapola]

The list of common folklore is infinite.

Of course when I am talking about Spanish folklore, I am not referring to that one of Gypsies with muslim influence doing Flamenco. Those are multicultural folklore, not truly spaniard, only Spaniard in the Castilian lyrics and the Instruments they use.

NOTE: I like flamenco, although.

It's totally offtopic but I will write as soon as I have time about flamenco; although I don't like it (except a few branches) it's a very interesting topic. Flamenco is not a gypsy thing, but it is "gypsyzed", in other words, they based on Southern folklore and went on from there.

[Aviane]

Any sane person would (during an Irish "summer"). :D How you fellows get about in short-sleeved shirts when it's only 18 degrees c. out is beyond me. :eek: :p

In the Irish summer when I visit sometimes the locals love to strip off or not ware much clothes this also happens mostly throughout the Britian when this season comes. :D

[Aviane]

^^^ Oh one thing I forgot to add was some tourists like those (Iberians) who visted Ireland also wear something like coats during that weather.

[Curtis24]

First, about Stephen Oppenheimer: Stephen Oppenheimer's work has been scientifically discredited. Oppenheimer came up with his thesis 10 years ago, when the use of genetic technology to determine lineage was brand new, and he(as well as most other scientists) did not really understand how to correctly interpret the data they received. The scientific community has since admitted the early conclusions were incorrect.

Furthermore, Oppenheimer was essentially an amateur, a pediatrician who "taught himself" about archaeogenetics(incorrectly, as explained above), and who did not know very much about the historical, linguistic, and archaeological study of the British Isles. He ignored the work of hundreds of professionals, which resulted in inaccuracies. For instance, he claims that the people inhabiting southern Britain- England, in other words - never spoke a Celtic language. Yet this ignores the numerous examples of Celtic place names throughout England, such as the river "Avon".

Oppenheimer was right that the first humans to inhabit Britain - we'll call them "indigenous Britons" for the sake of clarity - came from northern Spain, and were racially related to modern-day Spaniards. Yet these peoples only make up a small minority of modern-day Brits and Gaelics(concentrated in Wales and Cornwall; they are only small minorities in both areas); if they were the majority, then according to the reality of physical characteristics being inherited from one's ancestors, most British/Irish/Scottish would look like Spaniards. Which they don't.

Much of the genetic ancestry of the British and Celtic nations is still being worked out, but most likely, this is what happened: Mediterraneans from Spain colonized the British Isles during the Neolithic Era, as already mentioned. They were probably dark-to-tan skinned, like many modern Spanish.

In 1000 B.C., there was a massive expansion of racial Nordics/North Europeans we call "the Celts". They invaded the British Isles in a gradual conquest that lasted from about 700 B.C. to 500 B.C. In England and especially southern England, the Celts interbred with the "indigenous Britons", with the indigenous peoples being absorbed into the greater numbers of the Celts and dark skin largely disappearing as a trait in the British Isles(with rare exceptions in Wales and Cornwall, as explained already). In Scotland and Ireland, however, the "indigenous Britons" were experiencing some sort of cultural decline that had massively depopulated themselves in those areas. Thus, Scotland and Ireland were largely empty of dark-skinned Britains when the Celts conquered those areas, leaving the Celts as the only people in the Gaelic areas. This is why England and especially Southern England has a much larger percentage of brunettes and brown-eyed people than Scotland and Ireland do, whereas Ireland and Scotland have very high percentages of blue-eyed and light-haired people.

In the early decades of the 1st century AD, the Romans gradually conquered England. There's not much evidence that they left a significant racial mark in England. For most of the British occupation, the Romans had strict laws forbidding their soldiers and administrators from marrying or having children with natives - they were afraid such commitments would cause said soldiers/administrators to become rooted in the native culture and "go native". Furthermore, after a certain time the Romans started using Germans and Gauls as soldiers, who were racially very similar to the Celts.

After the Roman Empire collapsed, the Anglo-Saxons invaded. There's been much debate as to what extent the Anglo-Saxons wiped out the native population vs. simply ruled them as an elite. The answer is hard to say, however there was not a total wipeout as evidenced by high rates of dark hair and brown eyes in Southern England. The Anglo-Saxons at this point were very much "Nordic" or North European, since they had not intermixed with Southern or Slavic Europeans. Probably, the Anglo-Saxons did commit massacres in certain regions of England, such as Anglia, but did not massacre the entire pre-invasion population.

[Bridie]

Let's be honest now, it doesn't mean a bloody thing anymore. The "Celts" as a broad tribal, cultural and linguistic group were wiped out long ago.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Curtis24

Oppenheimer was right that the first humans to inhabit Britain - we'll call them "indigenous Britons" for the sake of clarity - came from northern Spain, and were racially related to modern-day Spaniards. Yet these peoples only make up a small minority of modern-day Brits and Gaelics(concentrated in Wales and Cornwall; they are only small minorities in both areas); if they were the majority, then according to the reality of physical characteristics being inherited from one's ancestors, most British/Irish/Scottish would look like Spaniards. Which they don't.

Well, if we depart from a wrong premise, that is a wrong "idea" of Spaniard Phenotype, your conclusion will be false.

I am a perfect knower of the Phenotypes of True Spaniards (not those that are in the collective imaginarium made in Leyenda Negra and Hollywood), and the only difference between British populations and Spaniards are the variety in phenotype that exists in Britain is higher than the one in Spain, quite more Pure and unaltered westerners with a lower presence of nordic color features and higher of influence mediterranean, but the basic facial structures of most of British is clearly Atlantic, even the blondest ones, and this responds to these Ancient Dwellers, shared with the Iberians (more unaltered, as I said), mostly Atlantic.

I will not mention the romans testimonies, cultural traits, or other genetic and proven materials that links both western societies since any knower of both countries needs no further proves to the evident link, very in particular in some regions, of course.


And once your premise is proven to be false (anyone that have visited whole Spain or at least made the Camino de Santiago, for example, and known the Real Core of Spain, will confirm it), a big part of People from Britain can pass unnoticed in Spain's hearth of the more ancient lands or lost towns of Asturias, Extremadura, Toledo or elsewhere.





In 1000 B.C., there was a massive expansion of racial Nordics/North Europeans we call "the Celts".


L
O
L
!!!

[Ibericus]

In 1000 B.C., there was a massive expansion of racial Nordics/North Europeans we call "the Celts".
Meeeeeeeeeec, the Celts were not Nordics/North Europeans, they were Central Europeans, from Halstatt/La Tène

[Curtis24]

a big part of People from Britain

That's right, but only a part of the people, and it depends on what region you're talking about, both in Britain and Spain. As mentioned, South English have higher rates of brown eyes than the rest of the island due to the indigenous Britains having a higher intermixture there. Furthermore, Northwest Spain was settled heavily by the Celts, so they too probably left a strong(if not prevalent) racial mark, which would also cause similarities between Northern Spain and South England.

However, this thread is primarily about the Celtish regions of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and to what extent these areas share ancestry with Spain. Oppenheimer claims these areas have the greatest amount of ancestry from ancient Spanish immigrants; yet Scotland and Ireland at least have singificantly higher amounts of blue-eyed inhabitants than Spain does. See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Augenfarbe.svg

Since blue eyes is a completely heritable trait, and in fact is recessive and thus hard to preserve unless it exists in large amounts to begin with, the high rate of blues in Scotland and Ireland compared to Spain shows that some blue-eyed group of non-Mediterranean people must have invaded those regions and largely displaced or massacred the indigens. The Anglo-Saxons and Romans never occupied either region, so the only candidates are the Celts(or, the "people associated with the Hallstatt Iron Age expansion" if you prefer), or the Vikings.




Meeeeeeeeeec, the Celts were not Nordics/North Europeans, they were Central Europeans, from Halstatt/La Tène

I am using North European in the anthropological sense of the word, i.e. those with a certain skull shape. I'm aware that La Tene is in central Europe; however, from 1000 B.C. until at least the Gallic Wars it was probably inhabited by the North European racial type, since invaders associated with the Hallstatt/La Tene iron age expansion are the most likely explanation for the high rate of blue eyes in Ireland and Scotland.

[Beorn]

South English have higher rates of brown eyes than the rest of the island due to the indigenous Britains having a higher intermixture there.

You've never been to England have you? :)

[Curtis24]

Click the link I posted...

[Beorn]

Click the link I posted...

Does it show you in England waving at the camera as a Brown eyed horde march past you?

[Curtis24]

Obviously no :)

But in seriousness, if you think that the scientific survey I've posted is inaccurate, there's no point in arguing it out. I stand by the survey, you stand by your personal experiences, and that's it.

[Beorn]

But in seriousness, if you think that the scientific survey I've posted is inaccurate, there's no point in arguing it out. I stand by the survey, you stand by your personal experiences, and that's it.

I think the survey inaccurate because it is inaccurate. If you spent one moment in south-England you'd know it is inaccurate as well.

Remember I have spent my lifetime living in the South of England. :thumb001:

[Curtis24]

I'd rather trust the scientific survey ;)

[Beorn]

I'd rather trust the scientific survey ;)

Then no offence, but you'd be a fucking idiot for doing so. :)

[Don]

Northwest Spain was settled heavily by the Celts, so they too probably left a strong(if not prevalent) racial mark.

You've never been to Spain have you? :)

What a pity, another anthropologist speaking about a land that he didn't explored but hollywood films.





However, this thread is primarily about the Celtish regions of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and to what extent these areas share ancestry with Spain.

Really?
You've never been to Spain have you? :)
See this map or read many things don't fix that PROBLEM when talking about something you really don't know a f---.
http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/iberos/hispania1.jpg



I am using North European in the anthropological sense of the word, i.e. those with a certain skull shape.

Look, my grandmother's blond hair and Blue Eyes ARE NOT EXPLAINED by a "north european genes." She came from an ancient lineage of dwellers of Castile, of the Plateau.

We are tired of many nordicists that make up and disturb our sacred lineages at their wish... I guess you have noticed that already.

My grandmother's blue eyes, the massively freckled face of my mother, my sister's green eyes or wathever in my family don't fits in your Hollywood's gypsy-moor Spaniard is NOT explained because a Nordic influence.



Nordicism not only robbed many members of my family... but also my complete origins! They fucking say my Celtic roots were some kind of vikings or they weren't celts.

What do you expect from us but a violent reaction, since we are worshipers of our lineages, ancestors and history... and some IDIOTS recurrently say who they were or how they were just to benefit their ignorant and mythological recent cults?!


Look, man, if you like celtism, do the Camino de Santiago, a traditional European Pilgrimage that will make you not only discover your roots, but the wonderful world of the celts, that means their appearance -almost unaltered in many regions of Spain, if you dare to enter their villages- their culture and their environment.

Then you will understand and share most of the Based Opinions of those old
arrogant Europeans and their defensive reactions when bullshit myths are spoken about the reality of their country and their families.

[Ibericus]

Northwest Spain was settled heavily by the Celts, so they too probably left a strong(if not prevalent) racial mark, which would also cause similarities between Northern Spain and South England.
Actually not . The center of Spain, in Castille, had more celtic settlement.


However, this thread is primarily about the Celtish regions of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and to what extent these areas share ancestry with Spain. Oppenheimer claims these areas have the greatest amount of ancestry from ancient Spanish immigrants; yet Scotland and Ireland at least have singificantly higher amounts of blue-eyed inhabitants than Spain does. See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Augenfarbe.svg
Because of the germanic invasions.




I am using North European in the anthropological sense of the word, i.e. those with a certain skull shape.
What skull shape are you talking about ? There has not been found a Nordid skull shape in Celts.


I'm aware that La Tene is in central Europe; however, from 1000 B.C. until at least the Gallic Wars it was probably inhabited by the North European racial type,
If that were the case, then most of France, Ireland,SPain would be of North European racial type...


since invaders associated with the Hallstatt/La Tene iron age expansion are the most likely explanation for the high rate of blue eyes in Ireland and Scotland.
And what makes you think that having blue eyes makes you Nordid ?

[Wulfhere]

Whilst it is perfectly understandable that Spaniards should wish to be Celts - it simply isn't true. After all, the Celts also settled in what is now Turkey, but that doesn't make Turks Celts.

[Ibericus]

Whilst it is perfectly understandable that Spaniards should wish to be Celts - it simply isn't true. After all, the Celts also settled in what is now Turkey, but that doesn't make Turks Celts.
Ignorant idiot. The difference is that Iberia had the higest celtic settlement saturation of all Europe :

"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions."

Alberto J. Lorrio, Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (2005). "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 167–254. http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html.

[Wulfhere]

Ignorant idiot. The difference is that Iberia had the higest celtic settlement saturation of all Europe :

"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions."

Alberto J. Lorrio, Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero (2005). "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 167–254. http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/6_4/lorrio_zapatero_6_4.html.

Lol. Whatever might have been the case thousands of years ago, modern Spaniards are not Celts. They don't look like Celts, they don't speak like Celts, and they don't act like Celts. In short, they are not Celts.

[Ibericus]

Lol. Whatever might have been the case thousands of years ago, modern Spaniards are not Celts. They don't look like Celts, they don't speak like Celts, and they don't act like Celts. In short, they are not Celts.
I never said we are Celts. But Spain or France despite not speaking celtic languages anymore, have as much celtic ancestry than Ireland or Wales. Also our culture has lots of celtic influence, specially in Castille, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, etc. As for the "celtic look" you are very wrong. The irish or scottish have a lot of germanic influence, they are not a reference for a supposed celtic look.

[Don]

Lol. Whatever might have been the case thousands of years ago, modern Spaniards are not Celts. They don't look like Celts, they don't speak like Celts, and they don't act like Celts. In short, they are not Celts.

You don't know a fuck about who were and how the celts look like, the western or atlantic dwellers of Europe.

Neither about spaniards, you ignorant big mouth.

[Wulfhere]

I never said we are Celts. But Spain or France despite not speaking celtic languages anymore, have as much celtic ancestry than Ireland or Wales. Also our culture has lots of celtic influence, specially in Castille, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, etc. As for the "celtic look" you are very wrong. The irish or scottish have a lot of germanic influence, they are not a reference for a supposed celtic look.

Spain used to be inhabited by Celts, but they have since been mixed with Moors. The Celtic peoples of the British Isles are the only reference for how Celts look, because they are the only peoples who are Celts (i.e. have a Celtic language).

[Wulfhere]

You don't know a fuck about who were and how the celts look like, the western or atlantic dwellers of Europe.

Neither about spaniards, you ignorant big mouth.

Spaniards aren't even white in the fullest sense, so certainly aren't Celts.

[Ibericus]

Spain used to be inhabited by Celts, but they have since been mixed with Moors. The Celtic peoples of the British Isles are the only reference for how Celts look, because they are the only peoples who are Celts (i.e. have a Celtic language).
LOL. The celts mixed with the Iberians , not the moors. You don't even know who are the iberians, you are a fucking ignorant.

[Wulfhere]

LOL. The celts mixed with the Iberians , not the moors. You don't even know who are the iberians, you are a fucking ignorant.

Yes, I do know who the Iberians were. And I also know that Spain was later colonised by the Moors (among others). From that mixture descend modern Spaniards.

[Ibericus]

Yes, I do know who the Iberians were. And I also know that Spain was later colonised by the Moors (among others). From that mixture descend modern Spaniards.
How many time do we have to repeat the same ? The moors were a minority, less than 5% of the population, and were later all expelled. And then we had the "clean of blood" laws . And now with genetic studies we know their influence was minimal.

