News:

Welcome to the Renaissancefestival.com Forums!  Please post an introduction after signing up!

For an updated map of Ren Fests check out The Ren List at http://www.therenlist.com!

The Chat server is now running again, just select chat on the menu!

Main Menu

Celts in England

Started by Knevolin, September 19, 2008, 05:24:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Knevolin

Whenever I read about the Celts (which I do a lot) I hear talk of Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc. but the area now labeled England seems to get left out.  The common view seems to be that the Anglo-Saxon invaders ran the Celts out of England.  Anyway, I was researching the topic and ran across a rather interesting article.  It's old news (2001) but it was news to me and I thought I'd share:


Genetic Survey Reveals Hidden Celts Of England
The Sunday Times (UK)| 12-02-2001 | John Elliott/Tom Robbins


SUNDAY DECEMBER 02 2001


Genetic survey reveals hidden Celts of England

JOHN ELLIOTT AND TOM ROBBINS

THE Celts of Scotland and Wales are not as unique as some of them like to think. New research has revealed that the majority of Britons living in the south of England share the same DNA as their Celtic counterparts.

The findings, based on the DNA analysis of more than 2,000 people, poses the strongest challenge yet to the conventional historical view that the ancient Britons were forced out of most of England by hordes of Anglo-Saxon invaders.

It suggests that far from being purged and forced to retreat into Wales, Cornwall and Scotland when the AngloSaxons invaded in the 5th century, many ancient Britons remained in England.

The study, conducted by geneticists at University College London, found that as many as three-quarters of the men tested in some parts of the south of England have the same Y-chromosome as the ancient Britons or Celts, rather than that of the Anglo-Saxons.

Overall, the scientists found that between 50% and 75% of those tested in parts of southern England were directly descended from Celts, implying that they had survived the Anglo-Saxon invasion. In Scotland the proportion of those with Celtic ancestry was found to be little different from the population of southern England.

"The evidence is quite strong that there is a substantial indigenous component remaining in England," said Professor David Goldstein, who led the study. "Genetics has opened up a powerful window on the past. We can now trace the movements of peoples and address questions that have proved difficult to answer through history and archeology alone."

The study, commissioned by BBC2 for its current Blood of the Vikings series, was designed to assess the impact of Norwegian and Danish Vikings, as well as Anglo-Saxons, on the British population.

Researchers took swabs of saliva from 2,000 people in 30 locations around Britain, and from 400 people in Norway, Denmark and Schleswig- Holstein, the area in northern Germany identified by the team as a homeland of the AngloSaxons. Those taking part had to have lived in the area for at least two generations.

Scientists then examined the Y-chromosome, which is passed unchanged down the male line of a family and is thus not altered by intermarriage.

The analysis showed that 60% of the men tested on Orkney were descended from Norwegian Vikings, as well as 30% of those in the Hebrides. While the Viking influence in these areas has been well known, it had been suggested that they were simply a ruling elite who did little interbreeding with the local population.

On the mainland, the survey found that 70% of those tested in York were from the continental European groups rather than the indigenous population, suggesting that the Anglo-Saxons made more of an impact on the Celts in northern England.

Only 10% of those tested in Wales were of Anglo-Saxon origin, confirming that it has retained an almost exclusively Celtic population.

In recent years the fate of the Celts in England has become hotly debated. Many historians have come to doubt the traditional story about the flight of the Celts from southern England, which was based largely on the account of Gildas, the 6th-century historian.

"There are various schools of thought ranging from near genocide (of the Celts) to almost total survival," said Patrick Sims-Williams, professor of Celtic studies at the University of Wales. "There could have been mass flight as well — it's partly a matter of scholarly fashion, coming and going from generation to generation."

The genetic data will be eagerly received by scholars. Many of the place names in southern England have Celtic origins. Among them are Leatherhead, in Surrey, which meant "the grey ford".

"If you believe Gildas, the Anglo-Saxons would have been chasing the ancient Britons, catching up with one who wasn't fast enough and saying, 'Look here, before I cut off your head, just tell me the name of this place'," said Dr Margaret Gelling, a leading authority on place names.

