Kilts Scottish only??

[Rob]

Just to add another level of intrestto the whole Kilt/Celt discussion, I just got this from Answers.com Early History of Ireland page.
http://www.answers.com/topic/early-history-of-ireland

"The truth is more complex. For a start, recent DNA studies have suggested that the people who introduced the Celtic languages to these islands may well have been Celtic-speakers, but they were not members of a Celtic race. Ethnically they were indistinguishable from the pre-Indo-European inhabitants who preceded them. What’s more, their arrival had so little impact on the genetic inheritance of the native peoples that they cannot have numbered much more than a few thousand.

The Y-chromosomes of the modern Irish are closely related to those of the Basques, which has led some anthropologists to surmise that the Basques are a remnant of the pre-Indo-European population of western Europe, and that the pre-Celtic language (or languages) of Ireland may have been related to Euskara, the Basque tongue. (See Celt for a discussion of the so-called “Celtic problem.”)"

So if the Irish aren't really Celtic, genetically speaking, then either are the Scots, right? Keeping in mind this is regarding genetics, which is not necessarily the same thing as cultural. Could be the Irish and Scots are genetically of a pre-Indo-European race but adopted aspects of Celtic culture.

It all gets so complicated.

Planopiper,


There is no such thing as a unique Celtic genetic signature. The term ‘Celtic’ is a linguistic/cultural one, and many genetically different people across Europe adopted Celtic language/culture in the distant past.


Modern population genetics studies show that the vast majority of the pre-Roman population of the British Isles (Britain and Ireland) were descended from northern Iberian migrants, who settled in the British Isles at the end of the last Ice Age. As the article states, their language at that time would probably have been related to Euskara, but at a later date an early Celtic language must have been adopted. This language then developed into Brythonic in Britain and into Goidelic in Ireland. Modern historians distinguish the Celts of the British Isles from those of Continental Europe (apart from the Bretons), by referring to them as ‘Insular Celts’.


The answer to the question of who can be termed as ‘Celts’ today is rather vague. One definition of ‘Celt’ is:-


“One who speaks a Celtic language or who derives ancestry from an area where a Celtic language was spoken.”


In the British Isles, this would include the Irish, most Scots (not just the Gaels), the Manx, the Welsh and most of the English (including the Cornish). Many will be surprised to find that the English are included. This is because the genetic studies show that most English people derive ancestry from the native Britons (Brythonic speaking Insular Celts), rather than from the (Germanic speaking) Anglo-Saxons, as was once commonly thought. It would appear that the Anglo-Saxon (and later the Danish Viking) settlers in Britain came in relatively small numbers, and mostly settled in Eastern England. The Gaels of Scotland are descendents of Irish Gaels, who settled in Western Scotland in the 5th century AD, and brought their Gaelic form of the Celtic language with them. The remainder of the Scots are descendents of Picts and Strathclyde Britons (both thought to have been Brythonic Celtic speakers), and a relatively small number of Angles, together with Danish and Norwegian Vikings (who were all speakers of Germanic languages).


If Matt’s sources are to be believed (and I see no reason to doubt them), then the kilt was invented and first worn by the Gaelic speaking Scots, but its national use has since spread to the rest of the Scots. There is, of course, no reason whatsoever why Irish, Welsh, Manx, English, Bretons, Americans, Inuits, Japanese, etc. should not wear kilts if they so wish. They do not need to ask permission.


Rob

[macwilkin]

The Gaels of Scotland are descendents of Irish Gaels, who settled in Western Scotland in the 5th century AD, and brought their Gaelic form of the Celtic language with them. The remainder of the Scots are descendents of Picts and Strathclyde Britons (both thought to have been Brythonic Celtic speakers), and a relatively small number of Angles, together with Danish and Norwegian Vikings (who were all speakers of Germanic languages).

Rob,

You forgot to mention Anglo-Normans, such as the Comyns, Bruces, Hays, Gordons, Lindsays, etc. and the Flemish. Whilst the Normans contribution was small in numbers, just look at the list of Anglo-Norman families and you will see the important role they plaed in Scottish history.

Cheers,

Todd

[Rob]

Rob,

You forgot to mention Anglo-Normans, such as the Comyns, Bruces, Hays, Gordons, Lindsays, etc. and the Flemish. Whilst the Normans contribution was small in numbers, just look at the list of Anglo-Norman families and you will see the important role they plaed in Scottish history.

Cheers,

Todd

Todd,

You are quite right. The Anglo-Norman families played an important role in the politics and destiny of Scotland, despite the fact that statistically their numbers were insignificant. My list only included those populations whose numbers were significantly large.

I don't know whether any of the Anglo-Norman families in Scotland had any Breton ancestry, as was the case for a number of the 'Norman' barons in England and Wales. If so, these could also qualify as being Insular Celts, as the Bretons were claimed to be descendents of Brythonic Celts who had migrated to the Armorican Peninsula (in Gaul) from Cornwall, Devon and South Wales in the 6th century AD. I have not seen any genetic signatures of the Bretons to see how these compare with those of the people of Southwest Britain.

Rob

[An t-Ileach]

According to Jean Markale (Civilisation Celtique), many of the "Anglo-Normans" generally were not actually descendants of the Danish Vikings who had settled the Neustrian coast of what is now Normandy, but were themselves Insular or Continental Celts.

Nearly a third of Duke William's army at Hastings were actually Bretons (i.e. the British (Brythonic Insular Celts) who had annexed and occupied Armorica) who hoped to get their ancestral lands back; and a very large contingent were Flemings.