[Treffie]

Scholars are now looking into the fact that the first Celtic language originated in Tartessos in SW Iberia (Tartessian). This is a relatively new hypothesis, but is definitely gathering credibility amongst academics.:thumb001:

[Monolith]

"Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions."
I was under the impression that Celtic languages replaced the indigenous non-IE languages of ancient Iberia via cultural diffusion, as was the case with many pre-IE populations of western Europe.

[Wulfhere]

How many time do we have to repeat the same ? The moors were a minority, less than 5% of the population, and were later all expelled. And then we had the "clean of blood" laws . And now with genetic studies we know their influence was minimal.

I don't call 5% minimal. I don't blame Spaniards for hating the fact, and trying to deny it at every opportunity, but it's still true.

[Beorn]

Spaniards aren't even white in the fullest sense, so certainly aren't Celts.

With the heavy colonisation of Asians within Mercia, I'd even go one step further and suggest that Mercians aren't white in the fullest sense either.

[Wulfhere]

With the heavy colonisation of Asians within Mercia, I'd even go one step further and suggest that Mercians aren't white in the fullest sense either.

Are you referring to native Mercians?

[Ibericus]

I don't call 5% minimal. I don't blame Spaniards for hating the fact, and trying to deny it at every opportunity, but it's still true.
Idiot, 5% was their total population, not their influence. They did not mix.

[Oinakos Growion]

On the original question: "What does it mean to be Celt?"
I'll try to summarise because any of these aspects could be expanded ad infinitum.

It means that there's been areas of Europe where the Celtic heritage has been preserved in a significant way. Celts occupied vast territories and went through different periods, therefore identifying that heritage requires a comparison of different elements where race, in this case, may be important but not exclusive (given the long periods of time we're talking about and the internal European dynamics).
When looking at this, one has to examine which territories did the Celts occupy (as said, half of Europe), which territories claim to be Celtic today and then look for possible affinities between those territories, namely the characteristics not shared by other neighbouring territories. In short, it is a question of identifying the "Celtic cultural landscape".
So, apart from self explanatory archaeological remains, we have to look at:

- Physical geography and climate, a key factor in the formation of a cultural landscape: Common for the Atlantic regions claiming Celtic ethnicity nowadays. This is the background where the common reference for a Celtic sentiment is build upon, throughout the centuries.

- Cultural geography, that is, the spatial shaping of culture: settlement pattern, land use, spatial perception. This is most important because for cultural geographers a culture is associated with a specific way of using and inhabiting the land. In the case of Celtic areas this is very evident and defined by scattered decentralised clusters of population, often reflecting tribal organisation, which goes in sharp contrast with, for example, the "open field culture" of some Germanic peoples. This is still patent today, as also is the way space is perceived and referred to in Celtic territories.

- Folklore: traditions, dance and music. Observance of similar rites (now often Christianised), calendar festivities and similar ways or celebrating them (often Christianised as well, but still present). Again, common references to similar tales, superstitions, persistent icons, shared oral tradition and so on abound. A simple example would be the relationship with "the beyond" and the cult to the dead.

- Behaviour: psychology: A more subjective matter, but still many find similarities in the ways reality is processed and dealt with. This would lead to a long discussion on its own.

- Language and literature: Celtic languages are moribund but curiously enough this is the only and key element for some to determine what is Celtic and what is not. Thing is that this is often done in an attempt to revitalise the actual language, endorsing it with some "prestige" in a situation of diglossia. Fair enough. But then it shouldn't be used as the only criteria. Well, I certainly don't do that. Still, it is an important factor and even territories where a Celtic language is not currently spoken the old language has left undeniable marks (altering the current language, pronunciation, placenames, personal names, surnames, and even patterns of thinking).

- Racial make-up: If we trust the Roman and Greek chronicles can be confusing, because sometimes the Celts are tall, blonde and slender and some other times they are shorter and with dark hair. This indicates that quite probably there were internal differences. As a general rule, and following recent (last 3 or 4 years) genetic studies it is not a wild leap of the imagination to relate what's left of the Celtic race with regions in the area of Atlantic Europe (cul-de-sac areas, close-end population, where "purer" Celts gradually retreated to). You can use the Rb1 marker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.svg) as a very general intuitive reference.

For all of the above, and when I look around me, see myself in the mirror, my family, my country, my culture, when I contrast this with any other Celtic land, I say not only that "Celts" are very much alive, but also select "Celtic" as my meta-ethnicity without even blinking (and despite the later Romance and Germanic influences my country received).

On the side debate about Iberia and Celtic presence in Iberia:
Read all of the above.

Saying that Iberia had no Celtic influence and/or that this has not passed on to what we are today is simply asinine. Not to mention that it contradicts all scientific logic and classifications. Otherwise Celtic Iberia (the part of the Peninsula that was/is Celtic) wouldn't be part of modern Celtic Studies curricula.
Not only that, as research progresses through the years, the old theory considering NW Iberia as one of focal points of Celtic culture diffusion is being ratified (example (http://www.portugaliza.net/historiadagaliza/en/index.htm)).
Lets also remember that the last Celtic major migration to the Iberian Peninsula took place in a relatively "late" phase: 5thC AD. That's well over 1000 years of pure Celtic-ness affluence. In fact, the very name "Iberian" Peninsula is misleading. It persisted as it marked a differentiating exotic factor, the Iberians, because "Celtic Peninsula" would have been simply too generic. Funny how geographical naming works sometimes.
Anyway. Sources ABOUND. Unfortunately for some only a few of them are in English (partial example (http://www4.uwm.edu/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol6/index.html)).

On the side matter of saying that people from Iberia are European just because "they're in Europe" and similar comments insinuating we're barely culturally/racially European if European at all... is plain stupid.

It should be respected that people south of the Pyrenees kept a Muslim invading force at bay for centuries, protecting the rest of Europe. Make no mistake: next stop for them was the core of Europe. If you are only now enduring Muslims and Africans because they're flying over to your countries is due to the fact that we set the line all those centuries ago. Same can be said about the Greeks and neighbours (who often receive a similarly insulting treatment in other forums too), who blocked the way on their part of Europe to the Ottomans, and at a very high price.
Lest we forget that it was after expelling the Muslims out of Europe when the Iberian Kingdoms embarked in an epic voyage to discover a whole new world in a systematic way, taking with them Europe and the European values (given the circumstances of their time). Everything else came after us.
If Europe is what it is today, with all of its good things and its Peoples, is in a big part thanks to us. Our lineages have always been here. Uninterrupted.

[Don]

Epic contribution.

[Curtis24]

You've never been to Spain have you? :)

What a pity, another anthropologist speaking about a land that he didn't explored but hollywood films.






Really?
You've never been to Spain have you? :)
See this map or read many things don't fix that PROBLEM when talking about something you really don't know a f---.
http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/iberos/hispania1.jpg




Look, my grandmother's blond hair and Blue Eyes ARE NOT EXPLAINED by a "north european genes." She came from an ancient lineage of dwellers of Castile, of the Plateau.

We are tired of many nordicists that make up and disturb our sacred lineages at their wish... I guess you have noticed that already.

My grandmother's blue eyes, the massively freckled face of my mother, my sister's green eyes or wathever in my family don't fits in your Hollywood's gypsy-moor Spaniard is NOT explained because a Nordic influence.



Nordicism not only robbed many members of my family... but also my complete origins! They fucking say my Celtic roots were some kind of vikings or they weren't celts.

What do you expect from us but a violent reaction, since we are worshipers of our lineages, ancestors and history... and some IDIOTS recurrently say who they were or how they were just to benefit their ignorant and mythological recent cults?!


Look, man, if you like celtism, do the Camino de Santiago, a traditional European Pilgrimage that will make you not only discover your roots, but the wonderful world of the celts, that means their appearance -almost unaltered in many regions of Spain, if you dare to enter their villages- their culture and their environment.

Then you will understand and share most of the Based Opinions of those old
arrogant Europeans and their defensive reactions when bullshit myths are spoken about the reality of their country and their families.

First, I overspoke when I said that the Hallstatt/La Tene Celts are not related to Northern Spaniards. I don't discount that the Celts heavily settled Spain. I was also wrong when I claimed that the areas of Scotland and Ireland point to the La Tene Celts existing in their purest form. I also apologize for attacking your sense of ancestry.

However, the differing rates of blue and brown eyes in North Spain vs. Ireland and Scotland points to the strong possibility that at some point one or both of the two different Celtic populations experienced a great deal of intermixing with some other group.

One theory would be that the Gaels(Irish and Scottish) themselves intermixed with some other population, which accounts for the high rates of blue eyes. Supposedly there was a prehistorical Scandinavian migration to Northern England, so those people may have intermixed with the Scottish and Irish Celts.

The other theory would be of course that the Celtiberians mixed with another group either prior to or after invading Spain.

However, the main point is that most of the people living in Ireland or Scotland are racially different from most of the people who live in Northern Spain.

[Curtis24]

Then no offence, but you'd be a fucking idiot for doing so. :)

Likewise :)

[Curtis24]

Look, my grandmother's blond hair and Blue Eyes ARE NOT EXPLAINED by a "north european genes." She came from an ancient lineage of dwellers of Castile, of the Plateau.



I agree. Blue eyes can show up in many different types of lineages. However, if one group of people have mostly blue eyes, and a different group mostly brown, there's a very strong likelihood that they have different ancestries. Blue eyes are a minority in Spain, including most of the Celtic areas; they may have high concentrations in certain towns or regions, but as a whole they are a minority. Blue eyes are a majority in Scotland and Ireland, however. This shows a trend towards different ancestries. Now obviously this is highly based on regionalism and I'm sure you can find certain regions in Spain with high rates of blue eyes, and eye color alone doesn't denote ancestry. But on a large-scale it is very useful for showing groups of ancestry.

[Stefan]

I think it is safe to say that modern Western European individuals have lineage from those who lived in their homeland from before the Celtic expansion, as well as other contributing groups afterwards. So it would be quite odd to think that the groups that spoke or still speak Celtic languages are homogenous, just the same as thinking "Germanics" are homogeneous, or Slavic-speakers or Romance-speakers. If we're to think of which modern people are the closest to the group(s) that expanded the language family, then we must look at where it originated or where its ancestor populations(i.e Indo-European speakers ) originated.

[Wulfhere]

On the original question: "What does it mean to be Celt?"
I'll try to summarise because any of these aspects could be expanded ad infinitum.

It means [blah blah blah].

Take an Arab, remove his stinking rags, give him a haircut, shave and a really good bath, stick him in jeans and a t-shirt and stand him next to a Spaniard. I defy anyone to tell which is which.

[Ibericus]

Take an Arab, remove his stinking rags, give him a haircut, shave and a really good bath, stick him in jeans and a t-shirt and stand him next to a Spaniard. I defy anyone to tell which is which.
Sure...That's why Arab immigrants in Spain are distinguishable from 20 Miles

[Don]

Take an Arab, remove his stinking rags, give him a haircut, shave and a really good bath, stick him in jeans and a t-shirt and stand him next to a Spaniard. I defy anyone to tell which is which.

Its sad that promising new members, studied and with culture, that have visited and know about Our Countries and cultures and respect them all, that begin in the first day of membership providing valuable and rich information, are exposed to these firsts negative impressions from such a pathetic member that are hardly understandable in a forum like this.

Oinakos Growion, if you are reading this, please, ignore this baseness proper of low class villains.

Most of the members REALLY know, respect and defend our European cultures.

As we say in our country, No le pidas peras al olmo, and this poor idiot can not offer us nothing more than projections of his baseness, ignorance and inferiority.

I am sure that your previous contribution was respected and valued by most of the members here, as well as your future interventions.

[Wulfhere]

It just irritates me when people claim to be things they aren't, like a Spaniard claiming to be a Celt. I would never make such a claim, even though as a Mercian I probably have more Celtic blood in me than any Spaniard.

[Oinakos Growion]

It just irritates me when people claim to be things they aren't, like a Spaniard claiming to be a Celt. I would never make such a claim, even though as a Mercian I probably have more Celtic blood in me than any Spaniard
If you are referring to me I never said I was a Spaniard. I am geographically from what it is known as the "Iberian Peninsula", although I've spent long periods of my life in insular Celtic nations (right now I'm temporarily in one of them). Still, if you read a bit, you'd know how Celts heavily influenced large parts of what today is known as Spain (Iberia in general). Hence the relevance of a key concept: heritage. I think it should be perfectly understood in a forum like this.
In any case, if you cannot grasp any of that, it indicates that you do not have a clue about the complexity of the place. That plus the fact that you simply dismiss facts, data and reasoning explains why you seem to live in a world of cliches.


Take an Arab, remove his stinking rags, give him a haircut, shave and a really good bath, stick him in jeans and a t-shirt and stand him next to a Spaniard. I defy anyone to tell which is which
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4153/bk0000006600.jpg


Oinakos Growion, if you are reading this, please, ignore this baseness proper of low class villains
Sure. I might be new to this forum but not to the internet. I am well aware that there always is a resident troll in any forum, kept mainly for the amusement and entertainment of the others. This one you have here sounds particularly bitter though, "personal" I'd say. I wonder why...


My previous post remains. I'd gladly deepen in any of the aspects mentioned in a constructive way with anyone who wishes so.

[Wulfhere]

If you are referring to me I never said I was a Spaniard. I am geographically from what it is known as the "Iberian Peninsula", although I've spent long periods of my life in insular Celtic nations (right now I'm temporarily in one of them). Still, if you read a bit, you'd know how Celts heavily influenced large parts of what today is known as Spain (Iberia in general). Hence the relevance of a key concept: heritage. I think it should be perfectly understood in a forum like this.
In any case, if you cannot grasp any of that, it indicates that you do not have a clue about the complexity of the place. That plus the fact that you simply dismiss facts, data and reasoning explains why you seem to live in a world of cliches.

Are you Portuguese then? In any case, I'm not denying that some of the mongrel ancestry of the inhabitants of Iberia is Celtic, just as some is pre-Celtic, some Roman, some Visigoth and some Moorish. Having some Celtic ancestry does not make you a Celt, however. If it did, then the English would be Celts, which is obviously ridiculous since the whole modern Celtic identity was invented in opposition to the English. And unlike in Spain, Celtic languages actually survived in England (Cornish, for example - but also pockets of Welsh and Cumbric).

[Amapola]

Oinakos, you are a Spaniard, you like it or not, sorry about that.
Wulfie, you are right, we are not celts (not nobody else) because tribes and culture, celts are long dead. However if you think that genetics similarity of Europeans to the Middle East and Nort Africa is a product of a Moorish invasion, then we will have to start counting of the 8centuries Islamic invasion that other European countries had. The Middle Easter similarity of Northern Europeans is also due the an islamic invasion? You are deeply ignorant about the history of migrations into Europe.

And about the celts? I am really sick of this topic.
I am NOT a CELT
Cristiano Viejo Mode on "no me toques los cojones!". I am a spaniard like la copa de un pino... Cristiano Viejo mode off.

And now me being from the South and talking about celts... if anybody from Galizia or the "Celtic zone" can come and tell me I am a moor and they are Celts because of the ruins we have in our lands... me reiré en su cara.

[Wulfhere]

Oinakos, you are a Spaniard, you like it or not, sorry about that.
Wulfie, you are right, we are not celts because tribes and culture, celts are long dead. However if you think that genetics similarity of Europeans to the Middle East and Nort Africa is a product of a Moorish invasion, then we will have to start counting of the 8centuries Islamic invasion that other European countries had. The Middle Easter similarity of Northern Europeans is also due the an islamic invasion. You are deeply ignorant.

