is there any reason why celts failed to survive or assert themselves in the world?
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
is there any reason why celts failed to survive or assert themselves in the world?
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Pissed off the wrong city state full of neurotics.
Celts were literally just Indo-Europeans living in west Europe. They weren’t a monolithic group, really just a name to refer to that specific group of Indo-Europeans in that area speaking very similar languages. Romans themselves were basically Celts shifted towards EEF a little more.
Well that's one way to hamper the survival of a culture and distinct group of people by saying they don't exist.
Most "celtic" peoples were as genetically dissimilar to one another as they were to non-Celts. They were distinct, as individual tribes, but not as "Celts" which was always an exonym applied to them and not an actual coherent group that ever existed.
>Most "celtic" peoples were as genetically dissimilar to one another as they were to non-Celts
Actually they were often genetically closer to 'non-Celts' than they were other Celts. Especially in the British Isles, where in a genetic sense they were closest by far to those in the Proto-Germanic homelands, ironically.
The different so-called Celtic groups clustered genetically with the people they lived next to.
Today it's the same situation in Europe. People cluster by geography, by and large.
>People cluster by geography, by and large.
So people from New York look like the Cherokee?
I said in Europe. Idiot.
>I said in Europe. Idiot.
All records indicate the same type of brutal warfare in Europe as outside it.
0 records indicate distinct nations getting along in Europe with gentle treatment for their fellow Euros.
Civil wars and family feuds have also been a thing for aeons in Europe and elsewhere.
Are you suggesting closely related peoples or eve singular tribes or ethnic groups can't hate and want to kill and enslave each other or something?
>I will gently preserve these tribes I'm at war with and ensure their continual political relevance
The thoughts of the Euro trying to sanitize history.
Celts weren't pajeet europeans
Early Celtic is basically middle Iranic.
I don’t think you know what indoeuropean means
Yes they were prove me wrong
Yeah. People want to slap a name on everything but "celts" were just various indo european tribes that weren't germanic, that's it. East of italy they spoke a language that was still close to the original indo european language resembling slavic, which is why there are so many artifacts and locations with slavic names predating the "slavic expansion". The further the IEs went west, the more they changed their language. I read a story somewhere about a welsh and a slovene man understanding alpine farmers and their languages being more closely related than to german, but I don't have the details anymore
at the end of the day the celts were vanquished by Germanics and we live in a Germanic world in western Europe and Germanic tongue are saying what celts were and what they can or can't be.
you are so fricking moronic you don´t realize the mingle integrated them all, and by your own logic vanquished them both, modern europeans are a combo of celtic, latin, germanic. In reality are the same famous combo of WHG, PIE and Farmer
you may believe as you will Celts exist in a small reservation island in ireland with doubtful self rule while in britanny they are ruled by french people and the final nail in their existence will be when they accept what you say.
The other way around, Celts live inside the europeans, and there are modern european populations clearly their descendants. Seethe some more. In fact what you claim that happned with the irish, happened with the modern germans, that are literally celt admixed
>Celts live inside the europeans
I'm sure a royal family would find it desirable that someone somewhere has 0.001% of their families heritage but no direct ties to the family.
ultimately it doesn't matter since celts do not have a strong identity or strong self sense of distinction so they might as well just get assimilated and stop existing.
or maybe they can tough it out in the current status quo and maybe centuries later they would obtain some power who knows.
Definitely in our life times it is not good time to be Celtic.
Yet most of the conquered people don't identify as or even speak germanic. Iberians don't speak germanic, french not really, italians too. The only ones who got assimilated are the english and the people in south and east germany
They were probably referencing carnic friulan. A dialect of the friulan language with a very strong Celtic substrate and a significant amount of Slovene loan words. I speak Friulan and can understand some welsh words but not grammar or overall context. I understand pretty much no Slovene except that which they borrowed from friulan or Italian, and maybe a few words I’m used to seeing. Friuli was a center of paleo-venetic, a very archaic italic language with heavy connections to Celtic, proto Slavic and proto Germanic as it was in contact with those zones and probably represented a rather early undivided western indo European speak. Later celts moved in (from a very early period they slowly became culturally dominant as they filtered down the mountains from the Hallstatt area).
Interesting. I need to mention that this story I read is 200 years old and from a slovene who's from a region were they spoke a language predating the slavic arrival, but still being so close to what the slavs spoke that people consider it just a dialect. Probably very different from the modern language. That slovene's grandfather traveled the alps and was surprised that he didn't have to speak german, just using his own language instead
It's actually the other way around. Western Indo-European languages were generally a lot more conservative. Eastern ones changed quite quickly through first satemization and then a lot of other progressive influences caused by interactions with and assimilations of Uralic and Turkic peoples, among others.
