I’ve long since thought that the division between ‘Anglo saxon’ England and the ‘Celtic’ nations of Wales and Scotland (& Cornwall!) is a false one. After all, Welsh was once spoken much more widely than Wales on these islands. Now it seems that new genetic research has given some weight to my suspicions.
The first DNA map of the British Isles has been compiled after 5 years of research taking samples from over 10000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland. The evidence of this research indicates that Britain’s celts are descended from a wave of immigration some 5 or 6000 years ago from the Iberian peninsular — Spain, if you’d rather. And those their descendents are most concentrated in parts of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, they are also “strongly represented” throughout the rest of this sceptred isle.
The Romans have left few signs of their presence in our genetic inheritance, which clearly shows they weren’t all they were cracked up to be.
And probably explains why Italian and British football are so different.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Eugene McKinnon 09.21.06 at 8:01 pm
So your BBC Programmes Hot Properties and Trading Up the Sun is the Britain’s way of quietly taking over the ancestral homeland of Spain.
I recall reading in my teenage years that the Celts were descended from Amergin who led an exodus out of Iberia and they settled in Britain. DNA now proves it.
Eugene McKinnon
DH 09.21.06 at 8:04 pm
I personally think this is more accurate:
http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/celts.html
Kim 09.22.06 at 3:38 am
I thought so: What have the Romans ever done for us?
Kim 09.22.06 at 3:38 am
Che?
Beth 09.22.06 at 12:53 pm
Technically, England can only be “Anglo-Saxon”, since neither the country (as a political or social entity) nor its name would have existed without the Germanic invaders. Britain, on the other hand, has a more ancient pedigree. In fact, the English are really not “British” at all, that term being historically applied to the native peoples of the island of Britain and not to the Germanic invaders.
DH 09.22.06 at 2:42 pm
I think my previous post shows not “Germanic invaders” but Viking invaders (Gauls) as being the connection.
DH 09.22.06 at 2:45 pm
Gauls hense the term Gaelic. However, I do see the Roman influence in modern day Britian. However, I see no Spanish Iberian connection in history like it is described here.
Richard 09.22.06 at 2:48 pm
The Gauls weren’t Vikings, DH. Have you never read the chronicles of Asterix?
DH 09.22.06 at 4:55 pm
Okay, I misspoke on that. I was just pointing out that it doesn’t appear to be a Spanish connection to modern day Britain. There were influences but they were from elsewhere: Roman, Gauls (after researching it further and correcting myself) from modern day France and Germany and as well Vikings in modern day Scotland and Ireland.
Richard 09.22.06 at 6:24 pm
The point is DH that there is — or seems to be — strong genetic link between Britain and Spain which might mean the history we have received (including the story you’ve linked to) needs some revision.
i don’t find this surprising. There’s a repeated story about one of my own recent ancestors, that he was Scottish. I know from my research that he definitely wasn’t, but that hasn’t stopped my relatives clinging to it. When we’re talking about events as distant as the colonization of these vlessed islands, it’s not surprising that the evidence is not clear cut.
DH 09.22.06 at 7:04 pm
The site I mentioned also referred to the influence Celts had on to the Gaul region as opposed to the other way around. That might explain what you are talking about (except for the Spanish part which I disagree with). I think the overlying idea from this post I agree with but thespecific Spanish part on the “Isles” is the part I disagree with. I see your point and I have learned something by doing my additional research. You sparked my interest to look into it further andwas able to fine toon my position to the one I mentioned recently and here. Thank you requesting a clarification on my part.
Beth 09.22.06 at 8:27 pm
Gaul = Gaulish; Gael = Gaelic. The two things are related only by an accident of phonology.
And the Vikings were Germanic.
I wouldn’t trust the iBiblio information too much, dh. It’s clearly not a particularly rigorous academic source.
DH 09.22.06 at 8:38 pm
Seems fine to me. It seemed rigorous to me. It doesn’t see, an accident to me.
Beth 09.22.06 at 8:46 pm
The two words have completely different etymologies. They are not related in sense. That’s just the way it is. Just like “gym” and “gem”, or “cat” and “cap”.
No rogorous academic source would contain as many misspellings and misuses of words as that one does, trust me.
Beth 09.22.06 at 8:55 pm
Of course, I meant “rigorous” and not “rogorous”, wonderful word though it is! Not feeling particularly academically rigorous myself tonight, you understand…
Eugene McKinnon 09.22.06 at 9:20 pm
Hi Beth,
Actually the Gauls were Celts and that is not an accident of phonology. Bretons are the sole survivors of the Gauls after the Franks invaded and turned Gaul into France. Bretons also happen to be linguistically similar in language to the Cymry. They are in the same language group as the Welsh (P-Celts).
Celts however were not a homogenous people and there happened to be Celts from Iberia. And let’s not forget that like us here on this blog they fought with each other.
Eugene
Richard 09.22.06 at 10:40 pm
Rogorous really ought to be a word. Suggestions for a definition?
Beth 09.23.06 at 12:10 am
I’m not disputing that the Gauls were Celts, Eugene, I’m disputing that there is a relation between the words Gaul and Gael. The former is from French Gaule. The latter is from Scottish Gaelic Gaidheal. The similarity between these two words, each denoting Celtic peoples seems, therefore, to be coincidental. An accident of phonology. Certainly, the word Gaelic is not, as dh claimed, derived from the word Gaul. If there is some link between the words far back in the mists of time, it has not been identified and therefore cannot be assumed to exist.