And about the celts? I am really sick of this topic.
I am NOT a CELT
Cristiano Viejo Mode "no me toques los cojones!". I am a spaniard like la copa de un pino...

And now me being from the South and talking about celts... if anybody from Galizia or the "Celtic zone" can come and tell me I am a moor and they are Celts because of the ruins we have in our lands... me reiré en su cara.

All of Southern Europe has indeed experienced Muslim colonisation and interbreeding, to a greater or lesser extent. But this is not true of Northern Europe, at least not yet.

[Radojica]

Oinakos, you are a Spaniard, you like it or not, sorry about that.
Wulfie, you are right, we are not celts (not nobody else) because tribes and culture, celts are long dead. However if you think that genetics similarity of Europeans to the Middle East and Nort Africa is a product of a Moorish invasion, then we will have to start counting of the 8centuries Islamic invasion that other European countries had. The Middle Easter similarity of Northern Europeans is also due the an islamic invasion? You are deeply ignorant about the history of migrations into Europe.

And about the celts? I am really sick of this topic.
I am NOT a CELT
Cristiano Viejo Mode on "no me toques los cojones!". I am a spaniard like la copa de un pino... Cristiano Viejo mode off.

And now me being from the South and talking about celts... if anybody from Galizia or the "Celtic zone" can come and tell me I am a moor and they are Celts because of the ruins we have in our lands... me reiré en su cara.

Pedo?

[Amapola]

All of Southern Europe has indeed experienced Muslim colonisation and interbreeding, to a greater or lesser extent. But this is not true of Northern Europe, at least not yet.

Have you ever heard of the Neolitic migrations into Europe?

Yes, Southern and Northern Europe had non-European invasions but the amount of genetic impact that a few miles could have in populations of millions is quite insignificant, not higher than a 2 per cent in the case of Iberia, for example. Most of Middle Eastern "genetic info" that Europeans have (not only Iberians) are much older than Islam existed. Under your logic... Northerners are Asians because they are closer than Southerners to North and South native American, East Asians or Siberians?

[Ibericus]

All of Southern Europe has indeed experienced Muslim colonisation and interbreeding, to a greater or lesser extent. But this is not true of Northern Europe, at least not yet.
Northern Europe has had uralic and siberian migrations. Asian genes.

[Wulfhere]

Have you ever heard of the Neolitic migrations into Europe?

Yes, Southern and Northern Europe had non-European invasions but the amount of genetic impact that a few miles could have in populations of millions is quite insignificant, not higher than a 2 per cent in the case of Iberia, for example. Most of Middle Eastern "genetic info" that Europeans have (not only Iberians) are much older than Islam existed. Under your logic... Northerners are Asians because they are closer than Southerners to North and South native American, East Asians or Siberians?

Nope, I'm on about the Muslim colonisation in historical times, which robbed the Southern Europeans of their direct descent from the great civilisations of antiquity, and rendered them poor, impoverished and mongrelised.

[Wulfhere]

Northern Europe has had uralic and siberian migrations. Asian genes.

Parts of Scandinavia certainly, but not the British Isles.

[Amapola]

Nope, I'm on about the Muslim colonisation in historical times, which robbed the Southern Europeans of their direct descent from the great civilisations of antiquity, and rendered them poor, impoverished and mongrelised.

That colonisation you talk about regardless of their cultural impact had very little to do with genetics. Taking into account that the essence of great civilizations in Antiquity died before the Middle Ages, it was not as dramatic as it could have been, however it helped us build an even stronggest identity, trained us morally and physically for fight and resistance, so ater the Reconquist, it only took us a few years to build an empire, discover a new continent, rule the seas... the world for a couple of centuries.

Go figure. ;) as we say "no hay mal que por bien no venga".

[Wulfhere]

That colonisation you talk about regardless of their cultural impact had very little to do with genetics. Taking into account that the essence of great civilizations in Antiquity died before the Middle Age, it was not as dramatic as it could have been, however it helped us build an even stronggest identity, trained us morally and physically to be able for fight and resistance, so after the Reconquist and in a few years we built an empire, discovered a new continent, ruled the seas... and ruled the world for a couple of centuries.

Go figure. ;)

So what went wrong, then?

[Oinakos Growion]

And now me being from the South and talking about celts... if anybody from Galizia or the "Celtic zone" can come and tell me I am a moor and they are Celts because of the ruins we have in our lands... me reiré en su cara
I never said that a Spanish southerner had Moorish blood in their veins just because they are from where they are ;) Last time I checked the Moors down there were expelled and the territory repopulated from the north, from the lands where the Moors never settled :)
On the Celtic issue I explained my views in the previous pages: It's a combination of factors, as it always is with the construction and recognition of any identity.


Oinakos, you are a Spaniard, you like it or not, sorry about that
I currently have a Spanish passport indeed. In everything else (culture/ethnicity) I beg to disagree, despite the links we may share. In any case, this would now be a sterile debate good for nothing and out of place in this thread. I respect the opinion of any Spaniard on this, as I - and many like me - keep my own, and that cannot be changed, you like it or not, sorry about that ;) Cada uno a lo suyo. Y tan amigos :thumb001:

[Radojica]

Parts of Scandinavia certainly, but not the British Isles.

I am not an expert on migrations or at all regarding the history of Northern Europe, but were not the Vikings invaded British isles (same as Saxons) some thousand years ago and with them brought Asian genes to British Isles :chin:?

Sorry for my ignorance, but that is falling to my mind if we think about the history of Northern Europe like you are thinking about the history of Southern Europe.... :coffee:

[Wulfhere]

I am not an expert on migrations or at all regarding the history of Northern Europe, but were not the Vikings invaded British isles (same as Saxons) some thousand years ago and with them brought Asian genes to British Isles :chin:?

Sorry for my ignorance, but that is falling to my mind if we think about the history of Northern Europe like you are thinking about the history of Southern Europe.... :coffee:

The Vikings did indeed invade and settle the British Isles, but they had no Asiatic blood. They picked up some Celtic blood, whilst here, and took it to Iceland with them.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Alana
Oinakos, you are a Spaniard, you like it or not, sorry about that


Yes, like him or not.
In Alpha Centaury Epsilon-6 C-24K he maybe is just a Earthling.

In Earth he is a Spaniard.

The confusing part of it is how, if someone knows a MINIMAL part of us, our History, our culture and our people... how can he dislike to be a part of this?

Probably the Lies and Myths and the Wulfhere politicians have more influence than logic can explain.

...

Anyway, humans act usually in senseless and contradictory ways.
I will no expend further time in this. It's not my duty neither my interest.

[Amapola]

I never said that a Spanish southerner had Moorish blood in their veins just because they are from where they are ;) Last time I checked the Moors down there were expelled and the territory repopulated from the north, from the lands where the Moors never settled :)
Where did I ever say that it was you? however it's not so ridiculous to hear that claim often.


I currently have a Spanish passport indeed. In everything else (culture/ethnicity) I beg to disagree, despite the links we may share. In any case, this would now be a sterile debate good for nothing and out of place in this thread. I respect the opinion of any Spaniard on this, as I - and many like me - keep my own, and that cannot be changed, you like it or not, sorry about that ;) Cada uno a lo suyo. Y tan amigos :thumb001:

Galizia got into the orbit of the Leonese kingdom and then the crown of Castille. The Galizians can share more things with the Portuguese within Spain; Western Andalusians can share more with the algarve than with Eastern Andalusians. Spain is not that fake map of the 1640.

[Radojica]

The Vikings did indeed invade and settle the British Isles, but they had no Asiatic blood. They picked up some Celtic blood, whilst here, and took it to Iceland with them.

But, don't Scandinavian nations, same as Slavic, have Asian genes in some extent?

(Don't shoot me for this, please :embarrassed)

[Amapola]

The confusing part of it is how, if someone knows a MINIMAL part of us, our History, our culture and our people... how can he dislike to be a part of this?


Actually I was having a conversation with Osweo about this... the problem of people in this country is ignorance. It's not in vain that it was written in that book of "España vertebrada":
"el dia que los españoles descubran España..." :thumbs up

[Wulfhere]

But, don't Scandinavian nations, same as Slavic, have Asian genes in some extent?

(Don't shoot me for this, please :embarrassed)

Finns and Lapps, indeed - but the Vikings are descended from the Southern Scandinavian indigenous population, which is Germanic.

[Treffie]

Ethnically and linguistically, I'm probably the only Celt here and it means absolutely nothing. Re-inventing oneself to become something that you're not is just romanticising.

[Ibericus]

I currently have a Spanish passport indeed. In everything else (culture/ethnicity) I beg to disagree, despite the links we may share. In any case, this would now be a sterile debate good for nothing and out of place in this thread. I respect the opinion of any Spaniard on this, as I - and many like me - keep my own, and that cannot be changed, you like it or not, sorry about that ;) Cada uno a lo suyo. Y tan amigos :thumb001:
Estas muy equivocado con el tema de la étnia y la cultura. Los nacionalistas gallegos creen que Galicia es la parte más celta de España, culturamente puede que sea asi, pero tambien lo son Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, pero étnicamente la parte que tuvo mas presencia Celta fue Castilla, con los vacceos, vettones, arévacos, Celtíberos, etc

[Treffie]

Estas muy equivocado con el tema de la étnia y la cultura. Los nacionalistas gallegos creen que Galicia es la parte más celta de España, culturamente puede que sea asi, pero tambien lo son Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, pero étnicamente la parte que tuvo mas presencia Celta fue Castilla, con los vacceos, vettones, arévacos, Celtíberos, etc

English please or a translation ;)

[Oinakos Growion]

culturamente puede que sea asi, pero tambien lo son Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, pero étnicamente la parte que tuvo mas presencia Celta fue Castilla, con los vacceos, vettones, arévacos, Celtíberos, etc
Yes and no ;) What a typical Galician reply, eh? :D
There was a myriad of tribes occupying the NW half of the Peninsula (in this I include Castille of course), but the density levels were different. In terms of placenames, archaeological remains and, specially, hillforts, that density gets stronger as you get closer to the corner with few scattered exceptions here and there. Then again, this can be explained by the orography and mountain dispositions. So the ethnic issue can at the very least be vastly discussed. And culturally, as you say, it is the area of what used to be the old Callaecia (Galicia+Asturias+N.Portugal+Leon), that keeps the tradition alive in an interrupted way. I never said it was modern Galicia alone.
In any case, I hate discussions of the sort of "a ver quien la tiene más grande" ;) Main point is that the Celtic heritage is present and well in the Peninsula and that, in my opinion, is the key element that defines Galician culture even today (noting too the critical contributions of the Roman Empire and Swabians, who founded the first European Kingdom after the fall of the Empire there, and they didn't choose the place by chance... but that's another story).


Celtíberos
Please note that the Celtiberians are called Celt-Iberians for a reason ;) They're not a very good example. All the other tribes are.

[Zyklop]

Culture starts and ends with language. Once a population loses its native speech it ceases to exist and has to be seen as something new.

[Wulfhere]

Culture starts and ends with language. Once a population loses its native speech it ceases to exist and has to be seen as something new.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this.

[Oinakos Growion]

Language is a vehicle of culture, in some cases its best representation and often an unifying factor, but not the only one; definitely not in a historical span of thousands of years. In this fashion, different cultures can also be expressed in the same language.

[Wulfhere]

Language is a vehicle of culture, in some cases its best representation and often a unifying factor, but not the only one; definitely not in a historical span of thousands of years. In this fashion, different cultures can also be expressed in the same language.

A culture that loses its native language is no culture. At best its just a set of half-remembered folk customs, and at worst nothing at all.

[Oinakos Growion]

Fortunately our own language was transformed and recreated as our national ethos was created and grew, so it all went hand in hand.
And still, a language can embrace so many things it can even deliver different views of the world.

[Zyklop]

Language is a vehicle of culture, in some cases its best representation and often an unifying factor, but not the only one; I didn't write it's the only factor, it's just the most fundamental one.

[Wulfhere]

Fortunately our own language was transformed and recreated as our national ethos was created and grew, so it all went hand in hand.
And still, a language can embrace so many things it can even deliver different views of the world.

Eh? What on earth is that supposed to mean? No Celtic language has been spoken in Spain for about two millennia, give or take. It wasn't "transformed and recreated" - it died out under pressure from other languages and cultures. You are living in a fantasy world, I'm afraid.

[Oinakos Growion]

aaw...
I never said we spoke a Celtic language today. I did certainly say that language does not define such a broad concept as "Celtic" in such a long period of time. I know plenty of Irish and Welsh speakers who, other than that, have no other traits of "Celtic-ness"; they use the language as a mere prestige-academic tool only.
And I really don't feel like explaining what linguistic strata are, because that's something one learns in school. At least I did. If not there's google and wikipedia. In a nutshell: Galician probably is the Romance Language with the strongest Celtic substratum.
For the record, the last major contingent of Celts - and Celtic speakers - (refugees coming from Britain actually) arrived in Galicia in 5th C AD. The language actually lived on for another good while, with chronicles reporting Celtic speakers as late as the 17thC (although I do question this because the sources are not 100% clear; I do have a scientific spirit you see).

[Wulfhere]

aaw...
I never said we spoke a Celtic language today. I did certainly say that language does not define such a broad concept as "Celtic" in such a long period of time. I know plenty of Irish and Welsh speakers who, other than that, have no other traits of "Celtic-ness"; they use the language as a mere prestige-academic tool only.
And I really don't feel like explaining what linguistic strata are, because that's something one learns in school. At least I did. If not there's google and wikipedia. In a nutshell: Galician probably is the Romance Language with the strongest Celtic substratum.
For the record, the last major contingent of Celts - and Celtic speakers - (refugees coming from Britain actually) arrived in Galicia in 5th C AD. The language actually lived on for another good while, with chronicles reporting Celtic speakers as late as the 17thC (although I do question this because the sources are not 100% clear; I do have a scientific spirit you see).

Nothing you're saying gives you any claim to be Celts. English probably has a Celtic substratum too - certainly, this has been proposed to explain its differences to other Germanic languages. But the English aren't Celts - their ancestral culture and language is Germanic. Galicians - and Spaniards in general - are Romance speakers, and that's where their culture comes from.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Zyklop
Culture starts and ends with language. Once a population loses its native speech it ceases to exist and has to be seen as something new.

I agree up to a point, but culture is as much a mind set as anything else and in that sense there are “Celtic” nations even if linguistically they are a minority. More people speak English in Ireland than Gaelic yet there is an identity about the Irish that is described as “Celtic” regardless of how much historical accuracy that term has.

I tend to agree with KEN, though, that the word is romanticised, perhaps dare I say comical? I pulled out an old National Geographic article from March 2006 about 21st century Celts defined as ancient language, an “easily retrieved sense of historical grievance”, a resort to song and “bittersweet sentimentality”. Personally none of these traits seem defining, the Palestinians and Tibetans probably match that description. One writer has called them “one of the century’s seductive identities, free-spirited, rebellious, poetic, nature-worshipping, magical, and self sufficient” sounds positively awful, tree hugging poets running through the hills in tartan, to much of the Rob Roy and New Age about it, surely Celtic hasn’t become such laughable nonsense?

The article ends in Brittany at the feast day of St Guenole, a festival that is a mix of Christian and indigenous tradition, the people speak Breton and hold dances and play music…….as the author writes there is no costume, no display, no gimmicks for outsiders, “the past danced into the present”, “the blood Celts” (by this he means those who still speak a Celtic tongue and not people who think they are Celtic because they have read to much King Arthur or bought into the sell) would feel at home with the Bretons.