Ok. I have a completely different approach to this because slavic, baltic, thracian etc being so close to sanskrit. The eastern languages can't have changed much.
You can say that about every single linguistic group. I don't know what you think you're saying but you're not really saying anything.
As for Romans being a type of celt I don't disagree. I've read that they could understand eachothers languages. If they were that similar then i could certainly see the Italic tribes being a slightly distant branch of the celts.
The Romans were a Celtic sub-group. Gaulish evolved into Lombardian, French, and Spanish
The culture(s) got assimilated the people are very much alive. As to why...part of it is being unlucky to have hyper genocidal neighbours such as the Romans and to a lesser extent the Germanics. That's not all of it I suppose.
For a relatively settled and civilized people they were far too disunified to offer any real pushback against the stress factors of their time. That Vercingetorix rebellion being the exception. So their hill forts got conquered or politically annexed easily.
TL;DR The competition in Europe was fierce and Celts seemed to be too pragmatic and isolationist to conserve their culture at the cost of millions of lives.
why did they adopt Roman language and not continue speaking their own languages and maintaining their own identity like the rest of the Roman world like the East which retained its greek and native languages and identities.
Mostly because for a long time you had to speak Latin to get Roman citizenship and that came with trade rights and allowed you to only learn one language to do business instead of one for every "literally who " tribe, kind of what English is today. Greek also filled this business need and was already established in these areas and the empire. where greek was not.
>you had to speak Latin to get Roman citizenship
No you didn't.
It was heavily encouraged as a pre requisite for citizenship as I understand it. Before they just started throwing out citizenship under caracella, and then you have it becoming the defacto language of the church , pushing other written languages out further. Whereas in the east you still had cults going strong until islam
>It was heavily encouraged as a pre requisite for citizenship as I understand it.
Maybe in early Rome. That went out the window very quickly though. Rome didn't actually impress Latin on conquered populations, contrary to popular belief, they generally abducted the children of elites and Romanized them in Rome so they would have a loyal and dependent Roman ruling caste.
Citizenship was more about being of service to Rome and accepting Roman ideals and values.
Of course to serve in the Roman army, you would need to speak at least some basic Latin.
The Irish and Welsh did/do just that. The rest were ruled by Romans and Germanics for millenia?
Everybody mixed with other populations to some degree since then. By that thread of logic the descendance of Romans don't exist anymore either. R1b and other Celtic related haplogroups are still the most common markers in ex-Celtic regions such as Northern France or Bavaria. Celtic descendants are still alive and well, even moreso than the descendants of more 'successful' people such as the Turkic. Deal with it.
>Celtic descendants are still alive and well
They're not Celtic descendants. They're Western Steppe Herder/Early European Farmer/Western Hunter-Gatherer descendants. See
Change of language and culture doesn't change a person's race, according to you. These people were never Celtic. Some of their ancestors just spoke Celtic languages for a time.
Western Steppe Herders, Early European Farmers and Western Hunter-Gatherers are still alive and well, it seems.
>Change of language and culture doesn't change a person's race, according to you.
lmao....yeah it fricking sure doesn't, what troony pills are you on?
>They're Western Steppe Herder/Early European Farmer/Western Hunter-Gatherer descendants
Both statements are factually correct.
>yeah it fricking sure doesn't
Okay well they all speak Germanic languages or Romance languages now. So do you agree they're Germanic and Romance today?
No. You were the one implying that changing someone's mother tongue changed his race and that I was saying something preposterous by assuming something else. Read your own fricking words again and stop this increasingly incoherent drivel:
>Change of language and culture doesn't change a person's race, according to you.
>No. You were the one implying that changing someone's mother tongue changed his race
Okay so you agree they're just WSH/EEF/WHG mutts then. They never were Celtic at all. That's merely one of many language and culture groups that emerged and died out among these mutts.
Not relevant to their race. Not relevant to their genetics.
Thanks for playing.
Who isn't a mutt by these standards? Not a single race on this Earth. Taxonomy is all manmade and merely correlating with reality, albeit to differing degrees depending on the robustness of your taxonomy.
The Hallstatt culture was a gentically unified group of proto Celts that spread over the continent and it makes sense from a biological, linguistic and historical context to classify their descendants as Celts or whatever denomination you wanna pick. I'm not impressed by your postmodern sophistry tbh.
