Question concerning the Celts of the British Isles

[Eberhard]

I've been seeing more and more references that the British Celts aren't even considered as "Celts" anymore because of culture differences between the mainland Celts. Are these sources to be trusted, meaning everything written in the history books is to be false? I'd like to know if any Celtic history buffs agree with all of the British Isles hype that's been going around lately, because it could change the game dramatically.

Personally I find it ridiculous that the Celts of the British Isles are to be excluded from the culture because of a few recent studies from seemingly hateful sources.

[Laundreu]

As far as I have been seeing/hearing, it's less 'they're not Celts' and more 'they were Celts by cultural assimilation rather than by fire and sword'. Thing is, 'Celt' is so ill-defined that there is quite a bit of wiggle-room there - were the Gaels/Goidels Celts? They had a helluvalot of Iberian influence, after all. What about the Picts? Hell, some historians think that the Sweboz were Celtic tribes as well (though I don't agree with that interpretation personally).

[khelvan]

I think if Ranika saw this he would start bleeding from his eyes.

[Barbarossa82]

Surely they were true celts, at least after the Gaels supplanted the Brythonic people?

[Watchman]

I've been told the whole category "Celt" is a bit vague umbrella moniker for vast numbers of rather different peoples chiefly connected by the style and technology of their artefacts - the spread and diffusion of which happens easily enough without great shifts in population patterns AFAIK.

But I'll readily admit my ignorance on the topic.

[Tellos Athenaios]

AFAIK the 'Celts' is a word for a variety of tribes, spreading all the way from Anatolia to Ireland, and is based on a similarity in some cultural aspects.

Compare it to what is called 'Western' today. In some ways, France an the US have a cultural bond, but that doesn't mean that both cultures are the same, far from it.

On the Britons: I thought that they were the result from Celtic 'invasions' and the local people mixing into, what in Celtic terms is, a rather outdated set of tribes.

But I'll readily admit my ignorance on the topic.

The same for me here.

[Eberhard]

I think if Ranika saw this he would start bleeding from his eyes.

I'm pretty irked by it as well, but I mean to set the record straight. Maybe Ranika can offer his infinite wisdom on the subject, since I only consider myself somewhat versed in its intricacies.

I've thought for quite some time now that the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe and began to flourish in the northern Alps region, or modern Switzerland and Austria. From there the culture spread down into Northern Italy, to the East into modern Turkey, to the West in parts of Iberia, to the Northwest into the British Isles as well as throughout France.

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

Possibly many of the Paleo-Atlantids of the British Isles just remained less touched by Celtic influence, or even mixed their cultures in a different way compared to the mainland Celts. Which could explain certain "dark" characteristics of the Gaels, Picts, etc. and even the modern Celtiberians. The dark look of many modern day Irish doesn't necessarily mean Iberian or Mediterranid influence, but perhaps recessive genes showing themselves. The whole Basque/Irish thing comes to mind as an example.

As a side note, I'm not saying that the Celts were a unified people by any means. Only an extremely common culture and language held them together.

[Tellos Athenaios]

the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe

Somewhere in what's nowadays called Hungary/Romania.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The issue is not really whether they were "Celts" its more about how you define "Celt." Certainly a fairly Celtic culture suplanted what went before but there is a bigger question of whether the Celtic race supllanted the local islanders.

Previously it was thought they did, now it is though they not. Personnally I would say the Celts did exactly what the Saxons did later. The decapitated or supplanted the local elite and took over.

[Loghova]

The Welsh and Irish have been linked genetically to the Basques.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

Not saying where they came from, just saying they are pretty similar genetically.

[-Praetor-]

The Welsh and Irish have been linked genetically to the Basques.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

Not saying where they came from, just saying they are pretty similar genetically.

A possibility might be that the migratory currents of the Celts should have produced a mix between the invading Celts with the native peoples of Ireland and Wales. Those Welsh and Irish natives may have belonged to a wide culture that may have stretched through the entire atlantic part of europe, a culture that might have been subdued by the celts and other indoeuropean invaders, thus dissapearing from the history annals...

Of that culture, all the vestigies that remain might be the Basques, which were very much isolated because of their mountanious homeland, so they were less afected to foreign influences, invasions, migrations, etc...

So their gene pool might have been preserved during a longer time... same with the irish and welsh, less frequently invaded through the history than other european peoples...

PS: I remember reading something about it, but don`t remember where...

[KARTLOS]

I'm pretty irked by it as well, but I mean to set the record straight. Maybe Ranika can offer his infinite wisdom on the subject, since I only consider myself somewhat versed in its intricacies.

I've thought for quite some time now that the Celts originated somewhere in Eastern Europe and began to flourish in the northern Alps region, or modern Switzerland and Austria. From there the culture spread down into Northern Italy, to the East into modern Turkey, to the West in parts of Iberia, to the Northwest into the British Isles as well as throughout France.

