quote:

to the extent that so-called Scots-Irish don't really exist except in American fantasies because the people expelled from the border lands - both sides - were largely English anyway.

A Slight Generalisation to say the least!!.

quote:

Originally posted by Plump Jack:
The Picts were not Scots. They were not British either. They were Iberians - dark. Today so are most Scots as a result of interbreeding. Then there is the fact that Scotland really only begins at the Highland Line, since after Athelstan land up to that point was wholly English and/or Anglo-Norman up to and long after the Norman invasion of England (see Oman), to the extent that so-called Scots-Irish don't really exist except in American fantasies because the people expelled from the border lands - both sides - were largely English anyway.

No one knows for sure what the Picts were, or were not. Tacitus called the people of the region Britons, the same as the others inhabitants of Britain, when he wrote in the 1st century AD. By the time the Romans left they called them Picti, 'painted ones'. It is not sure if this was a type of 'nickname' or a confusion of the word the people called themselves.

The name Scotland covers all of what is the political coutnry of Scotland. Before the adoption of that name there existed 'Pictland' to the north, the west of the country was occupied by Irish invaders, the Scotti, and the southern was the Britons of Strathclyde. Lothians was takedn by the Angles, but they were driven back after a battle in 685AD, when they were defeated by a combined army of Picts, Britons and Scotti. Though Lothisn remained an English speaking territory.

None of it is quite a simple and striaghtforward as you imply Plump Jack.

One feels that Plump Jack has a bit of an axe to grind against the 'celtic' peoples....I wonder what they did to upset him so much? I always get rather suspicious when people use knowledge as something to attack others.

And what is that stuff about the 'English love of homeland a match for any in Europe'? Out of sheer curiosity, how would you measure this?

quote:

A Slight Generalisation to say the least!!.

Perhaps, but if you read the authoritative work "Albion's Seed" by DM Fischer it is made clear that the so-called Scots-Irish comprised many people from Northern England

quote:

Originally posted by donandjod:
One feels that Plump Jack has a bit of an axe to grind against the 'celtic' peoples....I wonder what they did to upset him so much? I always get rather suspicious when people use knowledge as something to attack others.

And what is that stuff about the 'English love of homeland a match for any in Europe'? Out of sheer curiosity, how would you measure this?

My feeling here is that the claims made by the Scots to be a strongly Celtic nation are debatable to say the least - given the strong Anglo-Saxon input from the Northumbrians. Can the Picts be called Celts? In fact the origin of England and Scotland are really quite similar - they both formed round a dominant ethnic group.

One obviously can't quantify "love of homeland" but it was there, and is clear enough from the works of Shakespeare. England was subsumed into the Britih project, which now shows clear signs of failing.

I agree with plumpjack and find the spectacle of Rudgeley declaring himself to be a Briton, Celt, Londoner etc whilst ditching his English heritage profoundly dispiriting, and somewhat ironical given that he expresses himsef in English

quote:

I agree with plumpjack and find the spectacle of Rudgeley declaring himself to be a Briton, Celt, Londoner etc whilst ditching his English heritage profoundly dispiriting, and somewhat ironical given that he expresses himsef in English

Hi Cottar,

I don't know if I ever gave you the quote below before, Dr Heinrich Härke's comment on the view of some british archaeologists that these islands have rarely experienced any immigration, or 'curious academic trend of immobilism'as he puts it:

"If that tide continues to rise, we may, in a few years, have a situation in which ambitious postgraduate students will argue in conference papers that the first humans in the British Isles were not immigrants, but symbolically transformed, indigenous reindeer."

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba46/ba46book.html

quote:

Originally posted by cottar:

My feeling here is that the claims made by the Scots to be a strongly Celtic nation are debatable to say the least - given the strong Anglo-Saxon input from the Northumbrians. Can the Picts be called Celts? In fact the origin of England and Scotland are really quite similar - they both formed round a dominant ethnic group.

The 'strong' input you claim from the Northumbrians is in a limited geographical area. The Scotti and Picts invaded a far larger area. Then there is the issue of 'recovering' of land from the Northumbrians that they held only for a relatively short period. I feel to claim that there was a 'strong' input from Northumbrian Anglo-Saxons in the whole of Scotland is stretching the evidence.

There is recent research that shows the Picts did indeed speak a Celtic language, so as to whethter they were Celts again reverts back to the 'what defines Celt' debate. Is it language, culture, etc?

I'm confused by your statement that the founding of Scotland and England were similar. If you mean that the indigenous people people were mainly assimilated into invading groups, then yes I would agree, but they were two very different groups - Saxon and Scotti. The first from the Continent, the latter from Ireland. The first Germanic, the second Celtic. Though obviously both ethnicities only apply if you are of the opinion that language is the determining factor.

quote:

There is recent research that shows the Picts did indeed speak a Celtic language, so as to whethter they were Celts again reverts back to the 'what defines Celt' debate. Is it language, culture, etc?

I'd be grateful, if you have access to this research, if you could supply more information. My current understanding is that what the pictish language was is still unknown, with any degree of certainty, but the majority are of the opinion that it was probably a brythonic language.

Maybe much of the frustration English people feel about the 'celtic' nations need to create distance between them and England is that reasonable English people find it more difficult to express their nationalism because much of it has been hijacked by racists like the BNP, or expressed through mindless football hoolaginism? Flying the St George flag unfortunatley is associated with these unpleasant groups. Perhaps it is these same unpleasant associations that cause the 'celtic' peoples to find that difference between them and England?