Okay so now genetics don't matter. So they don't speak Celtic languages, and there's no actual genetic or racial basis for a Celtic people. But they're still Celtic, apparently.
And you can't define what being Celtic actually means, it's just some arbitrary appellation you're slapping onto a bunch of fairly unrelated peoples in modern Europe.
Ergo it's fricking nonsense.
>Okay so now genetics don't matter
Invisible letters don't matter.
>and there's no actual genetic or racial basis for a Celtic people
Celtic people look distinct from Germanic's.
Genetics matter, you just don't understand genetics, evolution and taxonomy, buddy. You are the guy throwing his hands up in a hissyfit at the seeming contradiction of birds being considered the descendants of theropods and archosaurs at the same time. That must clearly be a nonsensical contradiction and not different degrees of zooming in on their evolutionary history.
I also never said that Celtic people literally still exist, just their descendants. In the same way Romans don't exist but their genetic offspring. They weren't all put to the sword is all.
But after all this incoherent goal post moving I suspect you to be either some anglo c**t with a hateboner for the Irish or a group of certain people scared of identitiarinism. Don't worry , Moshe...this isn't even what it is about.
Okay, well let me put it for you this way. The people in the British Isles all speak a language descended from Proto-Germanic. They cluster most closely genetically, by far, with other Germanic-speaking populations of Europe, particularly Dutch and Scandinavians. They share a common Bronze Age ancestry with those fellow Germanic-speaking populations of Europe.
Ergo they are Germanic. Simple.
Honestly the final reply you'll get out of me.
See, it was you who brought up the Irish. It must be your political bias and tommy angst. I was mostly referring to continental Celts and your mind immediately darted towards Irish identitarinism. Afaik what you said is not true for the Welsh but it is not the vocal point of this discussion. Take your political mental gymnastics somewhere else.
If we answer the OP question 'What happened to the people denoted as Celts in my picture' the answer still simply is they assimilated culturally but their descendants didn't get genetically replaced in the lands they settled in arround antiquity.
>didn't get genetically replaced in the lands
Yes they did, most of Germany has a Germanic face and not Celtic.
If a land used to look Asian but now is Blonde and Blue eyed and you just say there was cultural transformation that is akin to the narrative going on in this thread.
The genetic change in the populations from European antiquity is not nearly as strong.
Germs come from North of the Rhine and most Germ looking people are still settled there, whereas people in Southern Germany still have classical Celtic and Etruscan features. Such as dark hair and blue eyes. You know shit.
Proof that Celts in their core lands mixed more than any other ethnicity from antiquity. Protip you can't. They remain relatively unchanged when compared to populations such as Southern Italians, Greeks, Turkic or Anatolians.
Most of southern Germany looks continental Saxon.
Okay, moron. What led you to this deep insight, watching videos about the Oktoberfest?
populations of low land saxon and continental saxon.
This one looks continental saxon.
you tossed him in england and he is a local saxon, toss him in ireland or wales and he is a sassanach.
>toss him in ireland or wales and he is a sassanach.
No he'd look like an average old man in Ireland or Wales. Moron.
The stock model is also wearing a cheap Lederhosen knockoff sold for tourists, they'd behaead you at the local pub for wearing this. Must be an immensely deep routed Bavarian. So this is as far as your knowledge goes? Googling stock fotos for adverts?
>picks a picture of a bald headed, grey haired grandpa to proof the Germanic blonde and blue phenotype
homie you went full moron.
Why did you pick a picture of a random model in a cheap costume? The guy in my picture is a land owner whose roots go back hundreds of years and documents and probably much more so undocumented.
>still have classical Celtic and Etruscan features. Such as dark hair and blue eyes. You know shit.
Celts were pretty much always described as tall, chalkwhite, blond and blueeyed by contemporary sources, actually.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls#Physical_appearance
Fair haired which is different. I guess if you are a brown manlet most people look fair haired to you relatively speaking.
>Fair haired which is different.
It doesn't say fairhaired. It says blond and redhaired. Which is exactly how Germanic tribes were also described by Romans. In fact if anything Roman sources apply redhair to Germanic tribes more often and blond hair to Gauls.
But it's generally a mix of both.
They generally tended to describe all northern barbarians as blond and redhaired. The reality is few of them would have actually looked this way, they would just have had higher rates of these hair colors.
>their descendants didn't get genetically replaced
Well yeah they did, actually. Partially. You already acknowledged they have been mixed with since, that is genetic displacement, and it's largely why their languages died out too.
