Six or Seven Celtic nations?

[seanboy]

sorry should have deleted here

[seanboy]

A member of a race of central and western Europe described by the ancients as tall and blond."

If this were true which I dont believe it to be, then there are far more than 6 celtic nations.


here is a wikipedia definition - pronounced /ˈkɛlt/ (see Pronunciation of Celtic), is a modern term used to describe any of the European peoples who spoke, or speak, a Celtic language. The term is also used in a wider sense to describe the modern descendants of those peoples, notably those who participate in a Celtic culture. Celts were a diverse group of independent, indigenous tribal societies. While similarities in language, artifacts, religion and social structures are known, each culture had its own language and traditions.[1]

racially the scots are closer to scanadanavians than the celtic groups especially due to post celtic migration
the population of celts in england alone was only about 1 million. in scotland it was smaller. I think it wuld be more accurate to describe the scots as north european instead of inaccurately pocketing them into smaller ethnic subdivisions.

If the celts were a racial group germany then the germans, english, polish, dutch, swiss, romanians etc etc would all be enocmpassed into the celtic nations.

of course this is only my opinion and I hope people here just take it how they please but I dont consider the scots, irish, welsh etc more celtic (if at all celtic) than any other nation in most of continental europe.

we may have some gaelic speakers but language alone does not define a celt nor does bag pipe and fiddle music.

I prefer to use the term celt in past tense, refering to those who actually were celtic.

and many thanks for the welcome.

[Bugbear]

Hmmm! Now I see what you were talking about with your post, seanboy. The one responding to my responce wasn't there untill just a little bit ago, but the time is... That weird. Celtic is being redefined in meaning I guess like the word "naughty" and it was a made up propaganda word in the first place. Also, I no longer have faith in "history" just look up the history on the early maps of the Americas. History is absolutely subject to political and religious whims. I wern't there; I didn't see it; can't say for sure. Take care.

[macwilkin]

Also, I no longer have faith in "history" just look up the history on the early maps of the Americas. History is absolutely subject to political and religious whims. I wern't there; I didn't see it; can't say for sure. Take care.

As a historian by profession, I'll refrain from responding to this statement, except to say that I am proud of my work & research, and that I always try to tell all sides of a story as much as possible.

Todd

[seanboy]

History is absolutely subject to political and religious whims. I wern't there; I didn't see it; can't say for sure. Take care.

this is why celtic history was distorted long before myself and my forefathers were alive. I think "celtic culture" should be contained were it belongs, in renaissance festivals and such.

with a linguistic oral recording culture, the truth is we know almost nothing about the celts and the little we do know was written by their enemies.

[Bugbear]

Point well taken. I will say that there are historians (today) digging up very good history, but this is rewriting what I was told to be historical fact when I was growing up and in college.[QUOTE=cajunscot;468421]As a historian by profession, I'll refrain from responding to this statement, except to say that I am proud of my work & research, and that I always try to tell all sides of a story as much as possible.

Todd[/QUOTE

And I am glad you are doing your research, so thank you.

Woh! I just now saw what the problem is. I'm really sorry if this is the way it is being taken. I am NOT saying that the modern writing down and research of history is political and religiously controled. I mean that political and religious forces shape history as in the direction of events. Even more than that,they have destroied records and oral traditions and so on in the past.]

[seanboy]

I think that the best accounts of the celts that we have today was written by julius ceaser who I believed had written extensively on them, but I have to admit I will have to research into that to verify that.

[macwilkin]

Point well taken. I will say that there are historians (today) digging up very good history, but this is rewriting what even young whippersnapper me was told to be historical fact when I was growing up.

Ted,

As new sources are discovered, history is rewritten. Primary sources are key to telling the story, and historians have an obligation to see that the whole story is told, and in an objective way, as much as possible. When a new primary source is discovered, it is the obligation of the historian to ensure that it is brought to light, just as a scientist would not be expected to withhold new data or findings.

T.

[Bugbear]

,Understood.

I had to go back and look carefully at what I had written because I didn't quite understand your responce, cajunscot .
Let me clarify if not correct what I was trying to say.
I no longer have faith in the history that (I was taught) because it was quite flaud. This has nothing to do with the history research, and everything to do with the people teaching the history. Very sorry for the mistake and I get what you're saying about the revising and correcting as more information comes in. My point on the maps was that they were probably revised for religious reasons at the time they were being made.
And now I see that it's taking a little while for each of our posts to show up and we're stepping on eachother a little bit.
seanboy, I think you are kind of pointing out what I was getting at. Celtic is kind of in a way a mythical cultural
thing of today. It lives in our minds. I remember a book from my college days and I think it was called "The Phylosiphy of History" by I think Heagle or some spelling. Heuge book, but one of the gists of the book was that history is a spirit trying to be born. That is where I'm coming from. If Celtic-ness becomes one of our cultural myths in our symbolic minds, it has a reality to it.

[The Wizard of BC]

There are a couple of new books out that are attempting to trace the histories of the peoples of the British Isles using DNA.

May I suggest you find a copy of;

Saxons, Vikings and Celts
The genetic roots of Britain and Ireland
by Bryan Sykes
Paperback version published by Bantam Press 2006
ISBN 978-0393062687

or

The Tribes of Britain
Who are we and where did we come from
by David Miles
Published by Phoenix Press 2007
ISBN 978-0753817995

I have just finished the first of these and there are some surprises. Bryan Sykes is one of the most respected DNA researchers today. After analyzing his data he makes the postulation that it seems the current interest in Celtic culture is due to WWII. Prior to that people of the isles considered themselves more aligned with the peoples of Germany.
His research can find no "Lost Tribes", Celts as a race, or peoples other than the Picts who may have inhabited the Isles prior to the arrival of the H haploid group arriving via the Atlantic seaboard route from Spain.
As more mDNA and Y chromosome research is done I think we may have to re-think all of our roots.

For more information may I suggest you check out "The Genographic Project" sponsored by The National Geographic Society and IBM. Bobbie and I got each other DNA sampling kilts for Christmas and her family line is already plotted. Mine should be finished in a week or two.