The Flemings themselves were a mixture of Teutonic people and Celts (e.g. the Menapii from the Scheldt estuary area). It is thought that some "Fleming" families were even Gaels/Picts who had migrated across the North Sea from the Moray-Aberdeen coast in the previous 2 or 3 centuries.

One suggestion about the Bruces, for example, is that their provenance wasn't Normandy but the Brussels area of Flanders (de Bruis).

Thomas Cairney even suggests that the Erainnean Gaels who inhabited the northern part of Ireland, and who progressively settled Argyll and the southern Islands from the 3rd to 6th centuries to establish the High Kingdom of Dal Riada (centred on Islay) were themselves Cruibhne/Picts from "Scotland" who had migrated there in earlier centuries.

Kenneths Bannerman and Jackson seem to imply that Pictish was a distinct, though obviously related, "P" Celtic language from the Brythonic of Strathclyde and the Lothians. Galloway was a Gaelic speaking area certainly until the 16th Century, although parts of it in earlier centuries spoke Brythonic and even Pictish.

As for the links with Euskara/Basque, others have taken this further and noted that Basque itself is linked to Berber and, interestingly, Chechen. There seem to be definite close similarities between the music of Moroccan Berbers and that of the Hebrides, as has been noticed by Irish, Arab, and Spanish musicologists.

And then there is the origin of the Bagpipes...

[macwilkin]

David and Rob,

Wow! Two great posts with much to think about!

One suggestion about the Bruces, for example, is that their provenance wasn't Normandy but the Brussels area of Flanders (de Bruis).

The Comyns/Cummings were actually from Flanders as well -- Comines, to be exact. The pun-loving Normans "changed" the name to resemble the name of the popular herb Cumin.

Cheers,

Todd

[davedove]

The Comyns/Cummings were actually from Flanders as well -- Comines, to be exact. The pun-loving Normans "changed" the name to resemble the name of the popular herb Cumin.

Man, the tidbits of information you can learn on this board.

[James]

I wonder if at times we get too clever, here I'm not in any way denying the scholarship shown by contributors to this chain lf letters, nor such things as DNA and of course proven history.

To illustrate what I mean, much has been made here of the Celts: but I wonder if those who we now call Celts in fact saw themselves as Celtic: or members of this or that tribe/grouping?

Consider too how 'English' families took root in Scotland and became more Scottish than the Scots: a good example here would be the House of Windsor which has very closely linked itself to Scotland: Balmoral, special tartans etc.

Or how to very recently many in what we today think of as being Scotland looked to England, and saw themselves as North British rather than having any association with the highlands-and certainly would not be seen dead in a kilt. Then in the early part of the 19thc-Scotland became fashionable and clans etc sprang up like mushrooms-and still are.

So it is possible that rather than looking to proven facts, we should be looking to something else. That is the wish of people to have an identity, an identity with something small enough to be related to. Thus here in the British Isles-it is all too big to offer an identity-but if one can look to Wales, Scotland, Cornwall even, it becomes an identity with which a person can associate. They can feel special, someone-rather than being just one of an amorphous mass.

Also in the world of mass production -jeans and T shirts for all: a tartan-a clan makes that identity real: and the individual is no longer just one of the masses.

That in turn can be linked to the romantic approach to the Celtic lands-the excluded on the rim of Europe: think here 19thC literature: which offered a link.

That link being given substance by the Celtic revival, adoption of the Kilt and entry to an unique culture.

So whilst not denigrating scholarship in any way, I do think that sociological factors play a very large part in what is happening today.

James

[macwilkin]

I wonder if at times we get too clever, here I'm not in any way denying the scholarship shown by contributors to this chain lf letters, nor such things as DNA and of course proven history.

To illustrate what I mean, much has been made here of the Celts: but I wonder if those who we now call Celts in fact saw themselves as Celtic: or members of this or that tribe/grouping?

Consider too how 'English' families took root in Scotland and became more Scottish than the Scots: a good example here would be the House of Windsor which has very closely linked itself to Scotland: Balmoral, special tartans etc.

Or how to very recently many in what we today think of as being Scotland looked to England, and saw themselves as North British rather than having any association with the highlands-and certainly would not be seen dead in a kilt. Then in the early part of the 19thc-Scotland became fashionable and clans etc sprang up like mushrooms-and still are.

So it is possible that rather than looking to proven facts, we should be looking to something else. That is the wish of people to have an identity, an identity with something small enough to be related to. Thus here in the British Isles-it is all too big to offer an identity-but if one can look to Wales, Scotland, Cornwall even, it becomes an identity with which a person can associate. They can feel special, someone-rather than being just one of an amorphous mass.

Also in the world of mass production -jeans and T shirts for all: a tartan-a clan makes that identity real: and the individual is no longer just one of the masses.

That in turn can be linked to the romantic approach to the Celtic lands-the excluded on the rim of Europe: think here 19thC literature: which offered a link.

That link being given substance by the Celtic revival, adoption of the Kilt and entry to an unique culture.

So whilst not denigrating scholarship in any way, I do think that sociological factors play a very large part in what is happening today.

James

James,

That is one of your best, if not the best, posts you have written. Thank you.

You are quite correct on "perception" in regards to ethnic identity. Witness the Anglo-Normans in Ireland and Scotland who became more "Irish" (The Fitzgeralds, for example) and "Scottish" (Bruces, Comyns) than the natives.

Cheers,

Todd

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

James,

Excellent post, and right on target. I have also wondered what someone from the past would think or make of our viewpoint on the Celts and Celtic culture. Would they recognize it at all, object vehemently, or fall to the ground laughing?

[GMan]

Thank you James, an excellent post.