Whereas for the Welsh, Irish or Scots, flying their national flags is relatively controversy-free. Neither were crimes committed for King and Empire under these flags, whereas many would fight abroad for 'England' or 'Britain' as an interchangeable term.

Just before anyone has a chance to misinterpret what I'm saying - I'm not saying that Welsh, Scots and Irish did not play their equal part in the Empire. All I'm saying is that the celtic nations have not had their names sullied by empire, racism, etc, because these happened when they were part of Britain. I'm talking about is perception, and not reality.

quote:

Originally posted by donandjod:
Whereas for the Welsh, Irish or Scots, flying their national flags is relatively controversy-free.

Unless your the Plumpjack type of English;
who find Welsh flags offensive

Great article. 10 out of 10 to the NME journalist for truly creative journalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
I'd be grateful, if you have access to this research, if you could supply more information. My current understanding is that what the pictish language was is still unknown, with any degree of certainty, but the majority are of the opinion that it was probably a brythonic language.

There was evidence published either late 90s, early 00s, by Katherine Forsythe.

It looked at the incsriptions that exist giving Pictish names, particularly place names I believe, and found that there was a link between these and those found in Wales. This indicated that both evolved from the same origins, so indicating that the Picts spoke a Celtic language.

Sorry the details are quite basic and sketchy, but long time since I read up about linguistics. I believe the research should be relatively easily found though, as I believe it has been used by several writers on the subject in their works.

quote:

My current understanding is that what the pictish language was is still unknown, with any degree of certainty, but the majority are of the opinion that it was probably a brythonic language.

Found a couple of interesting links for those not very conversant with all the Pictish arguements (probably too simple for them):
"most available policeman evidence tends to support the hypothesis that they spoke a Brythonic language…………… However other hypotheses exist" source
A slightly more complex and interesting answer: here

Thanks to TheWitch and Lurker.

The pre celtic language remains largely in river names or other hydronyms, Don, Tees etc. In fact, more names have been taken off the pre supposed 'celtic' list and added to the 'pre celtic' list than the other way around, Hodder, Clun, Humber etc. One would suppose that, if Pictish was pre celtic, there should be a higher concentration of such names in an area which retained such an earlier language. I don't know if this is true however.

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amphlett:
Thanks to TheWitch and Lurker.

The pre celtic language remains largely in river names or other hydronyms, Don, Tees etc. In fact, more names have been taken off the pre supposed 'celtic' list and added to the 'pre celtic' list than the other way around, Hodder, Clun, Humber etc. One would suppose that, if Pictish was pre celtic, there should be a higher concentration of such names in an area which retained such an earlier language. I don't know if this is true however.

Was Gaelic a Celtic language? The Channel 4 programme said that it existed before the European Celts (and, of course, Irish "celts" were just the indigenous people). And I have heard it was different in structure from those languages. Where did Gaelic come from - or was it indigenous?

quote:

Originally posted by jack doe:

Was Gaelic a Celtic language?

It is accepted as a Celtic language, though possibly an older version.

Some have considered the possibilty that Ireland went through some sort of 'Dark Age', in a period that the rest of what can be classed the Celtic world had trade links, so this left the language they spoke less affected by other languages.

quote:

Originally posted by TheWitch:

quote:

Originally posted by jack doe:

Was Gaelic a Celtic language?

It is accepted as a Celtic language, though possibly an older version.

Some have considered the possibilty that Ireland went through some sort of 'Dark Age', in a period that the rest of what can be classed the Celtic world had trade links, so this left the language they spoke less affected by other languages.

In talking about Gaelic, I am also taking about Welsh, of course - since both are closely related.

But the programme said that Gaelic existed before the continental Celts.

quote:

Was Gaelic a Celtic language?

Jack,

Yes and it is often stated that it is older than Brythonic.

All the celtic languages, as well as the germanic languages, italic languages etc are derived from what is termed PIE or Proto Indo European. As such, all the Celtic languages are grouped as a subset of the Indo European language Tree:

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/language_tree.htm

There are many words within these languages which show their PIE heritiage. One I found the other day which I find remarkable is the honey fermentation called Mead. Nice to see it was an important drink a few thousand years ago :-)

From McBain's Etymological Dictionary of Gaellic:

misg;

drunkenness, Irish meisge, misge, Early Irish mesce, Old Irish mescc, drunk: *mesko-, *meskjâ, from *med-sko-, also Early Irish mid, g. meda, mead, Welsh medd, hydromel, Old Cornish med, sicera, Breton mez, hydromel: *medu-; Greek @Gméqu, wine; English mead; Ch.Slavonic medu@u, honey, wine; Sanskrit mádhu, sweet, sweet drink, honey.

How the original PIE spread, or where its original 'homeland' was, is debated. Vaguely, it started in the middle east and spread with farming in the neolithic. What languages it replaced is also debated. Two older groups which are not indo european are the Vasconic and Uralic groups. Basque is the last remaining Vasconic language and Finnish and Hungarian belong to the Finno Ugric set of the Uralic language group.

The important thing to remember is that language is not static and is influenced by many things.

quote:

Originally posted by jack doe:
In talking about Gaelic,

Gaelic comes from Ireland. It was brought to Scotland by the Scots in the early medieval/late Roman periods.