By your same logic, EEFs (themselves mixed with WHGs) still exist today in Europe because they make up around 50% of European autosomal ancestry today.
But you thought that was a silly thing to claim, didn't you. Yet you're doing the exact same thing with 'Celts'.
>EEFs (themselves mixed with WHGs) still exist today in Europe because they make up around 50% of European autosomal ancestry today.
What face is EEF?
All different faces like the groups you're talking about and any group of people that has ever existed. Idiot.
>The Hallstatt culture was a gentically unified group of proto Celts that spread over the continent and it makes sense from a biological, linguistic and historical context to classify their descendants as Celts
Okay, great. Most people in the British Isles don't descend from Hallstatt Celts but rather an earlier wave of Proto-Indo-Europeans carrying R1b-L21, which isn't actually found in significant quantities in Hallstatt at all.
The remaining Y-DNA in the British Isles is brought by Germanic invaders. Actual Hallstatt Y-DNA makes up a very small portion of modern British Y-DNA.
So Irish people aren't actually Celtic at all.
Y-dna is not even 0,1% of someones dna.
>R1b and other Celtic related haplogroups
Proto-Indo-European. R1b is Proto-Indo-European. Celtic is merely one of the cultural groups that emerged out of them, along with Italic and Germanic.
There are specific Celtic markers on the R1b haplogroup derriving from the Hallstatt culture. I just use R1b insted of R1b-L21 and so on for ease of use
R1b-L21 isn't found in Hallstatt in any significant quantities. It's actually more common in Germanic regions than Hallstatt.
Hallstatt was mainly R1b-U152 and to a lesser extent R1b-DF27. They also had significant levels of I2a2 and some other less common, but still signficant, Y-DNA.
So I guess we can agree R1b-L21 isn't Celtic. It's a marker that was absorbed into the Celtic world, and later absorbed into the Germanic world.
>There are specific Celtic markers on the R1b haplogroup
Yeah and they're all subclades of R1b-L151. Which R1b-U106 is also a subclade of
Do you know how Y-DNA actually works?
You know a Scandinavian with R1b-U106 has a more common recent male ancestor with a Sub-Saharan African carrying R1b-V88 than he does a 'fellow Scandi' carrying I1 by literally tens upon tens of thousands of years, right?
Stop speaking about anything that is invisible.
It's really hard to genocide a group of poeple. All it takes is for some of them to survive and they than breed like rabbits. And yes, humans are pretty good at fricking people near them. Especially considering foreigners are considered even more attractive. So everybody is mixed to a degree.
You are writing in a germanic language because cetlic is extinct
>East which retained its greek and native languages and identities.
Who did? All the Anatolian languages are gone. I guess israelites, Syrians? It seems the Eastern part also managed to push Latin (or Greek)
>The culture(s) got assimilated the people are very much alive.
That's like claiming EEFs or WHGs still exist. Idiot.
They obviously don't still exist.
I've never met or heard of a creature which identified himself as EEF or WHG, so I assume they are fantasy creatures.
>I've never met or heard of a creature which identified himself as EEF or WHG
Okay so all a Celt is is someone who calls himself a Celt. Good to know. A complete nothing term then.
Sardinians still exist and are like 90% EEF in ancestry.
>Sardinians still exist and are like 90% EEF in ancestry.
It's closer to 80%, but sure. So are you saying Sardinians are EEF then?
Also what exact makes Celts Celts if they just descend from the exact same Bronze Age mix of people as Germanic and Slavic peoples and genetically overlap and overcluster Germanic peoples?
Care to take a guess for me?
I don't know if I would say that, but I also wouldn't say EEF got genocided because that seems misleading as well.
I didn't make the original comment about Celts, and I don't know much about Celts so I can't really answer your question about what makes people Celts.
>I don't know much about Celts so I can't really answer your question about what makes people Celts.
You don't know what made Celtic people Celtic. Maybe the fact that they spoke fricking languages descened from Proto-Celtic, no? Could that possibly have been the common characteristic used to group these fairly diverse peoples?
Ergo not speaking Celtic would render someone non-Celtic, would it not?
It's an ethnolinguistic term. Racially, genetically, there is no Celtic people, they're just the exact same threeway mutts that Germanic and Slavic and Italic and other European peoples were.
The thing that made them Celtic, and distinct, was their Celtic languages.
how do you figure tribes with little to no contact were of identical origin?
>how do you figure tribes with little to no contact were of identical origin?
They weren't. There were significant genetic differences among Celtic-speaking parts of Europe. They had very different levels of WSH/EEF/WHG.