I think that it would be more correct to say that Breton was introduced into France in the 5th-6th centuries by British refugees fleeing the Germanic invaders. (Gaulish was pretty much dead by 500, as far as I can find). This is why Breton is so close to Cornish and Welsh, since the refugees who ended up in France came from the southern end of the Island. Gaulish and Breton are not the same language, although Breton may have been influenced by some kind of continental Celtic language.
(I’ve checked my own recollections for all this on the Encyc. Brit. and the OED, so if you think any of it’s wrong, take it up with those guys!)
Beth 09.23.06 at 12:15 am
Rogorous, adj.
1. Of a woman: worthy of rogering; of rogering quality (see roger v.)
2. Particularly of academic work or other intensive labour: characterized by extreme difficulty and frustration; highly challenging. (euphemistic; derived from roger v.)
Mike 09.23.06 at 5:54 am
You should all check out the popular theories of this guy (Francis Pryor). I think his theories are a little iffy, but you can’t knock his rogorous techniques:
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/britain-ad.html
Apparently, all we Anglo-Saxon-Danes are in fact Britons (Celts), who just took a liking to Germanic culture - there was no invasion…
Richard 09.23.06 at 8:17 am
Beth:
This has turned out much more interesting than I anticipated: I’ve certainly learned something along the way. Like Eugene, I had always assumed that Gaelic and Gallic were essentially the same word.
Beth 09.23.06 at 10:22 am
Yes, it’s interesting, that. Gallic and Gaulish have pretty much the same meaning, and both derive from the noun “Gaul”.
I have heard “Gaelic” pronounced as though spelled “Gallic”, specifically referring to Scottish as opposed to Irish Gaelic. This only adds to the confusion!
Ivan the Crank 09.24.06 at 2:32 am
SO, where do the Boston Celtics fit into all this?
Paul 09.24.06 at 8:31 am
Rogorous (adj.): claiming to be authoritative, but actually in error. “The peer review declared the research paper to be rogorous, and it was not published.”
Beth 09.24.06 at 9:36 am
Paul - I love it! I’m going to campaign to have it included in the OED…
Eugene McKinnon 09.24.06 at 7:01 pm
Hi Beth,
You’re right about the Bretons being refugees from the Anglo-Saxon invasions, but how do you account for the fact that when the Germanic tribes invaded they called the foreign folk (the natives rather, the Celts) with a Wa sound. Wealas (Welsh), Wallachian, and Walloon (Belgian). That is equivalent to Gaelic and Gaulois? Wa and Ga.
Now I’m starting to think how Monty Python’s Argument sketch concluded with Michael Palin being whacked on the head and told to say Wa instead of Ow.
Blessings.
Eugene
Beth 09.24.06 at 7:42 pm
“Gael” and “Gaelic”, as I said, come from Scottish Gaelic; “Gaul” is Romance in origin (Latin, French); “Welsh” is Germanic - attested in Old English, Old Norse, etc. Words cognate with “Welsh” are indeed used in other ancient Germanic languages to refer to other peoples - such as the Walloons and the Gauls. However, there is no evidence that I can find to say that the words Gael and Welsh are cognate.
DH 09.25.06 at 3:54 pm
I’m still with Eugene on this. The evidence seems strong.
Sandra 02.13.09 at 8:54 am
I’m going to Scotland in June (first time). I am from Quebec and speak English and French. I plan on visiting, among others, the Island of Islay which, I have learned, is pronounced eye-lay. It looks to me like an anglicized pronunciation of the French ‘islet’, meaning ’small island’. As I looked up the origins of that particular word, I REALLY got confused with Gaelic/Gaulois, Celtic/Breton/Norse/Welsh/Cornish/et al Does it matter? I’m thinking that the roots inter-mingled way back when. For instance, when I visited Scandinavia several years ago, I couldn’t help thinking that the Viking invasions of what is now Scotland MUST have influenced the language…AND culture. And when I was in Bretagne during the Celtic festivals, there were bagpipers from Spain. So…what to make of all of this?
Tony Buglass 02.15.09 at 10:46 pm
I suspect “Islay” and “islet” (even if it is pronounced in a French style) are faux-amis. It is more likely to derive from the Gaelic name of the island, which is “Banrìgh nan Eilean” and means “Queen of the Hebrides.”
Bagpipes are pretty widespread, not just in Celtic culture. The Northumbrian pipes are sweeter, and quieter - the Scottish great-pipes are the Clan equivalent of heavy artillery, aimed to terrify the enemy on the other side of the glen.
Enjoy Islay. Enjoy the whisky. Explore a few single malts. Islay produces Ardbeg which is very nice, and Laphroaig, which is heavenly. But you have to decide for yourself which malt best suits your palate. Enjoy!
Chris 08.17.09 at 2:53 pm
If you look only at how the words ‘Gaul’ and Gael’ came into English, then they can’t be said to come from the same word. However, that does not a pure accident of phonology make.
In my view there must have been a word similar to Gaul/Gael that was shared across the Celtic world and meant something similar to ‘us’ in an ethnic sense. The word crops up repeatedly in distant corners where we know Celtic languages were spoken: Galatia in Turkey, Galicia in Spain, Gaul and the Irish Gaels all sound far too similar to ignore.
Byn Walters 05.11.11 at 4:35 pm
Gal.., Gaul and Wal are Germanic for foreigner; Gael refers to the Goidels who spoke the Goidelic or Q Celtic as spoken in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man, whilst the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons speak P Celtic or Brythonic which gives us the word British. The Pagan Germanic tribes i.e. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks and Frieslanders overran the Roman Empire giving the name ‘foreigner’ to all and sundry encountered on their way, hence British/Brythonic = Welsh = Foreign.
.