Perhaps it's not just language but genuine continuance of a way of life, in that sense much of the "Celtic Fringe" probably ceased being Celtic long ago, but it's not unique to them, walk many of the streets of England and you could be.....anywhere, there is a dying sense of place and time.

[Oinakos Growion]

All identities (national/ethnic) are subjected to be romanticised. Celts too of course. But the same can be said about any other culture in any part of the world, from "Viking revival" to "Aztec civilisation".
Our job should be separating myth from facts. Myths are cool, but only good to tell bedtime stories to kids and make films. Facts are given by a combination of history, language, literature, geography, folklore and tradition, psychology and behaviour, anthropology, material culture... you name it.


Nothing you're saying gives you any claim to be Celts. English probably has a Celtic substratum too - certainly, this has been proposed to explain its differences to other Germanic languages. But the English aren't Celts - their ancestral culture and language is Germanic. Galicians - and Spaniards in general - are Romance speakers, and that's where their culture comes from
I give up :rolleyes2:
I've been repeating - over and over again - that for me, in a case like this and for many reasons, language is something to be taken into account but it is not exclusive. I've given plenty of other reasons in my consideration of what "Celtic" is to me, from settlement patterns to folklore. The comment about Celtic influence in modern Galician was a side note, a further contribution, one more piece of data for whoever is reading all this so each one can draw his/her own conclusions.

By the way, what differentiates English from other Germanic languages is the Normand (French) in it. Specially in its cultivated level. If you speak English you're in fact using a heavily Latinised language. Welcome to the Romance world! :P
And now I'll go and dress a toga, since I've suddenly discovered I'm still a subject of the Roman Empire. SPQR ftw! :rolleyes:

[Wulfhere]

All identities (national/ethnic) are subjected to be romanticised. Celts too of course. But the same can be said about any other culture in any part of the world, from "Viking revival" to "Aztec civilisation".
Our job should be separating myth from facts. Myths are cool, but only good to tell bedtime stories to kids and make films. Facts are given by a combination of history, language, literature, geography, folklore and tradition, psychology and behaviour, anthropology, material culture... you name it.


I give up :rolleyes2:
I've been repeating - over and over again - that for me, in a case like this and for many reasons, language is something to be taken into account but it is not exclusive. I've given plenty of other reasons in my consideration of what "Celtic" is to me, from settlement patterns to folklore. The comment about Celtic influence in modern Galician was a side note, a further contribution, one more piece of data for whoever is reading all this so each one can draw his/her own conclusions.

By the way, what differentiates English from other Germanic languages is the Normand (French) in it. Specially in its cultivated level. If you speak English you're in fact using a heavily Latinised language. Welcome to the Romance world! :P
And now I'll go and dress a toga, since I've suddenly discovered I'm still a subject of the Roman Empire. SPQR ftw! :rolleyes:

In fact, Old English already exhibited a number of structural differences from other Germanic languages - we're not just talking about vocabulary here.

Please give me some concrete examples from Galician culture that you regard as Celtic.

[Ibericus]

There are no celts today anymore. What we have is Celtic speakers, and countries with historical, ethnical, cultural ties with Celts. If we talk in a historical sense, where the Celts heavily settled and are part of an ethnicity and culture, then of course Spain, France, etc have Celtic ancestry. But Oinakos Growion, they can't accept a non-stereotypical Spain, it doesn't fit their image of Spain , and if you present them historical facts, evidences (archeological and linguistic), they will call it "romanticising".

[OneWolf]

I may be wrong but I always thought and have read that Spain was part of the old "Celtic" realm.Now I'm sure Spain,as well as other countries has had
some inter-mixing in the past but I doubt all the old Celtic blood is dried up.
France was the Celtic empire.The Romans say they where not as tall as the
English but where well muscled and dyed their hair blonde with lime.
As far as England goes,It seems theire are a whole lot of folks there now who
are a mixture of Irish,Scottish and Germanic peoples.Caeser said the English
where taller then the Celts or Gauls and had dark hair,sometimes swarthy skin
and their limbs where crooked.They also said the Welsh,who I thought lived in
what is now Southern England at this time since the Saxons had not yet invaded,looked like Spaniards.But they also said that a tribe of Belgians had moved in around Kent, The Weald and surrounding areas and they had blonde hair in their youth but it darkened with age.From what I know,the Belgians are a legit Celtic tribe and they where called the Belgae in the past.

[Wulfhere]

I may be wrong but I always thought and have read that Spain was part of the old "Celtic" realm.Now I'm sure Spain,as well as other countries has had
some inter-mixing in the past but I doubt all the old Celtic blood is dried up.
France was the Celtic empire.The Romans say they where not as tall as the
English but where well muscled and dyed their hair blonde with lime.
As far as England goes,It seems theire are a whole lot of folks there now who
are a mixture of Irish,Scottish and Germanic peoples.Caeser said the English
where taller then the Celts or Gauls and had dark hair,sometimes swarthy skin
and their limbs where crooked.They also said the Welsh,who I thought lived in
what is now Southern England at this time since the Saxons had not yet invaded,looked like Spaniards.But they also said that a tribe of Belgians had moved in around Kent, The Weald and surrounding areas and they had blonde hair in their youth but it darkened with age.From what I know,the Belgians are a legit Celtic tribe and they where called the Belgae in the past.

Caesar said nothing about the English at all - which is not surprising, since they didn't live anywhere near Britain at the time. Tacitus is the first Roman to mention the English by name - the Angles.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Oinakos Growion
Our job should be separating myth from facts. Myths are cool, but only good to tell bedtime stories to kids and make films. Facts are given by a combination of history, language, literature, geography, folklore and tradition, psychology and behaviour, anthropology, material culture... you name it.

Myth is positively central to human culture, obviously objectivity in any subject requires reason to arrive at fact but to relegate myth to the fringes is really knocking nails in the coffin lid, people thrive on stories, we are the story telling ape. You simply cannot understand any culture without understanding the stories they feed upon.


By the way, what differentiates English from other Germanic languages is the Normand (French) in it. Specially in its cultivated level. If you speak English you're in fact using a heavily Latinised language. Welcome to the Romance world!

The Latin impact is really quite peripheral to the structure of English as a language, yet the Classical influence on English identity is certainly far stronger than Celtic influence has been. As I posted on another thread you can easily detect the meld of Germanic and Classical culture on the English psyche (on pretty much all nations of Western European origin to greater or lesser degrees) but the Celtic input is marked by its absence, the English almost certainly didn’t exterminate the Celts but Celtic culture seems to have died a death in most of England (bar a few customs) even the Arthurian corpus of popular telling is more a Western Christian construct and is quite different to what remains in Welsh lore.

[Oinakos Growion]

Damn. I had a long detailed reply and the computer collapsed :P Oh well, I'll try to summarise because I'm not writing it all again now.


Please give me some concrete examples from Galician culture that you regard as Celtic.
That'd take some time and a few pages if I wanted to go into it in some detail, but I'll refer to some of the stuff I mentioned in my first long post on page 12, the one you quoted as being "blah blah blah". For anyone who might really be interested in this:

- Settlement pattern: what's known as "scattered cluster settlement", in contrast with the open field Germanic occupation of space. Linguists can tell cultures apart from linguistic traits, geographers can distinguish cultures by looking at the cultural landscape, where the settlement pattern is its key element. In this fashion, Celtic societies perceive and process the land and spatial references in a similar way.
We've basically been organising ourselves and relating to the land in the same way for +2000 years.

- Folklore: beyond dance and music, similar but most probably conformed in the Middle Ages, there's an observance of similar rites, calendar festivities and ways of celebrating them. From the Maios - Beltaine (celebration of nature, offering to vegetable totems, the "strawman") to the Shamain (cult of the dead, lighting of candles, pilgrimage). Totemic animals such as the cow, wild boar, horse, etc (still today).
We've basically been celebrating in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Myths and believes: Christianisation of the Celtic Parthenon, where religious figures and icons refer in a not so veiled way to Bel, Lugh or, most specially, the Cailleach (hence the name of the land). Aspects like the cult to the dead, the afterlife and reincarnation come to mind. The obvious similarities and exact same significance between the Banshee (Ireland) / Ankou (Brittany) / Santa Companha (Galicia) also springs to mind.
We've been believing and respecting the same spiritual traditions for +2000 years.

- Literature and oral tradition: Following a typical Celtic structure and organisation, with references to the same figures, names and overall morals. Celtic values and references embed our ethos starting from the most tender age. Our foundational tales, for example, explain the story of the discovery of Ireland; the story ends where the Irish tradition "curiously" picks up the story of the invasion of Ireland. But most importantly, in the Galician case this has been demonstrated to be transmitted orally before any "Romantic writer" ever knew about it.
We've been keeping our foundational traditions, defining our social values, in an unchanged way for the last +2000 years.

- Art: similar when not identical use of geometrical patterns and symbols, from the triskel to the "Celtic star", from the "labyrinth of eternity" to the always present spirals. Many shared with other Atlantic European cultures, I know.
We've been decorating our objects, our material culture, in a similar way for the last +2000 years.

- Cuisine: Beyond the coincidences given by a similar natural environment there's interesting issues such as having dinner (last meal of the day) as the main meal of the day. This corresponds to the Roman chronicles describing the customs of the NW Iberian Celts. It may sound silly to some, but an anthropologist can explain the relevance of such a habit.
In more rural traditional areas, we've been organising the day, our daily routine and timetable, in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Matriarchy: As in many areas of Ireland, the woman plays a fundamental active role in society. In Galicia a woman can even be head of the family (also described by Roman chronicles referring to the NW Iberian Celts, plus the fact that women could take arms). The right of women to own property, for example, is done in accordance with Celtic law (clear similarities with Brehon Law for instance).
We've been respecting our women (some would say fearing :D) and observing well known aspects of Celtic Law for the last +2000 years at least.

- Genetics: Studies confirm the coincidences in the genetic make up of the populations in NW and N Iberia with Ireland and Brittany.
We've been in permanent contact with those lands for the last 10000 years (starting with the Megalithic period). That is our common sea we know so well.

Etc.

Sources really abound if you really wanted to know. Unfortunately for you most of them are in Galician-Portuguese or Spanish (in case you can't read any of those languages). Still, for anyone interested or curious about all this there's some stuff in English out there.


In fact, Old English already exhibited a number of structural differences from other Germanic languages - we're not just talking about vocabulary here
Of course it did. It was a different territory. Same applies to the differences in the Latin spoken in the different territories of the Roman Empire.
But hey, let's just obviate the some 15000 French words you use in English. Let's also obviate English pronunciation, as Old English had many unvoiced, fricative sounds, and French introduced voiced counterparts (that means drastically altering the pronunciation). Let's forget about the most defining elements of a language, syntax and grammar, where - for example - English uses a subject-verb-object structure, and German tends to place the verb at the end of the sentence.
And so on.
Damn. You're contaminated :)


Myth is positively central to human culture, obviously objectivity in any subject requires reason to arrive at fact but to relegate myth to the fringes is really knocking nails in the coffin lid, people thrive on stories, we are the story telling ape. You simply cannot understand any culture without understanding the stories they feed upon.
Oh and I agree. Sure myth is important in the construction of the identity because it is part of the tradition and what you transmit. Myth (stories, legends) carry a message which is part of the "how the People thinks and believes in". What I meant is that you need hard facts too and that's when you refer to the sciences, also trying to understand where the myths really come from and what they mean. You need everything.


Oinakos Growion, they can't accept a non-stereotypical Spain, it doesn't fit their image of Spain , and if you present them historical facts, evidences (archeological and linguistic), they will call it "romanticising"
I see. And I must say that I joined here to share what I might know about my land, learn about others and maybe "celebrate" Europe in some way or another. Naive boy I know ;)
Still, I'm writing all this for anyone who might be interested in it, for those who are not tied by cliches, not for those who don't seem to know anything (and don't really want to know for what I feel) about some areas of Europe.

[Wulfhere]

Damn. I had a long detailed reply and the computer collapsed :P Oh well, I'll try to summarise because I'm not writing it all again now.


That'd take some time and a few pages if I wanted to go into it in some detail, but I'll refer to some of the stuff I mentioned in my first long post on page 12, the one you quoted as being "blah blah blah". For anyone who might really be interested in this:

- Settlement pattern: what's known as "scattered cluster settlement", in contrast with the open field Germanic occupation of space. Linguists can tell cultures apart from linguistic traits, geographers can distinguish cultures by looking at the cultural landscape, where the settlement pattern is its key element. In this fashion, Celtic societies perceive and process the land and spatial references in a similar way.
We've basically been organising ourselves and relating to the land in the same way for +2000 years.

- Folklore: beyond dance and music, similar but most probably conformed in the Middle Ages, there's an observance of similar rites, calendar festivities and ways of celebrating them. From the Maios - Beltaine (celebration of nature, offering to vegetable totems, the "strawman") to the Shamain (cult of the dead, lighting of candles, pilgrimage). Totemic animals such as the cow, wild boar, horse, etc (still today).
We've basically been celebrating in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Myths and believes: Christianisation of the Celtic Parthenon, where religious figures and icons refer in a not so veiled way to Bel, Lugh or, most specially, the Cailleach (hence the name of the land). Aspects like the cult to the dead, the afterlife and reincarnation come to mind. The obvious similarities and exact same significance between the Banshee (Ireland) / Ankou (Brittany) / Santa Companha (Galicia) also springs to mind.
We've been believing and respecting the same spiritual traditions for +2000 years.

- Literature and oral tradition: Following a typical Celtic structure and organisation, with references to the same figures, names and overall morals. Celtic values and references embed our ethos starting from the most tender age. Our foundational tales, for example, explain the story of the discovery of Ireland; the story ends where the Irish tradition "curiously" picks up the story of the invasion of Ireland. But most importantly, in the Galician case this has been demonstrated to be transmitted orally before any "Romantic writer" ever knew about it.
We've been keeping our foundational traditions, defining our social values, in an unchanged way for the last +2000 years.

- Art: similar when not identical use of geometrical patterns and symbols, from the triskel to the "Celtic star", from the "labyrinth of eternity" to the always present spirals. Many shared with other Atlantic European cultures, I know.
We've been decorating our objects, our material culture, in a similar way for the last +2000 years.

- Cuisine: Beyond the coincidences given by a similar natural environment there's interesting issues such as having dinner (last meal of the day) as the main meal of the day. This corresponds to the Roman chronicles describing the customs of the NW Iberian Celts. It may sound silly to some, but an anthropologist can explain the relevance of such a habit.
In more rural traditional areas, we've been organising the day, our daily routine and timetable, in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Matriarchy: As in many areas of Ireland, the woman plays a fundamental active role in society. In Galicia a woman can even be head of the family (also described by Roman chronicles referring to the NW Iberian Celts, plus the fact that women could take arms). The right of women to own property, for example, is done in accordance with Celtic law (clear similarities with Brehon Law for instance).
We've been respecting our women (some would say fearing :D) and observing well known aspects of Celtic Law for the last +2000 years at least.

- Genetics: Studies confirm the coincidences in the genetic make up of the populations in NW and N Iberia with Ireland and Brittany.
We've been in permanent contact with those lands for the last 10000 years (starting with the Megalithic period). That is our common sea we know so well.

Etc.

Sources really abound if you really wanted to know. Unfortunately for you most of them are in Galician-Portuguese or Spanish (in case you can't read any of those languages). Still, for anyone interested or curious about all this there's some stuff in English out there.