So-called Celts in the British Isles for example basically had Germanic ratios of WSH/EEF/WHG.
Whereas Celts in Central Europe tended to be around 10% lower in Steppe and Celts in Iberia and the Balkans tended to be around 30% Steppe.
Just look at who the people of the British Isles cluster genetically with today? Either they have been mutted so heavily that they resemble Germanic peoples genetically, or they never really were Celtic in a racial/genetic sense.
Pick whichever cope you want.
>genetically cluster with
>wsh
>eef
What the frick are these fictional things?
>What the frick are these fictional things?
Literally as fictional as Celtic people are today. Ancient populations that got absorbed into others and lost their languages and cultures.
Like Celts.
Celtic people are real creatures just like Germanics Chinese etc.. unlike those figments of your imagination.
Keep this discussion of real things and not fictional creatures, please.
>I don't know if I would say that
Why wouldn't you say that? Why would Sardinians not be EEF when 80% of their autosomal ancestry is inherited from them?
What else would they be, exactly?
>what makes people Celts.
celtic tribes duh
These distances are so bad.
It's clear Europeans are not a simple mix between those 3 populations
Are we missing some unique R1a Northern Hunter Gatherer crucial for the formation of Balto-Slavs and Scandinavians (rich in R1a)?
Europeans are not a mixture of some ancient 3 populations but just diverged nations of features like everywhere else.
based glaswegian
also picts were gothic
pinkerton was right
>also picts were gothic
I don't think Picts were Gothic. But hey apparently Picts still exist since people descend from them today, so...
Also Illyrians, Dacians, Baltic Prussians, Thracians all still exist, apparently.
Awesome.
John Pinkerton was right
Picts were descendents of proto goths who migrated over to caledonia many years before the romans arrived
their stones, which have common similarity with scandinavain runestones. and the imagery on gothic spears bears a strange similarity to the imagery that appears on pictish stones
Yeah the runestone thing I noticed a long time ago and wondered why nobody had ever made the connection. The artstyle is just too similar to not be related especially considering geographical proximity and also the fact that Pictish stones are dated to literally just after Germanic runestones begin appearing.
Also Pictish stones and artwork was highly similar to Anglo-Saxon stones and artwork. Who of course invaded Britain from Scandinavia.
The Germanic invasions happened from largely the vast lands of old saxony and generally continental germania and the angles from jutland.
That's also where the British Bell Beakers invaded from. British Bell Beakers were much higher in Steppe and quite genetically distinct from other Bell Beakers.
They invaded the British Isles from the Lower Rhine.
That's the 2 main populations modern British Isles people are a mix of. And they were only separated by like 2000 years or something.
Effectively, it was 2 different Germanic invasions.
>That's also where the British Bell Beakers invaded from. British Bell Beakers were much higher in Steppe and quite genetically distinct from other Bell Beakers.
I don't respond to something that is non observable, nor do I believe in the distinct chakras defining populations.
I trace some my ancestry from here.
no clue the picture of its pops after frankish conquest
Pinkerton was a prophet
A visionary
They mixed with other people and their language and culture was replaced. They don't still exist. That's utter fricking cope.
Buddy, the biggest problem they had was they were disorganized and weren't united in any way and constantly fricked each other. The gauls gave the romans tons of problems. Raped tons of roman women and took tons of gold. It's why the romans were so scared of them. They knew they were quite capable under a good leader. Had the cells been more united I'd argue the romans would never beat them. Romans got lucky with some fo their enemies. The fact that they were never united. The one civilization that was a power house aka the persians were never truly beat.
Celts were never homogeneous.
Okay. Another Celtic thread. Another complete destruction of the mere concept of Celtic people and another impotent, pitiful, worthless display of mental gymnastics and cope from modern CeltLARPers.
/thread
Celts have different faces from Germanic's how is that a larp?
2 biological brothers have different faces from one another. Are they different races?
Have you ever actually met any Germanic people? They look incredibly different to one another.
Have you ever actually considered taking an IQ test to see if you have mental moronation?
This is why scie tests are always telling people race doesn't exist. It's a so ial phenomenon. It only exists in your head.
Who are you defining as Celtic and who are you defining as Germanic?
>Who are you defining as Celtic
Faces like this.
>who are you defining as Germanic
faces like this
>here is your celtic race bro
So yeah, completely nonexistent in a genetic sense. Very firmly and clearly overlapping with Germanic people.
They mostly overlap with the French. Czech one are more Northern, Hungarian more Med.
