The Celtic Question!

[James]

Rather than muddy the existing thread about explaining the Celtic connection, I felt it better to start afresh.

My comments must be based upon the British Isles with an emphasis upon the mainland: so cannot relate to such groups as Bretons, Basques and the like.

The problem which is the subject of much debate is - What is Celtic and to what extent are things ascribed to the Celts, are in fact not Celtic: even are some people who think of themselves Celtic, not Celtic.

Here we must remember that the Teuton/Celt divide was a purely arbitary one devised by the Romans for their own convenience. Which might support the suggestion that Celtic is in fact an ascription rather than a fact in some cases!

This is not to deny the influence of this or that culture that has spread beyond what might be seen as its natural bounds: a consequence being that here in Britain there are many strands to our culture of today, some native, and some by accretion.

The problem is further compounded by the history often written by churchmen which suggests that the Scandinavian people were demonised because of the Viking raids. A further demonisation occurring in respect of the Scots long standing albeit sporadic warfare with the English or Saxons. A certain humour being imported by the fact that Welsh-possibly Celtic troops fighting on the English side were subsumed under the English/Saxon banner. Yet many so called good Scots names can in fact be traced to Norman roots, and Normandy was settled by Vikings.

All this lead to an arbitary assumption that there were the nice Celts and the nasty Saxons/English. Which is what I for one was taught at school, and certainly is still being taught.

However this notion started to falter, when such things as Scandinavian artwork was investigated, and the roots of what was seen as Celtic knotwork appeared not to be Celtic, rather Scandinavian*. Further research into such things as place names, aside from the known Viking settlements in the north and Isles-indicated a much stronger Scandinavian influence than previously thought.
*There was and might still be a display showing the evolution of what is seen today as Deltic design, in the Oslo Ship Museum.

Again there is a sense of humour, when seeing very obviously Scandinavian heathen designs being sold in both churches and gift shops as being Celtic. Thus I have seen in a Christian cathedral, items being sold which indicate that the wearer has devoted their entire being to the service of Odin.

All this is leading to some interesting debates, and opening up futher areas of investigation as to the truth about the Celts, and to what extent some people are truly Celtic, or are they something else entirely. Albeit having absorbed some aspcts of Celtic culture. The other side of the coin being the fact that those of apparently genuine Celtic origin have absorbed certain aspects from other cultures.

Presently the whole question is in a state of flux, and without doubt will be so for many years to come.

The reality being that whatever we are today is an amalgum of many bloodlines and influences, be those influences cultural and or social.

However it also means that it would be wrong to place too much stress upon an assumed Celtic origin, which might turn out to be entirely or partly wrong. Rather we should be saying that our heritage is a rich one of many strands, and for at least the time being leave it at that.

To end on a personal note, whilst a few years ago I would have been happy to look a purely Celtic root of my own being, it is no longer the case. Rather I will look to my own clan and leave it at that: rather than risk importing possibly false ideas. For I'd prefer to lay a claim that I can justify in respect of my wearing the tartan of my own family: rather than walk under a possibly false flag: just as there are many tartans I'd not wear because I cannot claim any connection to them.

James

[andyfg]

James, thanks for a very sensible post. There is clearly a wealth of research and scholarship behind your comments. You have my applause!

Given the very mixed heritage of most of us, I have found it helpful (for myself) to speak in terms of "the spirit" of the Celts. It's not without its own problems, but at least it avoids the divisive problems of nationalism, partisanship and "pure blood."

[davedove]

The reality being that whatever we are today is an amalgum of many bloodlines and influences, be those influences cultural and or social.

I would go so far as to say there is probably no such thing as a pure culture today. Every area has been influenced by to at least a degree. As peoples meet and blend, traditions and practices are adopted. The best you can say, using the Celts as an example, is that a practice is/was a part of Celtic culture at a particular time.

[Livingston]

As has been said many times on this board....I am awed by the vast wealth of knowledge our residents have.

[Iolaus]

Here we must remember that the Teuton/Celt divide was a purely arbitary one devised by the Romans for their own convenience. Which might support the suggestion that Celtic is in fact an ascription rather than a fact in some cases!

Could you expand a little more on this point? I was under the impression that Teutonic poeples were the same thing as the Germanic, (my paternal heritage is northern Germanic). Was I mis-informed, or is there a closer tie between the Germans and the Celts than I realised?