Link to original article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/584960/posts
Visit my profile on - links not allowed in signatures -  Admin

Julianne

Absolutely certain tribes existed in what is today's England within it's borders.
However, what is classified as a "Celt" does not apply to the Britons of that era.
These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii, Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had any sense of collective identity any more than the islanders of AD 1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.
Calling the British Celtic is so misleading that it is best abandoned.
Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts.  This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. "Celtic" was extended in ancient times and today to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: a certain Celtic identity rebirth or renaissance.

To encapsulate all tribal and nomadic people of western europe as Celts is a misnomer.


Knevolin

Would you mind elaborating on who you consider the Celts to be?

As I understand it, the term refers a group of Europeans, categorized by virtue of a shared language, spanning west/east from Ireland to Turkey and north/south from Belgium to Spain (using current geographical names).  They emerged in recorded history approximately 3,000 years ago.
Visit my profile on - links not allowed in signatures -  Admin

Julianne

#3
Forgive me if I sounded harsh.  When I speak of modern celts I include the Welsh, Breton, Cornish and Manx but only because of the commonality of the language.

George Buchanon, a 16th-century scholar, suggested that the peoples of continental Europe had once spoken a related group of Gallic languages. Since modern Welsh, Irish and Scots Gaelic were similar to these ancient languages, the people of Britain, it was argued, originally came from France and Spain.

A pioneering study by Edward Lhuyd in 1707 recognised two families of Celtic languages, P-Celtic or Brythonic (Welsh, Breton, Cornish) and Q-Celtic or Goidelic (Irish, Scots Gaelic, Manx). The Brythonic languages were assumed to have come from Gaul (France), whilst the Goidelic languages were given an Iberian (Spain, Portugal) origin.

During the 18th century, people who spoke Celtic languages were seen as Celts.

The central paradox is that, so far as we can tell, in antiquity the only peoples known (to either themselves or their neighbours) as 'Celts' lived entirely on the Continent; the peoples of the British Isles were perceived as being similar to the Celtic Gauls of what is now France, but were thought of as ethnically distinct, certainly by the Romans and probably by the Gauls.

Yet today the only modern peoples called 'Celtic' are the descendants of these island-dwelling 'peoples-distinguished-from-the-Celts' in the past. How has this switch been accomplished?





Knevolin

Quote from: Julianne on September 21, 2008, 08:03:15 AM
Forgive me if I sounded harsh.  When I speak of modern celts I include the Welsh, Breton, Cornish and Manx but only because of the commonality of the language.

George Buchanon, a 16th-century scholar, suggested that the peoples of continental Europe had once spoken a related group of Gallic languages. Since modern Welsh, Irish and Scots Gaelic were similar to these ancient languages, the people of Britain, it was argued, originally came from France and Spain.

A pioneering study by Edward Lhuyd in 1707 recognised two families of Celtic languages, P-Celtic or Brythonic (Welsh, Breton, Cornish) and Q-Celtic or Goidelic (Irish, Scots Gaelic, Manx). The Brythonic languages were assumed to have come from Gaul (France), whilst the Goidelic languages were given an Iberian (Spain, Portugal) origin.

During the 18th century, people who spoke Celtic languages were seen as Celts.

The central paradox is that, so far as we can tell, in antiquity the only peoples known (to either themselves or their neighbours) as 'Celts' lived entirely on the Continent; the peoples of the British Isles were perceived as being similar to the Celtic Gauls of what is now France, but were thought of as ethnically distinct, certainly by the Romans and probably by the Gauls.

Yet today the only modern peoples called 'Celtic' are the descendants of these island-dwelling 'peoples-distinguished-from-the-Celts' in the past. How has this switch been accomplished?

You're fine (re: sounding harsh).  Thanks for saying that, though.   :)

I'm Wiccan, and traditional Wicca has a lot of Celtic influence.  Because of that I tend to think of myself as "spiritually Celtic" but I wanted to know if I was also genetically Celtic.  I've been tracing my genealogy and it looks like I have a lot of Saxon (which as I understand it is Teutonic, not Celtic), a lot of Scottish (which I do understand to be Celtic) and a smattering of Welsh.