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

Possibly many of the Paleo-Atlantids of the British Isles just remained less touched by Celtic influence, or even mixed their cultures in a different way compared to the mainland Celts. Which could explain certain "dark" characteristics of the Gaels, Picts, etc. and even the modern Celtiberians. The dark look of many modern day Irish doesn't necessarily mean Iberian or Mediterranid influence, but perhaps recessive genes showing themselves. The whole Basque/Irish thing comes to mind as an example.

As a side note, I'm not saying that the Celts were a unified people by any means. Only an extremely common culture and language held them together.

im a geneticist, so just a quick pointer on recessive genes. Dark genes are generally always dominant, i.e dark hair, brown eyes etc are always dominant over blonde/blue. skin colour is slightly more complicated as it is controlled by more genes. speaking generally the stereotypical freckly complexion and inability to tan of the gaelic people is recessive.

because of this they actually think that blonde and red hair are dying out in england.

its important to understand how genes work. many dark haired/brown eyed people can have fair children. eg my father is ginger with blue eyes, as these are recessive qualites he must have two copies of the genes for eye and hair colour. my mother is brown/ brown as theses are dominant she may only have single copy for these genes. therfore it is possible for them to have a mixture of dark and fair children, which was actually thre case.

it is thought that the original settlers of the british isles were darker more mediteranean type people. with fairer people arriving later. people are right to make analogies with the saxon invasion. the so called celtic invasion or immigration had greatest genetic impact on the english heartland. the original inhabitants were pushed to the extremeties of the region. in places like cornwall, western island. the roman and saxon invasions both also had their biggest impact in southern england, withthe celtic culture surving in the extremeties.
this left the strange situation that those who were left with, or kept the celtic culture were the people with the weakest genetic link to the culture.

[Slartibardfast]

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

"The Song Of Amergin"(can't remember the author) is a fictional novelisation of the Milesian invasion from "The Book of the Conquests of Ireland". Well researched using Phoenician, Carthaginian and other know historical texts and maps to give it a plausable historical grounding. Well worth the read.

One of the Irish mythological cycles,the "Densachas?", sorry I'm not good with Gaelic spellings, is a series of stories explaining the origins of many Irish place names. Evain Macha "hill of the twins of Macha", was a drunken bet about one Rieghs' Da Dannan wife, the heavily pregnant Macha, being able to outrun two prime race horse belonging to another Riegh. The laymans defensive argument to opposition to the validity of these stories is usually "Then why did they call it that in the first place?" which kind of makes sense.

Also I don't think your giving enough credit to the human endeavor of sea exploration and colonisation. The original inhabitants of South America where of Australoid stock with most being killed and eaten by the Mongoloid Amerindians coming down from the north. This has been confirmed with genetic tests on skeletal finds, and on the last two pure bloods in Terra Del Fuego.(Two old ladies that I think are now dead.)

If a population of Australian Koori's, Murri's or Tiwi's managed to get across the Pacific to colonise South America some 35-25,000 years ago, the Galecians emmigrating from North Western Spain across a small stretch of the Atlantic to Ireland dosn't sound that far fetched.

I've always leaned towards Celtic as a language group being a sort of a "Lingua Fraca", a trade language. Trade tends to rub off as an exchange of not only commodities, but also words, customs, fashions, beliefs and ideas.

[KARTLOS]

please post links to the austroloid colinisation of america, it sounds interesting

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't totally agree with the Irish theory of Iberian settlers, even though both cultures have their mythology based around it. It just seems like a coincidence to me. A large-scale naval migration in that distance would be impossible in those times, in my opinion. The sailing across the English Channel from Belgium or the Netherlands is easy to believe, while from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland is somewhat far fetched.

On the other hand: Greeks were able to sail all the way from Greece towards Brittain and Northern France, in more or less the same timeframe.... Then it's maybe not all that far fetched to assume that 'Celts' or related tribes, who most likely maitained the same sort of trading connections, could embark in Spain on a lot of ships and disembark on the shores of Brittain too...

[KARTLOS]

I've been seeing more and more references that the British Celts aren't even considered as "Celts" anymore because of culture differences between the mainland Celts. Are these sources to be trusted, meaning everything written in the history books is to be false? I'd like to know if any Celtic history buffs agree with all of the British Isles hype that's been going around lately, because it could change the game dramatically.

Personally I find it ridiculous that the Celts of the British Isles are to be excluded from the culture because of a few recent studies from seemingly hateful sources.

its not that they were not celts, its more that there is an increasing understanding that the celts werer not a mono-ethnic group and their culture spread by diffusion more than by the sword.