Of course it did. It was a different territory. Same applies to the differences in the Latin spoken in the different territories of the Roman Empire.
But hey, let's just obviate the some 15000 French words you use in English. Let's also obviate English pronunciation, as Old English had many unvoiced, fricative sounds, and French introduced voiced counterparts (that means drastically altering the pronunciation). Let's forget about the most defining elements of a language, syntax and grammar, where - for example - English uses a subject-verb-object structure, and German tends to place the verb at the end of the sentence.
And so on.
Damn. You're contaminated :)

All of those features, voiced fricatives, word order etc. were already present in Old English.

As for the rest, have you ever heard the phrase (from Hamlet): The lady doth protest too much, methinks.?

Why's it so trendy to be a Celt? Is it part of the more general victim mentality so prevalent in modern society?

[Ibericus]

All of those features, voiced fricatives, word order etc. were already present in Old English.

As for the rest, have you ever heard the phrase (from Hamlet): The lady doth protest too much, methinks.?

Why's it so trendy to be a Celt? Is it part of the more general victim mentality so prevalent in modern society?
What a stupid answer for such a great post. Oinakos, don't waste your time with idiots

[Oinakos Growion]

All of those features, voiced fricatives, word order etc. were already present in Old English
Sure. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Fact remains: you speak a heavily Latinised language. Accept it as it is and don't try to believe what is not. Isn't that your common advice to other people anyway?


As for the rest, have you ever heard the phrase (from Hamlet): The lady doth protest too much, methinks.?
You asked a question - you got a civilised reply. It was the last time though.


Why's it so trendy to be a Celt? Is it part of the more general victim mentality so prevalent in modern society?
It's not a "trend". It's what one is. A testimony of victory actually. See? We're still here.
Conversely, the fact of having to share their part of Europe and even their island with another old well established culture seems to be disturbing and hard to take for some. Oh well. Nothing I can do there other than recommending some aspirine.


Oinakos, don't waste your time with idiots
Nah, no worries. The post and the info remains there for whoever wants to read ;) Maybe someone will find it interesting.
That was my intention all the way.

[Osweo]

Estas muy equivocado con el tema de la étnia y la cultura. Los nacionalistas gallegos creen que Galicia es la parte más celta de España, culturamente puede que sea asi, pero tambien lo son Asturias, Cantabria, Leon, pero étnicamente la parte que tuvo mas presencia Celta fue Castilla, con los vacceos, vettones, arévacos, Celtíberos, etc


English please or a translation ;)
God, Ken, it's easy peasy! ;)
Ahem; You are rather equivocal with the theme of ethnos and culture. Galician nationalists believe that Galicia is the most Celtic part of Spain, and culturally they might well be, but Asturias, Cantabria and Leon are too; whereas ethnically speaking, that part with the greatest Celtic presence was Castile, with the tribes of the Vaccei, Vettones, Arevaci, Celtiberians etc. :p

In a nutshell: Galician probably is the Romance Language with the strongest Celtic substratum.
I'd like to hear more of this. Perhaps a new thread? :)

- Settlement pattern: what's known as "scattered cluster settlement", in contrast with the open field Germanic occupation of space.
But there is an objective ecological reason for this in certain terrains. And Germania never had total uniformity in such patterns. Oh, and the pattern you describe may well long predate Celtic speech in Galicia...

calendar festivities and ways of celebrating them. From the Maios - Beltaine (celebration of nature, offering to vegetable totems, the "strawman") to the Shamain (cult of the dead, lighting of candles, pilgrimage).
Samhain ;)
Again, much of this is pre-Celtic and/or near universal in Europe, and related to naturally observed astrological phenomena. The Germanics and co. knew what solstices and so on were too...

the Cailleach (hence the name of the land).
What? Is this a serious attempt at an etymology for Gallaeca?! I thought it was simply 'mini-Gaul', no?
ANd that Irish term would have looked very different in its relevant Old Irish form. Perhaps such a form might even have been impossible in those times.

Aspects like the cult to the dead, the afterlife and reincarnation come to mind. The obvious similarities and exact same significance between the Banshee (Ireland) / Ankou (Brittany) / Santa Companha (Galicia) also springs to mind.
We've been believing and respecting the same spiritual traditions for +2000 years.
Much of this is pre-Celtic, but okay. :p

the story ends where the Irish tradition "curiously" picks up the story of the invasion of Ireland.
Miledh Espaine was a scholarly invention of early mediaeval times. NOT a native Celtic one.

We've been respecting our women (some would say fearing ) and observing well known aspects of Celtic Law for the last +2000 years at least.
It's hard to sort fact from politics on this matter. It can be argued that Germanic women were better off.

- Genetics: Studies confirm the coincidences in the genetic make up of the populations in NW and N Iberia with Ireland and Brittany.
We've been in permanent contact with those lands for the last 10000 years (starting with the Megalithic period). That is our common sea we know so well.
Sure, but I'd be interested to hear of specific coincidences, and their supposed age and direction of transmission....

:thumb001:

All you mention, of course, can equally apply to parts of England, and yet they are missing from your little 'club' in the signature. Quite absurd, really...

[Amapola]

Damn. I had a long detailed reply and the computer collapsed :P Oh well, I'll try to summarise because I'm not writing it all again now.


That'd take some time and a few pages if I wanted to go into it in some detail, but I'll refer to some of the stuff I mentioned in my first long post on page 12, the one you quoted as being "blah blah blah". For anyone who might really be interested in this:

- Settlement pattern: what's known as "scattered cluster settlement", in contrast with the open field Germanic occupation of space. Linguists can tell cultures apart from linguistic traits, geographers can distinguish cultures by looking at the cultural landscape, where the settlement pattern is its key element. In this fashion, Celtic societies perceive and process the land and spatial references in a similar way.
We've basically been organising ourselves and relating to the land in the same way for +2000 years.

- Folklore: beyond dance and music, similar but most probably conformed in the Middle Ages, there's an observance of similar rites, calendar festivities and ways of celebrating them. From the Maios - Beltaine (celebration of nature, offering to vegetable totems, the "strawman") to the Shamain (cult of the dead, lighting of candles, pilgrimage). Totemic animals such as the cow, wild boar, horse, etc (still today).
We've basically been celebrating in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Myths and believes: Christianisation of the Celtic Parthenon, where religious figures and icons refer in a not so veiled way to Bel, Lugh or, most specially, the Cailleach (hence the name of the land). Aspects like the cult to the dead, the afterlife and reincarnation come to mind. The obvious similarities and exact same significance between the Banshee (Ireland) / Ankou (Brittany) / Santa Companha (Galicia) also springs to mind.
We've been believing and respecting the same spiritual traditions for +2000 years.

- Literature and oral tradition: Following a typical Celtic structure and organisation, with references to the same figures, names and overall morals. Celtic values and references embed our ethos starting from the most tender age. Our foundational tales, for example, explain the story of the discovery of Ireland; the story ends where the Irish tradition "curiously" picks up the story of the invasion of Ireland. But most importantly, in the Galician case this has been demonstrated to be transmitted orally before any "Romantic writer" ever knew about it.
We've been keeping our foundational traditions, defining our social values, in an unchanged way for the last +2000 years.

- Art: similar when not identical use of geometrical patterns and symbols, from the triskel to the "Celtic star", from the "labyrinth of eternity" to the always present spirals. Many shared with other Atlantic European cultures, I know.
We've been decorating our objects, our material culture, in a similar way for the last +2000 years.

- Cuisine: Beyond the coincidences given by a similar natural environment there's interesting issues such as having dinner (last meal of the day) as the main meal of the day. This corresponds to the Roman chronicles describing the customs of the NW Iberian Celts. It may sound silly to some, but an anthropologist can explain the relevance of such a habit.
In more rural traditional areas, we've been organising the day, our daily routine and timetable, in the same way for the last +2000 years.

- Matriarchy: As in many areas of Ireland, the woman plays a fundamental active role in society. In Galicia a woman can even be head of the family (also described by Roman chronicles referring to the NW Iberian Celts, plus the fact that women could take arms). The right of women to own property, for example, is done in accordance with Celtic law (clear similarities with Brehon Law for instance).
We've been respecting our women (some would say fearing :D) and observing well known aspects of Celtic Law for the last +2000 years at least.

- Genetics: Studies confirm the coincidences in the genetic make up of the populations in NW and N Iberia with Ireland and Brittany.
We've been in permanent contact with those lands for the last 10000 years (starting with the Megalithic period). That is our common sea we know so well.

Etc.

Sources really abound if you really wanted to know. Unfortunately for you most of them are in Galician-Portuguese or Spanish (in case you can't read any of those languages). Still, for anyone interested or curious about all this there's some stuff in English out there.


Of course it did. It was a different territory. Same applies to the differences in the Latin spoken in the different territories of the Roman Empire.
But hey, let's just obviate the some 15000 French words you use in English. Let's also obviate English pronunciation, as Old English had many unvoiced, fricative sounds, and French introduced voiced counterparts (that means drastically altering the pronunciation). Let's forget about the most defining elements of a language, syntax and grammar, where - for example - English uses a subject-verb-object structure, and German tends to place the verb at the end of the sentence.
And so on.
Damn. You're contaminated :)


Oh and I agree. Sure myth is important in the construction of the identity because it is part of the tradition and what you transmit. Myth (stories, legends) carry a message which is part of the "how the People thinks and believes in". What I meant is that you need hard facts too and that's when you refer to the sciences, also trying to understand where the myths really come from and what they mean. You need everything.


I see. And I must say that I joined here to share what I might know about my land, learn about others and maybe "celebrate" Europe in some way or another. Naive boy I know ;)
Still, I'm writing all this for anyone who might be interested in it, for those who are not tied by cliches, not for those who don't seem to know anything (and don't really want to know for what I feel) about some areas of Europe.

Honestly, the problem of all this is a certain folkloric schizophrenia which additionally has a stinking "red/roja" base.

I don't deny that there was a cultural relationship or there is a genetic relationship, not only between Galicia and other areas of Northern Spain with the British isles and part of Western Europe but that can be extensible (like most of your over-elaborate points- that remind me of those ideas that Fanjul very well refutes in one of his masterpieces) to the whole peninsula, including Portugal.

The fact that there are genetic and archaeological correspondences on the Atlantic facade doesn't mean those correspondences are celtic; which is starting from the apriorism of considering every element of Galicia or Ireland as celtic. Actually, it's likely to be the other way round: that shared by the areas on Atlantic facade is of course older, and presumably pre-celtic.

So... the Anglo-Saxon made /ninceteenthcentury/stereotyped image of everything Celtic as pagan and diametrically conflicting with "everything Roman" is a false image, especially for Galaicos of the IV and V century...

But oh well... :) we all get a bit "Romantic" while speaking of history... This is a XIX century burden. However is scientism a better option? when I think of romantic history and scientific history, liberalism and socialism come to my mind straight away; They are siblings, and walk hand in hand with liberalism and positivism leading to socio-structuralism (marxist, or if you like, materialist, lay and progressive stuff). I think the problem is nationalism. Nationalism has failed in Spain, why? Spain is different (and it's not a Franquist label this time): Spain didn't need it to be Spain unlike other countries. Actually Spain was Spain a long time ago, withouth the need of national folclorism or exploitation of history. An example? the Modern, liberal Spanish nation did not exist in 1808 when people rebelled against Napoleon. The nation was not needed because there were people linked to their land, religion, family, tradition. In that sense... and not in the absurdity of modern nationalism, I meant you are Spanish/Iberian from las Españas and what else?

Salud.

[Bridie]

It can be argued that Germanic women were better off.

Well, if how Irish men treat their women in modern times is anything to go by, then I'd say that argument would be most correct.

[Wulfhere]

Sure. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Fact remains: you speak a heavily Latinised language. Accept it as it is and don't try to believe what is not. Isn't that your common advice to other people anyway?


You asked a question - you got a civilised reply. It was the last time though.


It's not a "trend". It's what one is. A testimony of victory actually. See? We're still here.
Conversely, the fact of having to share their part of Europe and even their island with another old well established culture seems to be disturbing and hard to take for some. Oh well. Nothing I can do there other than recommending some aspirine.


Nah, no worries. The post and the info remains there for whoever wants to read ;) Maybe someone will find it interesting.
That was my intention all the way.

At no point have I ever tried to deny that the vocabulary of English is heavily Latinised. But your specific remarks concerning voiced fricatives and word order were simply incorrect. Old English had far more voiced fricatives than most other Germanic languages (including word-final voiced frictatives, a trait only found in Frisian amongst Continental Germanic languages), and its word order exhibited peculiarities too.

The English are perfectly comfortable with their Celtic neighbours (though the reverse isn't necessarily true). We've lived alonside Celts for 1500 years, and know them pretty well. And let me assure you that Galicians aren't Celts.

[Oinakos Growion]

your specific remarks concerning voiced fricatives and word order were simply incorrect. Old English had far more voiced fricatives than most other Germanic languages

<<English pronunciation owes a lot to French as well. Whereas Old English had the unvoiced fricative sounds [f], [s], [θ] (as in thin), and [∫] (shin), French influence helped to distinguish their voiced counterparts [v], [z], [ð] (the), and [ʒ] (mirage), and also contributed the diphthong [ɔy] (boy)>>

Word order, sentence structure, in other words, grammar, was also influenced by French. That is why English is an easy language to learn for any Romance speaker in terms of grammar. That's why when one studies English as a foreign language and the teacher says "and this is all about English grammar" everybody goes "that's it??".

For +300 years French was spoken in England and considered the elite language. It'd be impossible for English not to have important French influences in vocabulary and pronunciation and syntax and grammar.
Stop deluding yourself.

I could even recommend books on the history of English language, with specific chapters on the Norman/French influence. But you wouldn't read them of course so I won't bother.


And let me assure you that Galicians aren't Celts.
Sure mate. It's good to see how you always manage to discuss all facts provided in such an extensive and educated way. Intellectual debate achieves new highs with you, especially when you use the "blah blah blah" line or the "because I say so" approach. At least now you may be able to locate Galicia on a map, a feat probably impossible for you just a few days ago. I call that progress!
But hey, since you "assure" me with that I'll sleep better tonight. Phew.
Where's my damn toga again? ...

[Wulfhere]

<<English pronunciation owes a lot to French as well. Whereas Old English had the unvoiced fricative sounds [f], [s], [θ] (as in thin), and [∫] (shin), French influence helped to distinguish their voiced counterparts [v], [z], [ð] (the), and [ʒ] (mirage), and also contributed the diphthong [ɔy] (boy)>>

Word order, sentence structure, in other words, grammar, was also influenced by French. That is why English is an easy language to learn for any Romance speaker in terms of grammar. That's why when one studies English as a foreign language and the teacher says "and this is all about English grammar" everybody goes "that's it??".

For +300 years French was spoken in England and considered the elite language. It'd be impossible for English not to have important French influences in vocabulary and pronunciation and syntax and grammar.
Stop deluding yourself.

I could even recommend books on the history of English language, with specific chapters on the Norman/French influence. But you wouldn't read them of course so I won't bother.


Sure mate. It's good to see how you always manage to discuss all facts provided in such an extensive and educated way. Intellectual debate achieves new highs with you, especially when you use the "blah blah blah" line or the "because I say so" approach. At least now you may be able to locate Galicia on a map, a feat probably impossible for you just a few days ago. I call that progress!
But hey, since you "assure" me with that I'll sleep better tonight. Phew.
Where's my damn toga again? ...