Slovakian ones would cluster with North French, Austrian ones with Spaniards or North Italians.
Also, ancient Germanics probably wouldn't cluster with them. Modern ones are very mixed.
>They mostly overlap with the French
That's not what the PCA shows at all. It's not what ANY PCA shows.
That's what every PCA shows.
It's not even what the PCA you're looking at shows. The Celtic plots literally overlap Germanic plots. Are you fricking blind? The little green Celtic triangles are directly on top of the Germanic grey triangles.
Those are modern 'Celts'. Basically people from the British islands. They overlap with Germanics because English is a Germanic language.
Ancient continental Celts are dots.
Okay so you acknowledge people from the British Isles aren't Celtic then? Thanks for playing.
Celtic used to be a race but it spread culturally to other ethnicities as well. Kinda like English in America or Australia. Not really hard to understand.
>muh celtic features
LOL
>Who were the first inhabitants of Britain, whether indigenous 44 or immigrants, is a question involved in the obscurity usual among barbarians. Their temperament of body is various, whence deductions are formed of their different origin. Thus, the ruddy hair and large limbs of the Caledonians 45 point out a German derivation. The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, 46 together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi 47 possessed themselves of that territory. They who are nearest Gaul 48 resemble the inhabitants of that country; whether from the duration of hereditary influence, or whether it be that when lands jut forward in opposite directions, climate gives the same condition of body to the inhabitants of both.
>German
German applied to Celtic tribes then.
no it didn't
Celts are extinct. They were absorbed by neighboring Indo-European peoples they shared a common ancestry with anyway.
>Celts are extinct
powerless and practically stateless people like kurds probably is more accurate.
I guess Ireland can be see as some sort of Celtic reservation cause otherwise they are at the mercy of the stronger.
>I guess Ireland can be see as some sort of Celtic reservation
The irish speak english, consume anglo media, barely 5% of the country speaks irish flutently (probably far less)
>powerless and practically stateless people like kurds probably is more accurate.
No, because Kurds still speak Kurdish. If they didn't they'd just be considered Arabs by everyone today. They actively made a point of resisting Arabization attempts and Islamizing campaigns against them.
Also Kurds are quite distinct from Arabs and Turkic peoples. They speak an Iranian language, have a very different religion and cultural practices and on top of that they are genetically quite distinct.
None of these things are the case for "Celts". You can't even define what Celts are anyway. We already acknowledged people in the British Isles aren't Celts.
So who is Celtic exactly?
>So who is Celtic exactly?
In the British case it is descendants and identifiers with the briton and gaelic tribes.
You know what Celtic is, it is an observation of something and not a declaration of something.
>it is descendants and identifiers with the briton and gaelic tribes.
But we already acknowledge they weren't genetically Celtic. They literally overlap and overcluster with Germanic peoples.
What the frick are you talking about?
>genetically Celtic
Celtic is an observation of something and not a word with value of itself that can change.
They are the definition of Celtic.
An observation that they speak a language descended from Proto-Germanic and overlap and overcluster with other Germanic-speaking populations of Europe, yeah? That observation?
Fricking idiot.
You still don't get it. Insular and continental Celts did not cluster with Germanics. Modern Germans and English cluster with them because they mixed with them. Modern Scandinavia also received this southern gene flow so today they are closer to Celts than their Germanic ancestors.
Continental Celts overlap mostly with the French, but also with modern Germans, insular Celts were more Northern, closer to modern Irish, Welsh, English, whatever.
>They are the definition of Celtic.
seeing as the "Celts" never existed, were never described as such by the romans or the germanics and never called themselves celtic, they are not celtic in any way. Keltoi referred to anybody living above greece.
The romans did not refer to the britons as "celts". They saw the britons as deriving from different ethnic groups, like the caledonians coming from germania and the silures coming from spain
They did not refer to the gauls as celtic, they referred to them as the gauls
Celts were quite literally invented in the 18th century and were romanticised by authors like James Macpherson, who larped his highland epic into existence with the Ossian
The celts NEVER existed
Celtic is just a word just like Germanic you could replace celtic with Jrwtgfd to signify this culture group and it would not change in function.
You can not use the word Celtic if you like but they are descendants of a druidic culture and languages which are similar.
>You can not use the word Celtic if you like but they are descendants of a druidic culture and languages which are similar.
And?
