PDA

View Full Version : The Forgotten Legacy of Germanic Scotland



Pages : [1] 2 3

Huzar
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Only now i note the scottish flag amongst western germanics section ; It sounds a bit strange to me honestly. Is Scotland Germanic ? Many think Scotland being predominantly Celtic ethnoculturally rather than germanic(me too).


What do you think ?

Siegfried
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 12:49 PM
They are at least as Germanic as the French (who also have a section there). Scottish is a Germanic language, and Lowland Scots carry quite a bit of ancestry from Germanic settlers. I tend to think of Scotland as a blend and patchwork of Celtic and Germanic culture, just like France is a blend and patchwork of Celtic, Romance, and Germanic cultures. When it comes to self-identification, though, I'd expect most Scots to pick the Celtic family.

Siegmund
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 12:55 PM
Only now i note the scottish flag amongst western germanics section ; It sounds a bit strange to me honestly. Is Scotland Germanic ? Many think Scotland being predominantly Celtic ethnoculturally rather than germanic(me too).
To add to Siegfried's reply, the Scottish Lowlands are predominantly Germanic, with the people speaking a Germanic tongue known as Scots rather than the Scottish Gaelic spoken in the Celtic Highlands. If you are curious about the relationship of Scots to the other Germanic languages, click here (http://www.scots-online.org/grammar/whits.htm).

Wayfarer
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Only now i note the scottish flag amongst western germanics section ; It sounds a bit strange to me honestly. Is Scotland Germanic ? Many think Scotland being predominantly Celtic ethnoculturally rather than germanic(me too).


What do you think ?
Scotland is not a homogenous country. There are Celtic and Germanic elements that make up Scotland. But by far the Germanic part is the Strongest.
The Celtic part of Scotland is from at least 2 different origins. The Gaels and the Brytons.
The Gaels originate from Ireland and there language used to be known as Erse (Irish). Its from an Irish tribe, the Scotti, that our country gets its name from. The Brythons are an indigenous Celtic people that lived in most of Northern and Central Britain.
One of the most powerful and largest Kingdon was Ystrad Clud (Strathclyde) were i live. Place names in Scotland still retain this legacy, not only in Strathclyde but also in places like Glasgow, known in Brythonic as Gles cu the locals still call the city Glesca. Other examples are Dunbarton (Din Brython) and Edinburgh (Din Edin).
Although their language now only exists in Wales and Cornwall.
The Germanic part comes mostly from The Angles, the Northumbrian Kingdom. They ruled all the way up to Edinburgh and their language and culture spread throughout the Lowlands and Southern Uplands of Scotland wheras the Brythonic language became extinct and the Gaels remained mostly in the Highlands of Scotland and the Western Isles.
Scots, the language, took root from the Northumbrian Anglic in South Eastern Scotland and spread through out the Central belt of Scotland down to the Southern Uplands around the border between Scotland and England and north along the Eastern Lowland parts of Northern Scotland, Aberdeenshire Morayshire (the Eastern Grampians) up to Caithness and the Northern Isles (Orkney and Shetland). You will find in traditionally Gaelic areas they speak some of the best English. I remember a while ago Inverness was voted as the best English speaking place in the whole UK. The reason is because they never spoke any anglic dialect before so their only exposure to English is the Standard English they were taught at school. Whereas elsewhere in Scotland where they spoke Scots when English was introduced they spoke a Scottish English, English with alot of influence from Scots.
There has always been a distinction in Scotland between the Lallans (Lowlands) and the Highlands. The Highlanders known derogatively as Teuchers and Lowlanders sometimes called derogatively as Teutons.
I would say these divisions still partly exist today.
Even after the rise in the popularity of all things Celtic, most people in Scotland dont see themselves as Celts. Just as Scots. They dont particularly see themselves as Germanic either much like the English but i think that has more to do with the anti german stance of the government particularly since the second world war because all historical references show Lowland Scots as being aware of their Germanic and Teutonic heritage although still being destinct from the English.
So historically most Scots descend from Brythons and Picts until the arrival of the Gaels and the Angles. At first the Gaels dominated most of Scotland hence why Scotland is named after a Gaelic tribe, but Gaelic eventually couldnt compete with the Angles who were more numerous and wealthy and dominated the more prosperous regions of Scotland.

I would say Scotland is a Celto-Germanic nation of various degrees depending on what part of Scotland you go.

Coincidentally i was reading this old thread from another website which as it develops shows that the Highland Lowlands division in Scotland is still prevalent. Its a quite long thread 9 pages, but i suggest it be read as it is still quite interesting and offers an insight into some views of Scots today.
http://www.scotland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20846

Hagalaz
Monday, October 10th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Yes indeed many of the Lowland Scots are largely Germanic from the Angles, but don't forget that many of the Highland Scots are largely Germanic from Viking settlers. If I can find an article I once read claiming that nearly 40% of Highlanders have Norwegian ancestry I'll post it. The clan from which my Scottish family descends from was created by Norwegian settlers in the northern and western isles of Scotland.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:elomxeecwDYJ:www.hutching sfamily.com/history.shtml+MacQuiston+vikings&hl=en
http://www.isbuc.co.uk/People/Viking.htm

Rhydderch
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 05:08 AM
Scotland became English-speaking mainly because of the dominance of the Kingdom of England (particularly after the Norman Conquest), although it was the Northumbrian dialect which was adopted; this had already established itself in the former Northumbrian south-east Lowlands, around the capital Edinburgh.

I'd say Scotland (with a Gaelic name and establishment) has less Germanic influence overall than France (which is comparable to England in this respect), and the south-east Lowlands were part of Northumbria only as a result of the latter's imperialism; I highly doubt that it resulted in any significant (if any at all) Germanic settlement.