Sorry, but what you're saying about fricatives is utter bollocks. French influenced English very profoundly, but this influence was almost exclusively confined to vocabulary. Old English had all the voiced frivatives you mention, and used them extensively. You think English and French grammar are similar? Then how come I found French incomprehensible at school, then? It is an alien language with an alien word order. We say "green door", and they say "door green" - what the fuck is that all about?

On the subject of language, however, the Celtic language spoken in Galicia died out hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why you aren't Celts. Irish died out only within living memory (and still exists in artificially protected pockets), and Welsh is still a living language in much of North Wales - and that's why these people are Celts.

[Bridie]

You think English and French grammar are similar? Then how come I found French incomprehensible at school, then? It is an alien language with an alien word order. We say "green door", and they say "door green" - what the fuck is that all about?French is MUCH easier to learn than German. MUCH.

[Treffie]

On the subject of language, however, the Celtic language spoken in Galicia died out hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why you aren't Celts. Irish died out only within living memory (and still exists in artificially protected pockets), and Welsh is still a living language in much of North Wales - and that's why these people are Celts.

And also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammanford), in the south.

[Wulfhere]

French is MUCH easier to learn than German. MUCH.

From all that I've been told, I suspect that's true - though I've never tried to learn German. But German, though Germanic, isn't particularly closely related to English. Frisian is much closer, and Dutch somewhere in between.

[Oinakos Growion]

Sorry, but what you're saying about fricatives is utter bollocks
Read the examples I quoted above and tell me it's not true, one by one. Find any philological reference to back your claim.


this influence was almost exclusively confined to vocabulary
Same as above. Back it up.


You think English and French grammar are similar? Then how come I found French incomprehensible at school, then?
Bad teacher? Lack of vitamins? Hell if I know!


It is an alien language with an alien word order
Again: "SVO" - subject/verb/object.

Facts. Sources. That's all that matters. READ.
- Baugh, A.C. and Cable, T. (1984): A History of the English Language. Routledge, London.
You'll find chapter 5 "The Norman Conquest and the Subjection of English" most intriguing. Same applies to the external influences on English grammar, from Latin to Modern French, explained throughout the book.
- Hogg, R. and Denison, D. (2006): A History of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.
Ad Infinitum.


On the subject of language, however, the Celtic language spoken in Galicia died out hundreds or thousands of years ago
Once more: in this case, for me, language is just another important element considering the vast time periods we're dealing with, but not the exclusive. I even mentioned the legacy of the old Celtic tongue in modern Galician as a side note for that matter. I explained why I did that too.
You wanted to go down the language road. Well, if you go that way you'll find... French!

[Wulfhere]

Read the examples I quoted above and tell me it's not true, one by one. Find any philological reference to back your claim.


Same as above. Back it up.


Bad teacher? Lack of vitamins? Hell if I know!


Again: "SVO" - subject/verb/object.

Facts. Sources. That's all that matters. READ.
- Baugh, A.C. and Cable, T. (1984): A History of the English Language. Routledge, London.
You'll find chapter 5 "The Norman Conquest and the Subjection of English" most intriguing. Same applies to the external influences on English grammar, from Latin to Modern French, explained throughout the book.
- Hogg, R. and Denison, D. (2006): A History of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.
Ad Infinitum.


Once more: in this case, for me, language is just another important element considering the vast time periods we're dealing with, but not the exclusive. I even mentioned the legacy of the old Celtic tongue in modern Galician as a side note for that matter. I explained why I did that too.
You wanted to go down the language road. Well, if you go that way you'll find... French!

Though it came under heavy pressure, English survived - and eventually triumphed. Celtic languages in Spain did not. That's the difference. I'm not surprised you value language as a carrier of culture so little, because to do so would render your claim to be a Celt null and void.

[Oinakos Growion]

I'm not surprised you value language as a carrier of culture so little
Language is a fundamental part of Galician culture today. It is what vertebrates and interlinks Galician society. It is a tale of resistance and triumph.
Explaining how this evolved and became what it is today can be done but you're not worth the effort since you're obviously unable to put things in context and understand the transitions between historical periods.
You do not have a clue about Galicia. You don't know the first thing. I'm pretty sure you didn't even know where it was until this "conversation" started. And as I read more of your posts, I come to think you don't have a clue about the Iberian Peninsula in general. But instead of truly reflecting on the "debate" you dwell in your resentment and cliches. Pity.
I do hope that others might find what I write useful though. As I said I came to this forum to learn (and I am by reading around) and also to share the good things our heritage has to offer to other fellow Europeans.

And I'm still waiting for any specifics, any proper data. Until then, I rest my case.

[Wulfhere]

Language is a fundamental part of Galician culture today. It is what vertebrates and interlinks Galician society. It is a tale of resistance and triumph.
Explaining how this evolved and became what it is today can be done but you're not worth the effort since you're obviously unable to put things in context and understand the transitions between historical periods.
You do not have a clue about Galicia. You don't know the first thing. I'm pretty sure you didn't even know where it was until this "conversation" started. And as I read more of your posts, I come to think you don't have a clue about the Iberian Peninsula in general. But instead of truly reflecting on the "debate" you dwell in your resentment and cliches. Pity.
I do hope that others might find what I write useful though. As I said I came to this forum to learn (and I am by reading around) and also to share the good things our heritage has to offer to other fellow Europeans.

And I'm still waiting for any specifics, any proper data. Until then, I rest my case.

Of course I knew where Galicia is, and I'm not quite as ignorant about Iberian history as you like to think. I've made a study of Tartessos, for example. But my interest in Iberia stops with the Muslim colonisation, when it ceased to be part of any community I recognise as kin.

[Treffie]

Sorry, but what you're saying about fricatives is utter bollocks. French influenced English very profoundly, but this influence was almost exclusively confined to vocabulary. Old English had all the voiced frivatives you mention, and used them extensively. You think English and French grammar are similar? Then how come I found French incomprehensible at school, then? It is an alien language with an alien word order. We say "green door", and they say "door green" - what the fuck is that all about?



Don't most languages put the noun before the adjective?

[Wulfhere]

Don't most languages put the noun before the adjective?

So I've heard - they're just backwards.

[Oinakos Growion]

The fact that there are genetic and archaeological correspondences on the Atlantic facade doesn't mean those correspondences are celtic; which is starting from the apriorism of considering every element of Galicia or Ireland as celtic. Actually, it's likely to be the other way round: that shared by the areas on Atlantic facade is of course older, and presumably pre-celtic
And I agree in part. It is well known that vast areas of Atlantic Europe shared a common Megalith Culture for a long period of time, long before the Celts. This of course had to leave some sort of footprint. Whether the Celts adopted some of the pre-existing traditions or replaced them is something that has been long discussed and will continue to be, namely the "what exactly" changed. This can be done by "differential comparison" (I hope I'm getting the translation of the term right), in brief, comparing areas of Atlantic Megalithic Culture later occupied by Celts and areas of Megalithic Culture later occupied by Germanic peoples. In that, for instance, the issue of the settlement pattern arises as being most interesting.
It is an ongoing research, and fascinating I'd say :)


the Modern, liberal Spanish nation did not exist in 1808 when people rebelled against Napoleon. The nation was not needed because there were people linked to their land, religion, family, tradition. In that sense... and not in the absurdity of modern nationalism, I meant you are Spanish/Iberian from las Españas and what else?
Yep. And I always related that to the way monarchs were often called "King of the Spains" (Rey de las Españas), in plural, as demonstration that there were "more than one", or at least many ways and realities within it (plus the overseas colonies, which also were Españas).

[antonio]

Insightful debate. I have some things (Im not an expert just a reasonable person) to argue about the Celtic Iberia that I would want to put over the table along this weekend.

[Jack B]

Irish died out only within living memory (and still exists in artificially protected pockets)

I've met people (mainly in the West) who only speak Irish and they are only in their early 50's, as do their children etc plus a lot more speak it than people seem to think, it's a mandatory subject in schools, some lose it if they stop using it after school but still generally know the basics if they were to be retaught at a later date. Many jobs such as doctor, police etc require a good knowledge of the language, we have tv channels and radio stations, all road signs, legal documents in Irish so it doesn't feel like a dead language when you live here whether you have a good knowledge or not. It would be nice if there was more reason to continue it outside school though.

[Wulfhere]

I've met people (mainly in the West) who only speak Irish and they are only in their early 50's, as do their children etc plus a lot more speak it than people seem to think, it's a mandatory subject in schools, some lose it if they stop using it after school but still generally know the basics if they were to be retaught at a later date. Many jobs such as doctor, police etc require a good knowledge of the language, we have tv channels and radio stations, all road signs, legal documents in Irish so it doesn't feel like a dead language when you live here whether you have a good knowledge or not. It would be nice if there was more reason to continue it outside school though.

If a language needs to be promoted in such a way - with legal sanctions and subsidies - it's already dead. I can think of only one example in history where a dead language was brought back to life, and that is Hebrew. But, given that it was a liturgical language known by all educated Jews, it proved to be the only common language for the Jewish settlers in Palestine from all over the world.

[Jack B]

If a language needs to be promoted in such a way - with legal sanctions and subsidies - it's already dead.

I agree to an extent, which is why I mentioned the people that only speak Irish and nothing else, literally a few words of English. I might get some puzzled looks if I told them they were speaking a dead language. I guess it comes down to how widespread a language is in use as a first language, most speakers here would be bilingual, it's just that here English would be used more in most cases. It's hard to predict the future but I think the language is in a far better state now than it has been in recent times and I think it might get stronger. Ireland and Wales both seem to have the right approach to bringing the language back (there are small pockets in both countries where it never left), the place I would be less optimistic about is Scotland, whenever I've been there I've met very few people that had any knowledge of Scots Gaelic.

[Wulfhere]

I agree to an extent, which is why I mentioned the people that only speak Irish and nothing else, literally a few words of English. I might get some puzzled looks if I told them they were speaking a dead language. I guess it comes down to how widespread a language is in use as a first language, most speakers here would be bilingual, it's just that here English would be used more in most cases. It's hard to predict the future but I think the language is in a far better state now than it has been in recent times and I think it might get stronger. Ireland and Wales both seem to have the right approach to bringing the language back, the place I would be less optimistic about is Scotland, whenever I've been there I've met very few people that had any knowledge of Scots Gaelic.

Welsh is in a much better state than Irish though, and is actually spoken as a first language across wide areas of North Wales (with pockets in other areas). As a frequent visitor to North Wales I can attest that there are indeed people, sometimes young ones, who are not very familiar with English. But most, of course, are bilingual.

[Jack B]

Welsh is in a much better state than Irish though, and is actually spoken as a first language across wide areas of North Wales (with pockets in other areas). As a frequent visitor to North Wales I can attest that there are indeed people, sometimes young ones, who are not very familiar with English. But most, of course, are bilingual.

Yeah I agree I think a larger percentage of people speak it there overall than Ireland too, but the gap increases significantly when you compare either to Scotland

Here's an interesting video I found of an Irish comedian talking about the Irish language on an English show (he's bilingual)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls4MDuBrXSI

[Wulfhere]

Yeah I agree I think a larger percentage of people speak it there overall than Ireland too, but the gap increases significantly when you compare either to Scotland

Here's an interesting video I found of an Irish comedian talking about the Irish language on an English show (he's bilingual)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls4MDuBrXSI

Dara O'Briain's quite funny, isn't he?

[Osweo]

<<English pronunciation owes a lot to French as well. Whereas Old English had the unvoiced fricative sounds [f], [s], [θ] (as in thin), and [∫] (shin), French influence helped to distinguish their voiced counterparts [v], [z], [ð] (the), and [ʒ] (mirage), and also contributed the diphthong [ɔy] (boy)>>
F and V were distinct, due to positions in a word. They were spelt the same, but spoken differently long before any Frenchman came ashore. Some of the least French influenced dialects are very rich in 'V' sounds and 'Z's - this is a distinguishing feature of several rural accents in the south and southwest.

The 'zh' in mirage that you cite is an interesting case, actually. For its rarity outside of borrowed words. If the influence was so fundamental, wouldn't we also see it in native lexica? And if as you say 'v' and 'dh' and 'z' were chiefly catalysed by French influence, why does this other French sound not figure so widely? The answer to my mind is that French influence wasn't necessary for these others.

And what of dialect in the least Normanised areas of all? The speech of the North East, of Northumberland, is notably lacking in Frenchisms, as is that of the older dialect of the East Riding of Yorkshire. The grammar there is not too different from elsewhere, however. So how do you justify the French influence on that sphere?

And I agree in part. It is well known that vast areas of Atlantic Europe shared a common Megalith Culture for a long period of time, long before the Celts. This of course had to leave some sort of footprint.
Because of this undisputable fact, you should drop the 'Celtic' label altogether, and use something with more sense to it; ATLANTIC.

THAT is what you share with the 'Celtic Fringe' of the British Isles. The original Celts of Gaul, of south-eastern Britannia, of Noricum, of Bohemia and Belgium would probably have looked with sneering disdain upon all your 'Celtic' paraphernalia as the culture of their vanquished vassals!

Ithe place I would be less optimistic about is Scotland, whenever I've been there I've met very few people that had any knowledge of Scots Gaelic.
I have a good friend on the Isle of Skye. The language is alive and well there, and in even better shape on the OUTER Hebrides (Skye being 'inner'). I heard a fair bit there, and swapped a few phrases with some folks. :thumb001:

[Oinakos Growion]

Because of this undisputable fact, you should drop the 'Celtic' label altogether, and use something with more sense to it; ATLANTIC
Oh, but I'm very much aware of the "Atlantic link". I do firmly believe there's such a thing as "Atlantic Europe", even if it seems faint to many. I must say that the "Atlantic feeling" is quite present in all N and NW Iberia, from Basques (non-Celts) to Northern Portuguese. Maybe because the landscape and damn weather keeps you reminding that, hehe.
However, on top of the Atlantic element there still is a something differentiating some territories in the south-centre from others in the north. The only strong enough common influence had to be the Celtic element, because after the Celts other influences arriving in the Atlantic fringe were diverse. Even in terms of Germanic influence we got the Swabians, different to the northern lands, and it was a "political" influence mostly anyway (but that's a different long story now).

Re. language: French influenced, above all, the cultivated register. There obviously had to be differences in dialects and so on. For example, even where the diphthong [ɔy] (as in "boy") is mentioned I'm the first one to realise how in Ireland is often pronounced "bhoy" (think Cork :D). Still, influences remain. Not hugely massive, but existent and persistent enough in the opinion of most linguists I've read.
On a personal note and talking now from experience with students, etc I can say that in the eyes of a Romance speaker English does look like a "weird Latinised German" (not my words, but of other Romance speakers). The subject-verb-object structure is everywhere and the grammar accessible, half the words can be inferred and even in terms of pronunciation one can use other languages (including French) as a rough guide if one doesn't really know how to pronounce a specific word. That is also why English will remain as the lingua franca of the world for a long time, even if the Chinese take over :P because English did not only achieve a position of prestige, but is also relatively easy to learn for others. The Chinese could feckin' conquer the world and still it'd take a while for everybody to comply and learn the language... if ever.
Incidentally, I know of someone who's writing up a thesis on how being fluent in a Romance language improves the command of English of any English native speaker (learning a Romance language as a second language that is). There's going to be quite a few practical examples and questionnaire results. I'll let you know when it's finished and, hopefully, published :)

[Don]

Take an Arab, remove his stinking rags, give him a haircut, shave and a really good bath, stick him in jeans and a t-shirt and stand him next to a Spaniard. I defy anyone to tell which is which.