The people you call "celtic" in the british isles are also descended from bell beakers who came before the celts. In fact these people were bell beakers for more time than they were celtic. So why not label them bell beakers? Why call them celtic? Why did these people become eternally celtic when they adopted "celtic" languages and culture? So in twenty thousand years will the descendent of an irish american in the USA be considered celtic, even if celtic language and culture and all artefacts of the "celts" are completely forgotten? he'll still be considered celtic because twenty two thousand years ago his ancestors spoke a celtic language?
People living in florence in italy once, many thousands of years ago, were known as the etruscans. The etruscan language, civilisation and people died out completely and no longer exists, but because these people descend at least partly from the etruscans it means they're etruscan forever and that they should begin LARPing as etruscan?
>In fact these people were bell beakers
No one ever identified as bell beakers so that identity I believe is not relevant.
And no one ever identified as celtic
An 8th century member of the scotti would not call himself celtic, he wouldn't know what the frick celts were. he happily raided his fellow "celts" in cornwall, wales, roman britain, he happily raided his felllow gaelic speaking "brethren"
>And no one ever identified as celtic
I never said that someone identified as Celtic.
People identified with a culture and identity that had similarities with the other tribes which we label as Celtic.
>People identified with a culture and identity that had similarities with the other tribes which we label as Celtic.
Right, so exactly like British Bell Beakers would have. They probably even developed their own branch of the Indo-European languages, or maybe multiple branches, much like the hypothetical Belgian and other branches of Indo-European that are considered lost to history.
Seems to be supported by the Goidelic substrate theory.
>British Bell Beakers
Far off ancient hominids I don't see how they are related to modern peoples.
You're trolling now, right? You are legitimately trolling. Done with you. Maggot.
I don't accept "Bell beakers" as an identity to discuss because no one identifies as such or has anything defining about it.
No one ever identified as celtic so how the frick is that any different?
You can't argue against this. Not one of the "celtic" peoples historically identifed as celtic. Celtic identity rose due to 18th century romanticist LARP
it has no historic identify. It is a modern concept
No one ever identified as Latin, Germanic or Iberian. You identify as a woman but that doesn't make you one.
Iberians identify rose due to the moorish conquest and in the end Iberians did end up identifying as Iberian
The germanics saw themselves as germanic and were seen by the romans as germanic
>Iberians identify rose due to the moorish conquest and in the end Iberians did end up identifying as Iberian
While worshipping a Visigoth aristocracy lmao?
>The germanics saw themselves as germanic and were seen by the romans as germanic
The Germanics identified as Suebi, Cimbri Teutons or whatever their tribal alliance was called. Just like people from Celtic tribes who were called Galli by the Romans as an umbrella term in the same vein as Germanic tribes.
>For myself, I concur in opinion with such as suppose the people of Germany never to have mingled by inter-marriages with other nations, but to have remained a people pure, and independent, and resembling none but themselves. Hence amongst such a mighty multitude of men, the same make and form is found in all, eyes stern and blue, yellow hair, huge bodies, but vigorous only in the first onset. Of pains and labour they are not equally patient, nor can they at all endure thrift and heat. To bear hunger and cold they are hardened by their climate and soil.
Romans saw the Germanics as an ethnic group, unlike how they saw the "celts"
Irish were never part of the Roman Empire and survived unconquered until recently while everyone else who was a part of Rome easily got conquered by German tribes.
>No one ever identified as celtic so how the frick is that any different?
Gaelic, Briton and such are close to each other in language and culture.
instead of the word "celtic" we can say, close relationship between Gaelic and Briton.
There wasn't
You do know Bretons only became Breton after the anglo saxon invasion
I don't think he even would have called himself 'Scotti'. Most likely some tribal division within Gaelic people.
Funnily enough, in ancient Gaelic texts, they literally speak of racial divides within Gaelic Ireland and that all of them were merely Irish through 'speaking Irish'.
But that only those descended from Milesians were 'true Irish'.
A couple of the distinct ethnic groups within Gaelic Ireland were:
>Laiginn
>Cruithin
>Eirann
>Dairini
>Milesians
There were several others, but you get the drift. They were considered different peoples of different ancestral and racial origins LMAO.
The outliers in ancient European history were the Saxons which were a very atypical and powerful group and the other one which was influenced by the Romans the Franks.
>he happily raided his fellow "celts" in cornwall, wales, roman britain, he happily raided his felllow gaelic speaking "brethren"
I doubt we can have an accurate picture of this but we can tell for certain that almost no tribe expanded very far in the Celtic world to establish bigger lands.