I think you and I are on the same page with this... I certainly wouldn't limit my view of the Celts to the British Isles... after all, two of the most often-references archeological finds are in Hallstatt (Austria) and La Tène (Switzerland).  Which, to be honest, was quite confusing at first... due to, what you referenced, the fact that the island-dwellers seem to be synonymous with "Celt" in the minds of the majority.

Bottom line, I'm still trying to sort through the image and find the facts.   :)
Visit my profile on - links not allowed in signatures -  Admin

Julianne

#5
There are several beliefs about the physical differences of the people of all the Isles.  There is the obvious influence of the Roman occupation and the Saxons, etc.
But there is also an idea of the original Celtic peoples bringing in the "swarthy" complexion of the the Irish and Scots.  Commonly called the "black" irish...that being the Irish of black hair and sometimes darker skin...and the same with the Scots.  I met as many dark haired/tanned scots and irish as I have the stereotypical rosy-red cheeked auburn haired.

The Welsh too have families don't "look" typically southern/eastern Brits.

It's impossible to prove what peoples of today's Great Britain are "true celtic tribes" since written language just wasn't part of their culture.

Of my 9 scottish clans...only one is considered a "true celtic clan" and it has nothing to do with highlander or lowander geographical/political affiliation.   I've noticed a similarity of this belief having to do with the clan crest.  Seems if you've got an animal on your badge...the folklore through the ages is that it's true celtic.
I suppose this idea might also be true of the older English families in the coat of arms?  Maybe?
Of all the theories I've read about the celtic peoples...this idea seems no more outlandish then any other.
Nomadic peoples are difficult to DNA-a-tize  :)

I would think that along their evolution as a culture and apparent vast travels they inevitably picked up a new gene or two.

I do believe however there is a distinct difference in "celtic" music.  The French, Spanish and the British Isles (certain regions) all have a type/style of music that includes a heavy percussion influence and seemingly more "celtic" sounding then other types of ancient music from the same regions.

If you can ever trace your English roots to before the 1500's we could track your surnames regionally...then it would be somewhat more definitive to know if your Englishness was a celtic family or not.
And even then it would be based on ...again...the gaelic language.
:-\

I think the celtic way is what is admired and adhered to by the people who visit Celtic Corner.  And for that Knevolin...you are that celtic nature.
Slainte!



groomporter

The other problem with this type of DNA testing is that it does not necessarily indicate a clear time frame. Even if the indigenous peoples of Britain were greatly diminished in numbers and/or pushed to the frontiers of Britain by the Anglo Saxons, they've now had most of a millenium to interbreed with each other, so often it doesn't tell as much as the media reports often suggest.
When you die can you donate your body to pseudo-science?

Julianne

*breathes*
Thank you Groomporter....that's a very important fact to note that I was unable to express adaquately. :)


Knevolin

Quote from: Julianne on September 22, 2008, 05:34:40 PM
I think the celtic way is what is admired and adhered to by the people who visit Celtic Corner.  And for that Knevolin...you are that celtic nature.

Thanks for saying that.   :)  I agree... from a big-picture standpoint, knowing my genetic make-up wouldn't change where my heart lies.

Working on tracing my ancestry, as I've been doing quite a bit lately, has caused me to think... a lot of the surnames in my background are Saxon... quite a few Scottish as well, and even a couple of Welsh names.  I've found myself thinking about how ambiguous it all is... even if an ancestor has a name that denotes a specific group (Irish, for example) one still doesn't know how much of that group was in that ancestor's DNA.

That doesn't make tracing my "roots" any less interesting, but it does tell me that - in the end - I am finding people, not races, not cultures, not DNA strands.  And I think somewhere in that is a big part of what I was supposed to learn from this little quest.   :)
Visit my profile on - links not allowed in signatures -  Admin

BCH

Which current academic sources are now claiming the "Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii, Selgovae, etc" and other late bronze age and early iron age Britons do not fall within the Celtic taxonomy?