Question About Brittania, mainly the Briton

[rebelknight]

I know welsh,Scots, Irish and Cornish are Celtic people but why England not considered Celtic? Aren't the Briton a Celtic people?

Or did the Saxon kill all the Briton to put their people in their place?

 

[Majhudeen]

Well, the "Britons" are mroe or less Assimilated Celts that morphed under Roman Rule. They were more Roman then Celtic.
The Picts you forgot to mention as well.

The Saxons more or less evicted or made them Assimilate. Only Wales, Ireland, and Scotland had strong holds, and thats due to testorone and worthless land(Except for Ireland, but who the **** messes with Leperchuans?) worthless to a agricultural society anyways.

 

[rebelknight]

 

[Merlkir]

In fact, none of them are celtic, as in "continental celtic". They share similarities with the continental celts, yes.
The britons were romanized, but only culturally and even that doesn't make them "not britons".
Picts and Scots (who came from Ireland btw) were quite different in many ways and it's not at all clear if their culture was very celtic. Picts certainly differed quite a lot.
The English nowadays aren't usually called celtic, because it's commonly assumed they're mostly of anglo saxon descent. I'm not sure, but I think recent genetic studies showed the English don't have particularly fewer "celtic" genes than other inhabitants of the British isles. (maybe except the Welsh)

 

[Archonsod]

None of them consider themselves Celtic either, apart from perhaps the Irish. Scots are Gaels, Welsh and Cornish consider themselves Britons.

The English nowadays aren't usually called celtic, because it's commonly assumed they're mostly of anglo saxon descent. I'm not sure, but I think recent genetic studies showed the English don't have particularly fewer "celtic" genes than other inhabitants of the British isles. (maybe except the Welsh)

Genetically speaking any foreigner on these shores appears to have been humped to death judging by the genetic proliferation.

 

[socks]

Because they were assimilated and ruled by germanic peoples who had origins on the continent. This is the reason everyone on the British Isles, except in some remote corners in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, speaks English.

 

[Archonsod]

Which Germans don't?

England itself didn't have a single unified language until circa 1700. Prior to that anyone living in London would be incomprehensible to someone living in Sheffield, who'd struggle to understand a fellow Yorkshireman from York. The German influence was prevalent in the language of the South East, where the Angles settled. In the North, Scotland and Ireland the language was still German, though this time via the Danes rather than the Germans themselves, and of course the Normans brought their own mix of Scandinavian and French into the mix. It's one of the reasons King James had a bit of an issue with his bible. When he said he wanted a bible translated into the common tongue, the reply was "which one?".

 

[rebelknight]

Thanks for all these fast answer! 

 

[Allegro]

In the North, Scotland and Ireland the language was still German, though this time via the Danes rather than the Germans themselves

Wha?

 

[Archonsod]

The Saxons were beaten to the punch in Northern England by the Scandinavians, hence the Danelaw. Northumbria for example, which stretched from the Humber in York to the Forth in Scotland, spoke a language closer to old Danish than old English. Ireland and the Scottish Islands on the other hand were Norwegian. Since Scandinavian is a Germanic language, stemming from the same proto-German root as German, Dutch and English, the languages are fairly similar. Even today, you tend to find that the dialects of Southern England are closer to German, while in the North (Yorkshire up) and coastal dialects of Scots there's a larger crossover with Scandinavian languages. Compare for example the Swedish "Hjem" with the Geordie "Hyam".

 

[Allegro]

Archonsod, have you watched the series "Misfits"? There is a Kelly character with a really strange accent, its unlike anything IVe ever heard. Would you know what accent is that?

 

[Archonsod]

South Yorkshire / North Midlands. Derby - Nottingham area.

 

[Garoid]

In fact, none of them are celtic, as in "continental celtic". They share similarities with the continental celts, yes.
The britons were romanized, but only culturally and even that doesn't make them "not britons".
Picts and Scots (who came from Ireland btw) were quite different in many ways and it's not at all clear if their culture was very celtic. Picts certainly differed quite a lot.
The English nowadays aren't usually called celtic, because it's commonly assumed they're mostly of anglo saxon descent. I'm not sure, but I think recent genetic studies showed the English don't have particularly fewer "celtic" genes than other inhabitants of the British isles. (maybe except the Welsh)

That debate is a bit out of date, it's generally accepted that the cultures in Great Britain were Celtic based on archaeological finds and on the close ties in the Roman era,as well as shared language.

Actually I can think of two books, one by Stephen Oppenheimer and one by Brian Sykes dealing with this, most of the genetic heritage of all of Great Britain is paleolithic, with a big change in the neolithic period. England has a considerably higher number of traits that can be traced back to Germanic peoples than Scotland, Wales or Ireland, but its a matter of percentage. The "Old Gaelic" areas have much less new blood since the very early periods. I think (I'm quoting off the top of my head, I have the Sykes book somewhere) that for example parts of Ireland have 95% this old gene pattern, whereas parts of England only have 60%.

 

[Archonsod]

Oppenheimer and Sykes are outdated, they used a very restricted sample set and based their arguments primarily on mtDNA, which is somewhat problematic for what they are trying to argue. Current sampling shows very little influence from the continent. Though there's still some issues with the datasets and methods being used.

As for the Iberian link, the similarity between the two indigenous gene groups is around 5%, which suggests that both populations share the same Palaeolithic Balkan ancestors rather than any kind of later contact between the two.

 

[Almalexia]

South Yorkshire / North Midlands. Derby - Nottingham area.

Is there actually a "Queens English" or are you British lads just ****ing with us?

 

[!!noice!!]