Take the defective product of an incestuous relation, punish "it" recurrently during his early stages of development. Kick it in the head. Do it again. Shackle the head gently. Then fill his deeply retarded mind ONLY with Jewish Hollywood Movies. Kick him in the head again. Present to it a woman and make her to beat it again and laugh at it. Expose the thing again to Jewish diarrea.
Do other long list of nasty-experimental things...

and you will have Wulfhere.


I defy anyone in this forum to surpass him in ignorance and tolerance to public shame.

[Wulfhere]

Take the defective product of an incestuous relation, punish "it" recurrently during his early stages of development. Kick it in the head. Do it again. Shackle the head gently. Then fill his deeply retarded mind ONLY with Jewish Hollywood Movies. Kick him in the head again. Present to it a woman and make her to beat it again and laugh at it. Expose the thing again to Jewish diarrea.
Do other long list of nasty-experimental things...

and you will have Wulfhere.


I defy anyone in this forum to surpass him in ignorance and tolerance to public shame.

Anti-Jewish, too? Definitely of Muslim descent, then.

[Curtis24]

Here's another question that expands on the thread topic: To what extent do you all believe that the Celtic culture, and celtic race(if one such race can be said to exist), are the result of the Hallstatt expansion vs. the Neolithic "Atlantic" expansion. Note I have made a distinction between race and culture, so the two should obviously be addressed separately..

[Stefan]

and celtic race

Is there any scientific evidence for such a thing to have existed?

[Curtis24]

See reedited post.

[Wulfhere]

Here's another question that expands on the thread topic: To what extent do you all believe that the Celtic culture, and celtic race(if one such race can be said to exist), are the result of the Hallstatt expansion vs. the Neolithic "Atlantic" expansion. Note I have made a distinction between race and culture, so the two should obviously be addressed separately..

Probably very little.

[Don]

Anti-Jewish, too? Definitely of Muslim descent, then.

I know perfectly who are my ancestors and mine is an honorable and virtuous Lineage of Cristianos Viejos remounted centuries in the core of Reconquista, foundation of one of my illustrious Lineages in the resistance and secular fight against invaders, precisely the people that fought and kicked the Muslims from their expansion to Europe.

You should be grateful with me and all the Spaniards, becase they are descendants of the men that stoped the Islam when these were a evolved and strong power with wishes of conquering whole Europe.

If Europe would have depended on yor inferior breed, coward and idiot loser, we already will be Islamic. Be glad and thankful to your superiors, rat, me and my ancestors, men of valor and honor, something that your baseness will never allow you to understand.

On the other side, You surely don't know who is your father.
...

In the meantime, you will be ignored ad infinitum.
You are a shame to our nations, an obstacle and a Spot in the name of Europe.

In other times and other situations I already would have cut your dirty tongue for your offenses to my Family, and probably, I would have reclaimed your valueless life as payment for such a dare, but surely you wouldn't have arrived so far, your quality and valor are known to me and some lashes are enough to see your flowing tears.

In these false and constricted times, where your inferior breed, hidden and protected his cowardice, shares virtual space with mine, pushing The command "ignore" button is my unique solution.

[Wulfhere]

I know perfectly who are my ancestors and mine is an honorable and virtuous Lineage of Cristianos Viejos remounted centuries in the core of Reconquista, foundation of one of my illustrious Lineages in the resistance and secular fight against invaders, precisely the people that fought and kicked the Muslims from their expansion to Europe.

You should be grateful with me and all the Spaniards, becase they are descendants of the men that stoped the Islam when these were a evolved and strong power with wishes of conquering whole Europe.

If Europe would have depended on yor inferior breed, coward and idiot loser, we already will be Islamic. Be glad and thankful to your superiors, rat, me and my ancestors, men of valor and honor, something that your baseness will never allow you to understand.

On the other side, You surely don't know who is your father.
...

In the meantime, you will be ignored ad infinitum.
You are a shame to our nations, an obstacle and a Spot in the name of Europe.

In other times and other situations I already would have cut your dirty tongue for your offenses to my Family, and probably, I would have reclaimed your valueless life as payment for such a dare, but surely you wouldn't have arrived so far, your quality and valor are known to me and some lashes are enough to see your flowing tears.

In these false and constricted times, where your inferior breed, hidden and protected his cowardice, shares virtual space with mine, pushing The command "ignore" button is my unique solution.

I seem to have struck a nerve :)

[Curtis24]

Anyway, people living in the British Isles have significantly different phenotypes of skin color, hair color, and eye color than people living in Spain. This points to differing ancestral influences. Yes, you can find some people, even significant amounts, in northern Spain who look very similar to English, Scots, and even Irish, but most of the country has darker skin, hair, and eyes than British Islanders.

Culturally, I'd be willing to bet both the "Celtic" countries of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, as well as Northern Spain, are both far removed from their Celtic heritage. As in all the industrialized world, modern culture has been defined more by modern technological and economic developments, and cultural distinctness is caused by regional economic characteristics.

[Ibericus]

Anyway, people living in the British Isles have significantly different phenotypes of skin color, hair color, and eye color to people living in Spain. This points to differing ancestral influences.
Of course. English people are mainly germanic, from the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans invasions.



Yes, you can find some people in northern Spain who look very similar to English, Scots, and even Irish, but most of the country has darker skin, hair, and eyes than British Islanders.
See above.

[Wyn]

Anti-Jewish, too? Definitely of Muslim descent, then.

We expelled the Jews, once.

Then we let them back in, a few hundred years later...

[Bridie]

Of course. English people are mainly germanic, from the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans invasions.



See above.The truth is still unknown today : http://heritage-key.com/britain/genetic-britain-how-roman-viking-and-anglo-saxon-genes-make-uks-dna

[Murphy]

We expelled the Jews, once.

Then we let them back in, a few hundred years later...

Correction. The Protestants let them back in ;).

[Ibericus]

The truth is still unknown today : http://heritage-key.com/britain/genetic-britain-how-roman-viking-and-anglo-saxon-genes-make-uks-dna
well, England has 14% of the typical nordic haplogorup I1, the highest outside scandinavian countries. It is clear and well documented the invasions of Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Jutes. To what extent ? well, just compare the phenotypes of english people. They are mostly northern europeans.

[Wyn]

Correction. The Protestants let them back in ;).

:thumb001:

Correct. A Catholic king expelled them, a Protestant parliamentarian encouraged their resettlement.

[Murphy]

:thumb001:

Correct. A Catholic king expelled them, a Protestant parliamentarian encouraged their resettlement.

I suppose all that is left is we lift our drinks and prayers to God and bid the return of our rightful Kings, the Stuart Monarchs!

[Wyn]

I suppose all that is left is we lift our drinks and prayers to God and bid the return of our rightful Kings, the Stuart Monarchs!

Good auld King Frankie, is it? :D

You know Elizabeth uses the title "Defender of the Faith"? Which is of course a Papal title bestowed upon Henry VIII prior to his schism/heresy. Desecration.

[Murphy]

Good auld King Frankie, is it? :D

Aye, but King Francis is getting on his years, I doubt he'll have much time left to call us to arms. So it's time we begin preparing for Queen Sophie :thumb001:!


You know Elizabeth uses the title "Defender of the Faith"? Which is of course a Papal title bestowed upon Henry VIII prior to his schism/heresy. Desecration.

Yes, she has some cheek, doesn't she? Pope grants man title of "Defender of the Faith", man is happy, man then decides to rebel against the very faith he is supposedly the defender of. That's a pretty pickle eh :D?

[Wyn]

Aye, but King Francis is getting on his years, I doubt he'll have much time left to call us to arms. So it's time we begin preparing for Queen Sophie :thumb001:!


Absolutely. I'll be throwing a coronation party. :D


Yes, she has some cheek, doesn't she? Pope grants man title of "Defender of the Faith", man is happy, man then decides to rebel against the very faith he is supposedly the defender of.

Cheek is putting it lightly. Doesn't she even attend Presbyterian ceremonies when in Scotland as part of her role as the head of the Church of Scotland? All the while giving herself a grand title like Defender of the Faith... Does she defend Anglicanism or Calvinism then?

That's one of the reasons (one, you understand, there are many) that I could never join the British Army: pledging allegiance to Elizabeth - big no-no.

[Bridie]

well, England has 14% of the typical nordic haplogorup I1, the highest outside scandinavian countries. It is clear and well documented the invasions of Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Jutes. To what extent ? well, just compare the phenotypes of english people. They are mostly northern europeans.It's not that simple. Haplogroup frequencies vary much throughout the country and can be interpreted in different ways. I'm not saying that England doesn't have significant northern continental genetic input, I'm just saying that no one knows for sure the extent. Apart from you, of course. The geneticists, archaeologists and other assorted scientists and historians cannot come to a consensus, but apparently you know it all. You should write a book, mate, you'd make a fortune.

Btw, if the English look the same as Skandinavians to you, you must have very poor differentiation skills when it comes to phenotypical/racial variation. Skandinavians have a very distinct generalised look that is miles apart from the generalised English look.

Anyway, as far as colouring goes (your original point being that the English are paler than native Brit Isles types due to Northern European input) the Irish often have paler skin than the English and the frequency of blue eyes is higher in Ireland also. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the English were significantly effected by the continental invasions regarding colouration.

[Ibericus]

Btw, if the English look the same as Skandinavians to you, you must have very poor differentiation skills when it comes to general phenotypes. Skandinavians have a very distinct generalised look that is miles apart from the generalised English look.
Read again : I said they are mainly Germanic, not just germanic.


Anyway, as far as colouring goes (your original point being that the English are paler than native Brit Isles types due to Northern European input) the Irish often have paler skin than the English and the frequency of blue eyes is higher in Ireland also.
Ireland had also germanic influx. There is a historical consensus here also. ANYWAYS, back to my point : to say Celts were like the Irish or the English is stupid, considering the invasions from Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans ,etc. But whatever..believe what you want

[Bridie]

Read again : I said they are mainly Germanic, not just germanic.No, you said :


well, just compare the phenotypes of english people. They are mostly northern europeans. Sorry, but I think of "northern Europeans" as Skandinavians, as you do too apparently :


well, England has 14% of the typical nordic haplogorup I1, the highest outside scandinavian countries.



Ireland had also germanic influx. There is a historical consensus here also. ANYWAYS, back to my point : to say Celts were like the Irish or the English is stupid, considering the invasions from Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans ,etc. But whatever..believe what you wantThat was your point? Hard to discern it from this :





Anyway, people living in the British Isles have significantly different phenotypes of skin color, hair color, and eye color to people living in Spain. This points to differing ancestral influences.
Of course. English people are mainly germanic, from the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Normans invasions.

Yes, you can find some people in northern Spain who look very similar to English, Scots, and even Irish, but most of the country has darker skin, hair, and eyes than British Islanders. See above.

But whatever.... write as incomprehensibly as you want.

[Ibericus]

No, you said :

Sorry, but I think of "northern Europeans" as Skandinavians, as you do too apparently :

When did I say scandinavians ? Sorry, but the Anglo-Saxons were northern europeans, but not Scandinavians


But whatever.... write as incomprehensibly as you want.
Why incomprehensibly ? The English are a mix of germanic, celtic, etc but mainly germanic. Yes, to say they represent the Celts is ignorant and stupid. The Irish had also germanic influx. To say that they are blonder and fairer than Spaniards because of the Celts is bullshit and ignorant. It is because of the northern tribes. The haplogroups prove this northern component. Their phenotypes are mainly NorthWestern European, from the germanic invasions. It's not rocket science.

[Bridie]

When did I say scandinavians ? Sorry, but the Anglo-Saxons were northern europeans, but not ScandinaviansI thought it was implied here :

well, England has 14% of the typical nordic haplogorup I1, the highest outside scandinavian countries.(Btw, that figure of 14% is false. And like I said, it varies much throughout the country anyway. I would expect to find higher levels of I1 to the East of England.)




Why incomprehensibly ? The English are a mix of germanic, celtic, etc but mainly germanic. Yes, to say they represent the Celts is ignorant and stupid. The Irish had also germanic influx. To say that they are blonder and fairer than Spaniards because of the Celts is bullshit and ignorant. It is because of the northern tribes. Their phenotypes are mainly NorthWestern European, from the germanic invasions. It's not rocket science.Well, that's a bit more understandable now. :p What you wrote was rather incomprehensible (to me anyway - but that could possibly be because it's 1am here now and I'm buggered) because it wasn't clear what you were trying to get at, not that what you said was wrong.

I agree that the current populations of the Brit Isles, as well as the Iberian peninsular probably do not resemble much the Celts of old. Populations are not static enough to allow that.

In any case, it's rather silly to assign a specific look (including colouration) to a language/cultural group.

[Ibericus]

I thought it was implied here :
(Btw, that figure of 14% is false. And like I said, it varies much throughout the country anyway. I would expect to find higher levels of I1 to the East of England.)

Why false ? Here you have :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Oh, and haplogroup I1 is not scandinavian. It is common in Northern Europe. It is found also in high frequencies in Germany, Holland, Estonia, etc

[Curtis24]

Anyway, as far as colouring goes (your original point being that the English are paler than native Brit Isles types due to Northern European input) the Irish often have paler skin than the English and the frequency of blue eyes is higher in Ireland also. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the English were significantly effected by the continental invasions regarding colouration.

Yes, this is possible. Its also possible that the invading Celts intermixed with the original dark-skinned, indigenous population of England; whereas, according to the Wikipedia histories of Ireland and Scotland, the indigenous populations in those areas had been experiencing great decline by the time of the Celtic invasions. In this theory, the Irish/Scottish are the closest to the original Celts. Julius Caesar claims that some of the Celts in southern England had swarthy skin; and South England, Wales, and Cornwall all have a higher incidence of brown eyes than North England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland.



Btw, if the English look the same as Skandinavians to you, you must have very poor differentiation skills when it comes to phenotypical/racial variation. Skandinavians have a very distinct generalised look that is miles apart from the generalised English look.



Well, I am far from an expert on this, but other people I consider to be experts have remarked that Scandinavia itself is more racially diverse than people think. They experienced their own invasions over the years, as well as "microevolution" due to geography creating many isolated pockets within Scandinavia. And as you remarked, the British Isles also are fairly racially diverse. So really, it depends on what British region you are comparing to what Scandinavian region.

[Wyn]

If a language needs to be promoted in such a way - with legal sanctions and subsidies - it's already dead.

No it isn't, and if you believe so then that is a very odd way to define a "dead" language. A language may be severely endangered, but that does not make it dead.

[Ibericus]

In this theory, the Irish/Scottish are the closest to the original Celts.
Scotland also received anglo-saxons and Vikings. They are far from being pure Celt, if that exists.



And if the British Isles are primarily Celtic in racial nature,
Who says this ? What about the Vikings, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, etc ?


then we don't know where the Celts came from or how close they are to Scandinavians;
Who says Celts are close to scandinavians ?

[Murphy]

Scotland also received anglo-saxons and Vikings. They are far from being pure Celt, if that exists.

And the Irish received Vikings and Normans.

[Pallantides]

Scandinavians don't really have a distinct generalised look that really set them apart from other Northern European populations, many British can pass as Scandinavians and the other way around.


I have even seen Welshmen who look like people from Sogndal in western Norway.