Yep. That's literally his logic. It's called COPE. It is fricking C O P E. It is a desperate attempt to pretend a dead ethnolinguistic group he wants to L A R P as still exist.
this
it's fricking pathetic
an identity that only exists due to LARP romanticism and fake epics
a fricking cancer that people still continue to take seriously
Also it was based entirely on language. This invention. Lowlanders in Scotland originally were considered racially Germanic since they spoke English. Both by themselves, and by Celtic-speaking populations.
They only retroactively started trying to call Lowlanders Celtic when Celtic languages died out in the Highlands.
It's a fricking joke.
Kek
It's literally due to the Ossian and Walter scott's writings that scots larp as celts
this one book btfo'd their entire national larp so fricking hard i can't see a scot wearing his "traditional dress" of a kilt without bursting into laughter
Based Scot-btfo'er
>You know what Celtic is, it is an observation of something
AND WHAT IS IT AN OBSERVATION OF? WHAT THE FRICK ARE YOU OBSERVING EXACTLY?
yes
just like thousands, millions of other "ethnic groups" in history they declined and were absorbed by other cultures
the only reason people larp as them nowadays is due to larp romanticism
if you go to these green areas you will see native irish speakers who never adopted english as first language.
Yeah. It's basically just because it happened fairly recently for some of these regions. In some cases, for very old people in the rural parts of some of these lands, Celtic languages basically died out within living memory.
In other parts it was quite recently and within reliable recorded history.
Slowly, over time, people will forget Celtic people ever existed just like the countless other European groups lost to history.
It's already happening, really.
They are extinct. The damage has already been done, and will never be undone.
>Slowly, over time, people will forget Celtic people ever existed just like the countless other European groups lost to history.
Indeed if you claim they don't exist and people accept that.
holy frick europe was so comfy the brief period in history it was white
>Thanks for playing.
Who is this redditor who hates celts?
It's some Scottish autist from Glasgow stuck in the 1600s
Ah, so he was bullied at school by a gaelic bvll. This thread makes sense now, thank you.
He claims Irish and Scots and Welsh all got replaced by Germans, Vikings Huguenots n shiet during the High Middle Ages
yeah they did
The discussion below this article is very interesting and relevant. They compare the 4 Celtic iron age Hinxton samples and talk about the difficulty of compartmentalising them.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/10/hinxton-ancient-genomes-roundup.html
>2014
There's like 500 Iron Age insular Celtic samples now.
Present-day people from England and Wales have more ancestry derived from early European farmers (EEF) than did people of the Early Bronze Age1. To understand this, here we generated genome-wide data from 793 individuals, increasing data from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age in Britain by 12-fold, and western and central Europe by 3.5-fold. Between 1000 and 875 BC, EEF ancestry increased in southern Britain (England and Wales) but not northern Britain (Scotland) due to incorporation of migrants who arrived at this time and over previous centuries, and who were genetically most similar to ancient individuals from France. These migrants contributed about half the ancestry of people of England and Wales from the Iron Age, thereby creating a plausible vector for the spread of early Celtic languages into Britain. These patterns are part of a broader trend of EEF ancestry becoming more similar across central and western Europe in the Middle to the Late Bronze Age, coincident with archaeological evidence of intensified cultural exchange2,3,4,5,6. There was comparatively less gene flow from continental Europe during the Iron Age, and the independent genetic trajectory in Britain is also reflected in the rise of the allele conferring lactase persistence to approximately 50% by this time compared to approximately 7% in central Europe where it rose rapidly in frequency only a millennium later. This suggests that dairy products were used in qualitatively different ways in Britain and in central Europe over this period.
There's also another new paper about Anglo-Saxons with a lot of samples.
Here we study genome-wide ancient DNA from 460 medieval northwestern Europeans—including 278 individuals from England—alongside archaeological data, to infer contemporary population dynamics. We identify a substantial increase of continental northern European ancestry in early medieval England, which is closely related to the early medieval and present-day inhabitants of Germany and Denmark, implying large-scale substantial migration across the North Sea into Britain during the Early Middle Ages. As a result, the individuals who we analysed from eastern England derived up to 76% of their ancestry from the continental North Sea zone, albeit with substantial regional variation and heterogeneity within sites. We show that women with immigrant ancestry were more often furnished with grave goods than women with local ancestry, whereas men with weapons were as likely not to be of immigrant ancestry. A comparison with present-day Britain indicates that subsequent demographic events reduced the fraction of continental northern European ancestry while introducing further ancestry components into the English gene pool, including substantial southwestern European ancestry most closely related to that seen in Iron Age France5,6.
Holy shit OP, I had that same illustrated history book as a kid.