The Celtic Question!

[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

[GlassMan]

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

Excellent post James.

And the numbers based on genetic testing really highlight why I am concerned with the desire in some quarters to claim Scottish culture and heritage as Nordic. The language is not Nordic, incredibly amounts of the culture are widely divergent, the norse peoples were viewed as invaders and not admired by our ancestors, and the Nordic blood is not in the majority. Scots are not primarily Germanic. If someone for some reason is uncomfortably admitting their heritage and desires to claim Nordic ancestry, that's fine. But there is nothing superior about Nordic culture, the Nordic peoples, or the Nordic blood. It is simply different; neither superior nor inferior, just different. Personally, I don't quite understand this desire to ascribe Scottish accomplishments, which make perfect sense as indigenous developments, to an outside culture.

And I for one and proud to embrace all of the bloodlines which flow through my veins.