[davedove]

Could you expand a little more on this point? I was under the impression that Teutonic poeples were the same thing as the Germanic, (my paternal heritage is northern Germanic). Was I mis-informed, or is there a closer tie between the Germans and the Celts than I realised?

It's my understanding that the Germanic people in Roman times WERE Celts, at least until the times of the later invasions from the east.

[Colin]

Great post James. I think alot of people just assume that becasue they have some ancestry from the British Isles, that they are a Celt. A good friend and neighbor is from Northern Spain, and she has as much (if not more) Celtic culture that I do (family all from the Highlands). I know that base don where my family was from, I likely get my height and red beard from sources other than Celt or Pict.

Of course the "I'm a Celt" mentality may be the result of marketing by tourism departments, and a more generalixed way of explaining family sources from all over the British Isles. After all it is easier to say "I am a Celt" than it is "my family is from Scotland/Ireland/England/Wales/the Isle of Man/etc"

[GlassMan]

Absolutely excellent post and very well written. Throughout time neighboring cultures have borrowed from one another. It is absolutely correct to say that nothing is pure anything and therefore to acknowledge the mixing of cultures. And it is especially important when dealing with merchant cultures.

The Norse were a trading people and also an exploring people. They influenced and were in turn influenced by cultures throughout Europe all the way to the Urals. And while the chronicles focus on the time when they began to ravage their neighbors through raids, archeological evidence implies that there were centuries of contact and peaceful trade before hand. Also, once the raiding period of history ended, the Vikings tended to settle down in their new surroundings and return to being merchants while also establishing themselves as rulers. However, during the time of the Romans, the Norse were established only in Scandinavia.

However, we need to be careful about our terminology. The Nordic or Tuetonic peoples are not at all the same thing as the ones the Romans described as "German." Celts did cover the area of western Europe and Northern Italy during the early Roman period. The Romans called the Celts in Central Europe Germans after the strongest of the Celtic tribes in the area. The Celts of France and Northern Italy were called Gauls. And other names were used for the Celts in Britain. So it really isn't appropriate to say that the Romans differentiated between Celts & Germans, but rather between Gauls & Germans, both of which were Celtic.

Why were they Celtic? They were Celtic by linquistic classification. The Romans never encountered the peoples of Scandinavia who were not Celtic but were already Nordic/Teutonic. The languages spoken today in most of Western Europe are not Celtic however. What happened?

What happened was the expansion of the Huns from the steppes of Central Asia during the days of the Roman Empire. As the Huns moved from Central Asia towards Europe they displaced the Slavs who migrated West. The Slavic Migration westward in turn displaced the Teutonic/Nordic peoples who had to feel westward. This Westward movement of the Teutonic (now called Germanic peoples) forced the Celts to abandon Germany, Gaul & Iberia (Spain) to various Teutonic/German tribes. In essence the Celts once occupied all of Western Europe (except Scandinavia), the Teutonic peoples (those we now call Germanic) occupied Eastern Europe, and the Slavs occupied European Russia, and other parts to the East. But as the Huns conquered westward they kept putting pressure on different ethnic/linquistic groups who in turn displaced other ethnic/linguistic groups.

Once this massive series of Migrations were over, and the Huns lost their charismatic leader Attila and then faded from history, a new ethnic/linquistic map emerged in Europe. Modern Spain & France had already been Romanized before the Migrations and so their by now Latin vernacular found itself dealing with new migrants. The germanic Franks (Germanic in the modern sense and not in the original meaning of the word) now occupied and ruled over France as vassals of Rome. Visigoths occupied Spain. Ostrogoths settled in the Balkans under the protection of the Eastern Roman Empire. Vandals (another Teutonic Tribe) actually crossed over the Mediterannean and established themselves on the northern coast of Africa! Celts had been pushed back to the fringes of Europe and survived in Britain, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Brittany & Galicia. But even that didn't last long as the Angles, Saxons & Jutes invaded and conquered England.

That the Teutonic invaders (called Germanic peoples by us) should adopt some customs from the vanquished Celts is not suprising. The migratting peoples didn't completely evict the Celtic populations, but rather established themselves as a higher strata of society and eventually absorbed them as the two cultures comingled. You can see this best in the way the languages developed. English is a great example of this. It maintains within it words that are closely related to all of the different languages that joined the mix: French, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Latin, and more!