Even today, you tend to find that the dialects of Southern England are closer to German, while in the North (Yorkshire up) and coastal dialects of Scots there's a larger crossover with Scandinavian languages. Compare for example the Swedish "Hjem" with the Geordie "Hyam".

I'm not sure you've got the right language there. I'm Swedish, and I've never heard of the word "hjem", so unlike it's dialectal, or oldish-Swedish, I'm pretty sure it's one of the other tongues. The spelling (contra the "sound picture) seems to suggest so as well, but it could be an exception for all I know.

 

[Garoid]

Oppenheimer and Sykes are outdated, they used a very restricted sample set and based their arguments primarily on mtDNA, which is somewhat problematic for what they are trying to argue. Current sampling shows very little influence from the continent. Though there's still some issues with the datasets and methods being used.

As for the Iberian link, the similarity between the two indigenous gene groups is around 5%, which suggests that both populations share the same Palaeolithic Balkan ancestors rather than any kind of later contact between the two.

I haven't read Oppenheimer in awhile, but I have Sykes's book Saxons,Vikings,and Celts:The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland in front of me. By his statement they took over 50,000 samples with a decently even spread across Great Britain and Ireland(he includes maps), which I'd say isn't too restricted compared to the sizes I've seen in other genetics articles.

On the mtDNA I agree though, and I'm currently taking a hit at that article you posted.

Last, I'm not sure why you specifically mention the Balkans. Care to elaborate on that one? I've always thought the results for a genetic link between Ireland and northern Spain are pretty strong based on comparisons against the Basques as well as following Irish legend. I don't think I can find the paper, I read it years ago, but the similarities with the Basques make it seem likely that some portion of the population was in contact for a good period of time, unless you push it back to the ancestors of both peoples.

 

[Archonsod]

Is there actually a "Queens English" or are you British lads just ****ing with us?

Received Pronunciation. It's based on a Midland's dialect, but it's not something you'd find naturally spoken by any native over here.

I'm not sure you've got the right language there. I'm Swedish, and I've never heard of the word "hjem", so unlike it's dialectal, or oldish-Swedish

Well look at it this way, when do you think Swedish or anything similar was last spoken in the British isles?

I haven't read Oppenheimer in awhile, but I have Sykes's book Saxons,Vikings,and Celts:The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland in front of me. By his statement they took over 50,000 samples with a decently even spread across Great Britain and Ireland(he includes maps), which I'd say isn't too restricted compared to the sizes I've seen in other genetics articles.

It's hugely restricted for any population census. The current population of the British Isles is 61,838,154. How representative would you say a mere 50, 000 would be? It's just over 1% of the population, and that ignores the problems with the sampling he was using (in particular, the areas the samples were taken). Sykes also omits some key issues with the mtDNA line, particularly it's mobility, which would skew the result, although he doesn't explain why he discards this. Current datasets run to a few million individuals, which while still not a large proportion is far more representative. The paper linked to is something of a response to Sykes in actual fact; one of the reasons for their more widespread regional sampling. The dataset Sykes used was heavily skewed on those grounds.

Last, I'm not sure why you specifically mention the Balkans. Care to elaborate on that one?

The indigenous population of Britain were migrants from the Balkan's in the Palaeolithic era. Given the cultural differences and genetics, it's more likely that the Basque population came from the same wave, and the relative isolation of both regions is what gives the similarity rather than contact between the two. Irish legend can be discounted, as with most legends you can make a pretty convincing argument for it indicating whatever you want simply by cherry picking your interpretations. The fact there's no archaeological evidence, such as Irish artefacts in the Basque region and vice versa, is a pretty strong argument against the two cultures having contact; or at least sufficiently regular contract to trade, which tends to be a pre-requisite for anything else.

 

[!!noice!!]

I'm not sure you've got the right language there. I'm Swedish, and I've never heard of the word "hjem", so unlike it's dialectal, or oldish-Swedish

Well look at it this way, when do you think Swedish or anything similar was last spoken in the British isles?

Well, that would explain it. The phrasing above made me think you were comparing two modern words, but if you weren't, I guess it's moot.

 

[Stefan Coeur de Lion]

Which Germans don't?

England itself didn't have a single unified language until circa 1700. Prior to that anyone living in London would be incomprehensible to someone living in Sheffield, who'd struggle to understand a fellow Yorkshireman from York. The German influence was prevalent in the language of the South East, where the Angles settled. In the North, Scotland and Ireland the language was still German, though this time via the Danes rather than the Germans themselves, and of course the Normans brought their own mix of Scandinavian and French into the mix. It's one of the reasons King James had a bit of an issue with his bible. When he said he wanted a bible translated into the common tongue, the reply was "which one?".

I think calling the Danish/Norwegian settlers language "German" is a bit confusing to some here.  The closest thing spoken to the old Anglo-Saxon these days, apparently, is the old Flemish still spoken in parts of Belgium and Holland.  One of the reasons that the English language is so rich is it's way of assimilating new words rather than replacing them.  A good example is the use of "ill" and "sick".  One of them is Anglo-Saxon, one is from the Danish, and now they're used in English with slightly different connotations.  I know that I recognise more words and phrases watching Scandinavian films than I do watching German films.

As for the whole Celtic/Briton/English or not stuff, I think looking at genetics is kind of missing the point, isn't it?  I think that the main difference is cultural identity, which often has little to do with genetics anyway.  I can point to many Australians who refer to themselves as Celtic or Scottish or Chinese or what have you, despite being 4th generation Aussies.  The genetics are moot.  Apparently mathematically, all Western Europeans can claim to be direct ancestors of Charlemagne by now anyway!