[Hussar]

Btw, if the English look the same as Skandinavians to you, you must have very poor differentiation skills when it comes to phenotypical/racial variation. Skandinavians have a very distinct generalised look that is miles apart from the generalised English look.
Anyway, as far as colouring goes (your original point being that the English are paler than native Brit Isles types due to Northern European input) the Irish often have paler skin than the English and the frequency of blue eyes is higher in Ireland also. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the English were significantly effected by the continental invasions regarding colouration.


I'm not going to write a long and boring post on the matter, but summarizing with logic........yes, generally the look of british isles, although mostly north-europid isn't the same of Scandinavia.

Both for phisionomy and complexion. And the this difference is fully perceived by the collective perception : i mean that in the british popular culture the scandinavian type is portraied as charachteristic and recognizeable from the british average phenotype.

A thing i noticed since the childhood : the sexual myth of the "scandinavian tall blond goddess" is common in Italy.....but in England too ! Now........usually a particular phenotypic trait is regarded as desirable if exotic (in the sense of rare). In Italy such traits are RARE, so the usual italian appreciation of them is understandable. But WHY even in England ? There is just an answer : because, pehaps, the number of so called "blond tall goddesses" are not as common as in Scandinavia.

[Bridie]

Why false ? Here you have :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtmlHave a browse through the Eupedia Forum and see how reliable the stats given seem to be....



Oh, and haplogroup I1 is not scandinavian. It is common in Northern Europe. It is found also in high frequencies in Germany, Holland, Estonia, etcDepends on who is providing the stats, it seems...

http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAProject/Haplogroup-I.png

It does vary somewhat. Probably due to inconsistencies in sample groups.

[Ibericus]

Have a browse through the Eupedia Forum and see how reliable the stats given seem to be....


Depends on who is providing the stats, it seems...
well, you can find any other sources. All sources have England with high levels of I1. Nothin new.



http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAProject/Haplogroup-I.png

It does vary somewhat. Probably due to inconsistencies in sample groups.
This is a map of the whole haplogroup I, not the I1 that is specific of northern people.

[Bridie]

I notice you have listed "Celtiberian" as your ethnicity Iberia... since you are being so pedantic about who can be considered representative of the ancient Celts and who can't, seems to me that you should remove the "Celt" bit there. ;) Afterall, the ancient homelands of the Celts in Iberia have hardly remained unchanged for the last few thousand years. You certainly have no more claim on the title "Celt" than anyone in the British Isles... English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh.

[Ibericus]

I notice you have listed "Celtiberian" as your ethnicity Iberia... since you are being so pedantic about who can be considered representative of the ancient Celts and who can't,
No im not pendantic. Im just tired of people saying the british isles are only Celtic, and that Germanic invasions have nothing to do with the blonde hair and fair skin...


seems to me that you should remove the "Celt" bit there. ;
Sorry. That is my ancestry, not gonna change it.


Afterall, the ancient homelands of the Celts in Iberia have hardly remained unchanged for the last few thousand years. You certainly have no more claim on the title "Celt" than anyone in the British Isles... English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh.
I never said we are more Celt than the british isles.

[Bridie]

well, you can find any other sources. All sources have England with high levels of I1. Nothin new."Quite high". Sounds scientific. :cool: Varies according to the region of England.



This is a map of the whole haplogroup I, not the I1 that is specific of northern people.I1 is recognisable there as M253.

[Bridie]

No im not pendantic. Im just tired of people saying the british isles are only Celtic, and that Germanic invasions have nothing to do with the blonde hair and fair skin...It does stand to reason that due to climatic factors NW Europe will have a fairer population than SW Europe, despite any common ancient (Celtic) ancestry.



Sorry. That is my ancestry, not gonna change it.
Doesn't bother me, I wasn't the one being pedantic about it all. :swl



I never said we are more Celt than the british isles.Then what was the point in going on about how any increased depigmentation in the Brit Isles must be a result of northern continental migration therefore accounting for differences between the Celts in Iberia and the Celts of the Brit Isles?

Bloody hell, I think I need to go to bed....

[Ibericus]

It does stand to reason that due to climatic factors NW Europe will have a fairer population than SW Europe, despite any common ancient (Celtic) ancestry.
Blondism in the biritsh isles has more to do with the germanic invasions than climatic reasons, but whatever...



Doesn't bother me, I wasn't the one being pedantic about it all. :swl
I was not pedantic.


Then what was the point in going on about how any increased depigmentation in the Brit Isles must be a result of northern continental migration therefore accounting for differences between the Celts in Iberia and the Celts of the Brit Isles?
Bloody hell, I think I need to go to bed....
Somebody said the british isles are pure Celt, and that the high frequency of blondism and fair skin is because of the Celts, and not because of the Northern germanic invasions. Well, that's not fucking true. The northern invasions were very important, you can see it not only in genetics, which the english people in Autosomal dna are clustered to northern people, also in haplogroups the high presence of I1 confirms this nordic influx, but can see it also in the phenotypes the great influence of nordic people. Have a good night.

[Bridie]

I was not pedantic.
Yes, you were. :wink

[Ibericus]

Yes, you were. :wink

why

[Bridie]

Blondism in the biritsh isles has more to do with the germanic invasions than climatic reasons, but whatever...
Oh, and I have a new proposal to explain the high level of blondism in the British Isles...



http://www.tintsofnature.com.au/products/tints/image/hair_dye_blonde_01.jpg

;)

Seems a bit more realistic to me.....

[Treffie]

Somebody said the british isles are pure Celt, and that the high frequency of blondism and fair skin is because of the Celts, and not because of the Northern germanic invasions. Well, that's not fucking true. The northern invasions were very important, you can see it not only in genetics, which the english people in Autosomal dna are clustered to northern people, also in haplogroups the high presence of I1 confirms this nordic influx, but can see it also in the phenotypes the great influence of nordic people. Have a good night.

Who said that?

[Liffrea]

Blondes aren’t rare as such in England; there is an obvious cline from east to west as regards light hair (I mean from the Baltic Sea outwards). Naturally there are more blondes in Sweden than England, more in northern Germany than northern Italy. Where I live in the East Midlands the standard look, as far as it can be taken, is dark hair (as in dark shades of brown) and blue eyes.

However it is erroneous to equate hair and/or eye colour to a cultural/linguistic group. Recent evidence suggests that light hair and eyes are some 10-20,000 years old (probably evolving towards the end of the LGM) and probably originated somewhere around the Baltic Sea region. The oldest archaeological evidence for Germanic people doesn’t stretch much beyond 750BC, and most scholars would place the earliest Indo-European presence in northern Europe between 4-2,000BC.

We also know from Tacitus (AD56-117) that the British Isles displayed as varied a population as it does today, Tacitus writes about blonde haired Celts resident in the British Isles several centuries before any large scale Germanic presence can reasonably be deduced, so the belief that because you have blonde hair and/or blue eyes means you are a descendent of Anglo-Saxon immigrants (many of whom, if not most, by the way, would have had R1b haplotypes not I, the Danish male population today is over half R1b and R1b isn’t uncommon in coastal Norway, the use of haplotypes to mark migration is open to considerable error, which is why geneticists are increasingly interested in overall population genetics) is not necessarily correct.

[Ibericus]

Who said that?


In this theory, the Irish/Scottish are the closest to the original Celts.

[Treffie]

In this theory, the Irish/Scottish are the closest to the original Celts.

Not the same as


Iberia
Somebody said the british isles are pure Celt

[Ibericus]

(many of whom, if not most, by the way, would have had R1b haplotypes not I, the Danish male population today is over half R1b and R1b isn’t uncommon in coastal Norway, the use of haplotypes to mark migration is open to considerable error, which is why geneticists are increasingly interested in overall population genetics) is not necessarily correct.
Well, the high presence of I1 but with a strong R1b-U106 which is the germanic kind, by the way. Anyways, I repeat : Their autosomal dna puts them closer to nordic people. Examples (from different studies) :

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/13/science/figure1a_600.jpg

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/2544/laoplotvu4.jpg


http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7897/ejhg2008210f3th9.jpg

[Pallantides]

Well, the high presence of I1 but with a strong R1b-U106 which is the germanic kind, by the way.

Thank god ...he he just joking. :p

[Curtis24]

Somebody said the british isles are pure Celt, and that the high frequency of blondism and fair skin is because of the Celts, and not because of the Northern germanic invasions. Well, that's not fucking true. The northern invasions were very important, you can see it not only in genetics, which the english people in Autosomal dna are clustered to northern people, also in haplogroups the high presence of I1 confirms this nordic influx, but can see it also in the phenotypes the great influence of nordic people. Have a good night.

If this is the case, then the Vikings/prehistorical Scandinavians must have mostly replaced the native populations of Ireland and Scotland. It is harder to believe it was the Vikings than it was the prehistorical Norse invasion around ca. 3000 BCE(that date may be wrong). The Vikings would have had to have killed a very large number of the pop., or starved them to death through ravaging of the countryside. Whereas, the population probably wasn't as saturated during the prehistorical Norse invasion, making it easier for those Norse people to have a greater genetic impact.

Furthermore Iberia, are you assuming that the Celts were *not* genetically Northwest European? Where is the evidence for that, if so?

[Ibericus]

If this is the case, then the Vikings/prehistorical Scandinavians must have mostly replaced the native populations of Ireland and Scotland. It is harder to believe it was the Vikings than it was the prehistorical Norse invasion around ca. 3000 BCE(that date may be wrong). The Vikings would have had to have killed a very large number of the pop., or starved them to death through ravaging of the countryside. Whereas, the population probably wasn't as saturated during the prehistorical Norse invasion, making it easier for those Norse people to have a greater genetic impact.
WHat prehistorical are you talking about ? The Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Jutes, settled the british isles from the 5th (of our era) onwords


Furthermore Iberia, are you assuming that the Celts were *not* genetically Northwest European? Where is the evidence for that, if so?
What the fuck are you talking about ? The Celts were central Europeans from Hallstatt and La Tene, not northern Europe

[Osweo]

Well, that's not fucking true.


What the fuck are you talking about ?

:rolleyes:

You really ought to consider altering your style just a little. I mean, I swear a lot, on here and in real life, but I like to think that I do so to fit the context. :ohwell:

Anyroad, 'mainly' is probably pushing it, for the Germanic impact on England. How do you count this sort of thing? Divide all the 5th Century ancestors of all the modern English into two parts? That's roughly 60 generations ago. A man would have 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 ancestors at that time. Many, or even most, would be doubled, but we can still do the maths..

I bet about 1,ooo,ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo would be Germanic... :p 40%, let's say.

[Stefan]

Furthermore Iberia, are you assuming that the Celts were *not* genetically Northwest European? Where is the evidence for that, if so?

I'm not going to get into the details of the debate, I'm just going to question your logic of associating a genetic situation with that of a single cultural expansion such as that found in a language. Don't you think it is ridiculous to associate Celts, an ethno-language group that entered Western Europe well after the origin of the first people whom contributed to the modern European genome, with that of a modern(or historical) population group that has many upon many upon many contributions. My mtDNA for example probably has been in Central and Western Europe well before a tongue of Indo-European was spoken. It just sounds crazy to me to sign Celts as Northwestern European when they have had their presence and influence, one that didn't originate in Northwestern Europe, in other regions like Central and Southern Europe. Celts were genetically many things, hardly a homogeneous(genetically at least) group.

Edit: What I'm trying to get at, which I don't thing I made clear, is that rather than it being that Celts were genetically Northwestern European, it was and still is the case(for some) that some Northwestern Europeans were influenced by Celts just like some Central Europeans, and some Southern Europeans were influenced by Celts. The differences between the groups is a matter of other influences either prehistorical or historical.

[Pallantides]

Haters gonna hate!
http://ahoramismitos.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/asterix.jpg

[Curtis24]

WHat prehistorical are you talking about ? The Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Jutes, settled the british isles from the 5th (of our era) onwords


What the fuck are you talking about ? The Celts were central Europeans from Hallstatt and La Tene, not northern Europe

Please alter your tone.

When I say "prehistorical", I mean before the introduction of writing to the British Isles by the Romans, because "history" is the study of written documents; thus prehistory in Britain extends up to the Roman occupation.

Genetic studies have shown that there was a migration of Scandinavian peoples to North England around 3000 B.C. I thought you would have already known this, because Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes both discuss this in their books, and earlier in the thread you seemed to be an adherent of both men(for instance, claiming that Brits were racial "Iberians").

Second, the population in Central Europe may now be racially different from Northern Europeans, but that doesn't mean that population was during the time of the Celts.

[Ibericus]

Please alter your tone.

When I say "prehistorical", I mean before the introduction of writing to the British Isles by the Romans, because "history" is the study of written documents; thus prehistory in Britain extends up to the Roman occupation.
That's bullshit. That is not prehistory, since Writting existed before the Romans.



Second, the population in Central Europe may now be racially different from Northern Europeans, but that doesn't mean that population was during the time of the Celts.
This doesn't make any sense. What made central europeans change their race ?

[Curtis24]

I'm not going to get into the details of the debate, I'm just going to question your logic of associating a genetic situation with that of a single cultural expansion such as that found in a language. Don't you think it is ridiculous to associate Celts, an ethno-language group that entered Western Europe well after the origin of the first people whom contributed to the modern European genome, with that of a modern(or historical) population group that has many upon many upon many contributions. My mtDNA for example probably has been in Central and Western Europe well before a tongue of Indo-European was spoken. It just sounds crazy to me to sign Celts as Northwestern European when they have had their presence and influence, one that didn't originate in Northwestern Europe, in other regions like Central and Southern Europe. Celts were genetically many things, hardly a homogeneous(genetically at least) group.

Edit: What I'm trying to get at, which I don't thing I made clear, is that rather than it being that Celts were genetically Northwestern European, it was and still is the case(for some) that some Northwestern Europeans were influenced by Celts just like some Central Europeans, and some Southern Europeans were influenced by Celts. The differences between the groups is a matter of other influences either prehistorical or historical.



I agree with much of what you said, but there are some cases where you *can* associate a genetic situation with a single cultural expansion. I would say that, for instance, the settling of North America by Europeans pretty much fits this bill. In the same way, it is entirely possible that the Celts did wipe out or absorb the indigenous populations of the British Isles, especially Scotland and Ireland, since the Celtic-speaking people were technologically superior to the indigenous Britons, as well as having a warlike culture as evidenced by the placement of their settlements on hilltops and their heavy fortifications.

[Ibericus]

The areas thought to be the origin of Celts are mostly the branch R1b-P312, coinciding with the areas where is tought Celts strongly settled. However the areas settled mostly by Germanics are mostly R1b-U106

[Curtis24]

The areas thought to be the origin of Celts are mostly the branch R1b-P312, coinciding with the areas where is tought Celts strongly settled. However the areas settled mostly by Germanics are mostly R1b-U106

First, can I have a link to that study?
Second, these genetics still don't explain why a majority of Spanish compared to a majority of Irish/Scottish still look different from each other, with the Spanish having darker(though not as dark as portrayed in Hollywood) skin and a much lower incidence of light hair and blue eyes. Physical traits are inherited, so if two different populations have different physical appearances, they have different ancestries.

[Ibericus]

First, can I have a link to that study?
Second, these genetics still don't explain why the Spanish and Irish/Scottish still look different from each other, with the Spanish having darker(though not as dark as portrayed in Hollywood) skin and a much lower incidence of light hair and blue eyes.
There are no pure celts anywhere. As for the different loooks the Celts in Iberia mixed with the native iberians, who were darker. The Scottish and Irish mixed with vikings and anglo-saxons.

As for the R1b-P312 related to proto-Celts :

http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-celtic-origin-revise/