You can see an excellent example of how these linguistic groups came to differentiate by looking at the Franks. When Charlemagne established his empire after the fall of Rome, all of his people (at least the warrior classes) spoke the Frankish language. But when he died he divided his empire in 3 to give each of his sons a kingdom. One son inherited France; another Germany; the third Lotharingia, a strip of land running from the modern Low Countries to Switzerland. Lotharingia was quickly invaded by the other two kingdoms.

However, when peace was finally declared by the descendants of the sons of Charlemagne, the two armies found they could no longer communicate with each other. The Franks of France had absorbed much of the language and culture of the Gallo-Romans they had conquered during the migration and their language had become the earliest version of French, a primarily Romance language. The Franks of Germany, on the other hand, had not conquered a culture they considered superior, having conquered Celts & not a romanized people, and their language had remained Teutonic.

This all leads to a scholarly question. When we find ancient examples of artistic motifs in multiple cultural settings (the scrollwork in Celtic, & Nordic designs for example) to which culture do we ascribe the original authorship?

Yes, the scrollwork and knotwork are found in the Celtic lands and also in Scandinavia. But did the Norse bring it with them when they traded with the Celts? Or did they find it in goods that they purchased from the Celts? Or was it Celtic, adopted by the new Teutonic rulers and neighbors in Central Europe (modern Germany) and then absorbed their Teutonic neighbors to the North?

Or does it predate both of them? Some Art Historians have seen the origin of these motifs in the carving and metalwork of even earlier groups that predate both the Celts & the Norse. The Beaker Peoples covered Britain & Western Europe during the Bronze age and there are elaborate spirals in their art that in later pieces began to intertwine. Although, even the Beaker People as an entity is not a matter of certainty. Early scholars felt that the rapid disemination of a single artistic and manufacturing style had to be an example of an ethnic invastion or migration. But many modern scholars are feeling that it was simply a spread of technology among neighboring groups.

Sadly, since none of these cultures left us written records it is mainly conjecture based off of archeological remains and the writtings of other cultures, primarily the Romans.

What is important is to remember the mixing as you stated but also not to forget that it is still the base culture that is important. We start by describing the base and then explaining the admixtures. And always to mention conflicting theories as possible alternative explanations.

But of utmost necessity is to engage in absolute clarity of terms. The Germans of the days of Augustus Ceasar were not the Germans of the day of Charlemagne nor are they the Germans of today. Germanic as an adjective used to describe something from 55 BC is describing a specific set of tribal characteristics within a broader Celtic spectrum. While Germanic as an adjective used to describe something from 800 BC is describing something of Teutonic origin and not Celtic at all. The confusion comes in conflating the two terms that hold vastly different meanings because of their different cultural and chronological references.

And lets not forget that the differences between the Celtic Germans & the Teutonic Germans is one of language and custom. The Celtic German DNA was still there during the time of the Teutonic Germans, but it had been subsumed as a part of the Teutonic German entity. What hand changed was the dominant form of cultural expression.

Okay, that was more than a bit rambling and may not make as much sense as I'd like since I have been interrupted several times during its composition.

[Big Dave]

Hey Glassman that's one long read, and quite informative. I still don't think there is anything wrong with calling ones self a "Celt" or even "Celtic", it's a sign of respect for those who's history we just want to live on.

[Rob]

The problem which is the subject of much debate is - What is Celtic and to what extent are things ascribed to the Celts, are in fact not Celtic: even are some people who think of themselves Celtic, not Celtic.

James has really managed to start something here. Who is a Celt and who isn’t? What is Celtic and what isn’t?


It seems that until the 18th century, no one in the British Isles thought of him/herself as a Celt. The whole ‘Celtic’ thing started when linguists discovered that the Brythonic and Goidelic language families were not only related to each other, but were also related to the Celtic languages of continental Europe. A language tree was constructed for what became known as the Indo-European group of languages, of which the Celtic sub-group formed one of the main branches. As the languages of pre-Roman Britain and Ireland were different from, but related to, the continental Celtic languages, the sub-branch became known as Insular Celtic. The next level of branching was into the Brythonic and Goidelic sub-sub-branches. The Brythonic languages were spoken in Britain and the Goidelic in Ireland.


But who were the people who spoke these languages, and did they always speak these languages? It is at this point that we need to take a look at the modern science of population genetics. It would seem that currently the populations of Britain and Ireland are mainly drawn from three source populations. These are (1) the people who occupied (and in the Basque territory still occupy) Northern Iberia, (2) the Germanic people of North West Europe (mainly from Angeln, Schleswig-Holstein, Jutland, Frisia and Denmark), and (3) the Nordic people of coastal Norway. The first migrants to Britain and Ireland at the end of the last Ice Age (about 10,000 years ago) were the Northern Iberians (who became the indigenous Britons). Their descendents in Britain are genetically almost identical to the Basques. They would undoubtedly have spoken a language that was non-Indo-European, i.e. a proto-Basque language. At some time between then and the early Iron Age, a new Celtic language was introduced into Britain and Ireland, probably via trade links with the Celtic-speaking people of central Europe. Well before the arrival of the Romans in Britain, the division of the Insular Celtic language into Brythonic and Goidelic had occurred.


As to when the first of the Germanic people arrived in Britain, it is not precisely known. Some may have been employed by the Romans as mercenary troops (the so-called ‘foederati’), but it is generally agreed that the bulk of them arrived on the eastern side of Britain shortly after the Romans departed, and eventually (over a period of more than 200 years) spread throughout what was to become England (although unevenly so). The unconquered area in the west of Britain, south of Hadrian’s Wall, became Wales (which acquired that name from an Anglo-Saxon word ‘wealas’ meaning ‘foreigner’). At about the same time, Irish tribes (known by the Romans as ‘Scotti’) migrated from the northern part of Ireland to western Caledonia, bringing their Gaelic (Goidelic) language with them. They were to eventually conquer the whole of Caledonia, which was then named after them, and became Scotland. Later still, Britain and Ireland (together with the Northern and Western Isles and the Isle of Man) were raided and then settled by migrants from Norway (Norwegian Vikings). In mainland Britain their settlements were very restricted (mainly to the extreme north of the Scottish mainland and Cumbria), but other Vikings from Denmark made a considerable migrational impact in eastern England, adding to the Germanic Angles who were already occupying this region.


So who ended up where? Genetic surveys have mostly answered this question. The population of Ireland remained largely indigenous, as did Wales (about 90%). In Scotland, the picture was a little more mixed, especially in the Northern and Western Isles, where between 30% and 50% of the population is descended from the Norwegian Vikings. On the Scottish mainland the indigenous peoples dominate (from 75% to 90%). In England the situation is a lot more complicated, but on average about 60% are descendents of the indigenous Britons, and the remainder are mostly descendents of the Germanic settlers (Anglo-Saxons and Danes). The geographical variations are large. In eastern England from East Anglia through to Yorkshire, the Germanic element of the population represents between 60% and 70% of the total, with the remainder being descendents of the indigenous Britons. Throughout the rest of England the proportion of indigenous British descendents ranges from 50% to 75%, this figure being highest (70% to 75%) in the South of England from Kent to Cornwall, and similar to this in Northumbria (about 70%).


Which of these people should be termed Celts? Here we run into problems of definition. Do we define the Celts as those people from the areas where the descendents of the indigenous Britons are still in the majority? Do we define the Celts as the people who live in the areas where the Insular Celtic languages are still spoken, or were spoken until recent centuries? If so, what do we mean by recent centuries? We also run across anomalies. The region of Scotland where current usage of the Gaelic language is strongest is in the Western Isles, yet this is the region of Scotland where the indigenous Britons (‘Celts’) are fewest. In the South of England, the descendents of the Britons predominate (about 75%), but whereas in Kent, the Brythonic language disappeared soon after the Anglo-Saxons arrived and the place-names are solidly Anglo-Saxon (Old English), as we progress westward, the density of Brythonic derived place-names increases rapidly, and finally in Cornwall the Brythonic language (Cornish) did not completely disappear as the native language until the end of the 18th century.


There would appear to be no straightforward answer to the question of who are Celts in Britain and Ireland. The answer can be anything from no one, if we believe that the true Celts were the continental Celts such as the Gauls, to about 70% of the people of Britain and Ireland if we choose to define the Celts as those whose ancestors were Britons and spoke an Insular Celtic language. If we define the Celts as those who currently speak an Insular Celtic language, the total number of Celts drops to a very small percentage of the population of Britain and Ireland. The simple answer to the question of who are Celts, and who are not, is that there is no simple answer.


Rob