As for the division between Lowland and Highland Scotland, it has quite possibly existed since Roman times (or even earlier). Firstly it is a division between the wild Highlands and the somewhat more civilised Lowlands, but perhaps also between the Picts (and later, Scots) and Britons, the latter of whom were in fairly close contact with the Roman world.

Wayfarer
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Scotland became English-speaking mainly because of the dominance of the Kingdom of England (particularly after the Norman Conquest), although it was the Northumbrian dialect which was adopted; this had already established itself in the former Northumbrian south-east Lowlands, around the capital Edinburgh.
The Normans had little influence on the Scots language so i disagree that any anglic spoken in Scotland is a result of the Normans. Scots is particularly known for retaining archaic Anglic words. I think you are giving the Normans too much credit.
As for English, that only became a dominant language after the act of Union, prior to that the official language in Scotland was Scots. This is starkly shown in legal documents just prior to the Union and after. It clearly shows Scots before the Union and English after. The act of Union was in 1707. Over 6 hundred years after the Normans invaded Scotland. William the Conquerer invaded Scotland in 1072.
Also Northumbrian was not just adopted by the masses just like that, it spread throughout lowland Scotland through settlement and intermarriages.


I'd say Scotland (with a Gaelic name and establishment)
I explained how Scotland got its name earlier. What do you mean by Gaelic establishment?

has less Germanic influence overall than France
So Lowland Scots with a Germanic language and evidently high amount of Germanic blood, particularly in the East, is less Germanic than a France which speaks a Romance language and a high amount of people of Romanic and Celtic origin? :stop :D Think what you like.

(which is comparable to England in this respect)
Do you mean that England is also less Germanic thatn France?

and the south-east Lowlands were part of Northumbria only as a result of the latter's imperialism; I highly doubt that it resulted in any significant (if any at all) Germanic settlement.
Firstly the Anglic expansion through the Northumberland Kingdom is no more imperialist than gaelic "imperialism" remember they are originally from Ireland and Gaels speak a dialect of Irish.
Secondly what makes you think that the Germanic settlement was insignificant? Have you ever been to Eastern Scotland? Edinburgh can seem more English than England.
Thirdly, if the Germanic Settlement was so small how did the vast majority of Scots speak a Anglo dialect?
I mean where Gaelic settlement was strongest in the West Highlands and Western Isles the folk there started to speak Gaelic through intermixing and expansion of Gaelic speaking communities.
Ystrad Clud which was a Brythonic Kingdom was defeated by the Gaels and not the Northumbrians so how come it became an Anglic speaking area and not a Gaelic one? The people would go on to replace their Cymric language with an Anglic one.
Its obvious that once the kingdoms of Scotland was united the Germanic settlers spread westwards into Western Central and Southern Scotland mixing with the Britons there.


As for the division between Lowland and Highland Scotland, it has quite possibly existed since Roman times (or even earlier). Firstly it is a division between the wild Highlands and the somewhat more civilised Lowlands, but perhaps also between the Picts (and later, Scots) and Britons, the latter of whom were in fairly close contact with the Roman world.
Again i think your wrong. The divide geographically is somewhat exagerrated.
To assume any kind of divide existed throughout history si to assume the geography is responsible. This is not true.
I mean the divide is mostly cultural and not geographic. The Gaels were always considered different simply because they were Irish invaders and quite successful invaders too. So there was an element of fear.
Even the Britons who were also Celts would see them as just as different as the Anglic invaders simply because there was no notion of a "Celtic" identity and their languages which although share the same celtic roots were vastly different.
The Britons and the Picts are known to have influenced each other and the most probable theory for the Picts now is that they were a Britonic speaking people with a culture that pre dated the arrival of the Celts.
Picts have also lived in many parts of the lowlands.
Also the Kingdom of Strathclyde included large parts of the Highlands too.
So the difference isnt geographic its cultural.
Also the Romans considered all of Scotland uncivilised, including the Brythonic areas. Take another look at where Hadrians wall is located. Far south from the Highlands.

Huzar
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 10:12 PM
They are at least as Germanic as the French .



Effectively, to be completely honest, i don't perceive (instinctively) France like a Germanic country ; yes, in the northeast of the country there is an important germanic genetic component, (especially in regions like Alsace and Normandy) plus a notable phenotypical presence in the upperclass of the central-northern part of the country. Although this, France ,in its ethnocultural, Historic-national and genetic/phenotypical complex, isn't a Germanic country i think. I know many of you consider France a western Germanic country, but personally i'm disagree on the matter : imo, France is something of unclassifiable. It's not Germanic like England or Scotland and isn't Mediterranean/latin like Spain or Portugal. Is something other (Gaulic/Celtic more probably) i would define most of french people like GAULS/Celts "romanized".

Siegfried
Tuesday, October 11th, 2005, 11:39 PM
to be completely honest, i don't perceive (instinctively) France like a Germanic country

Agreed, with the notable exception of regions like Elsaß-Lothringen. France is not really a nation in the folkish sense; as I said above, it's a blend and patchwork of Celtic, Romance, and Germanic cultures. I don't think the whole can be classified as anything more precise than Western European.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 08:43 AM
The Normans had little influence on the Scots language so i disagree that any anglic spoken in Scotland is a result of the Normans. Scots is particularly known for retaining archaic Anglic words. I think you are giving the Normans too much credit.
As for English, that only became a dominant language after the act of Union, prior to that the official language in Scotland was Scots. This is starkly shown in legal documents just prior to the Union and after. It clearly shows Scots before the Union and English after. The act of Union was in 1707. Over 6 hundred years after the Normans invaded Scotland. William the Conquerer invaded Scotland in 1072.I never suggested it was due to Normans invading Scotland. I'm referring to the fact that England seems to have become more powerful after the Norman Conquest, and as a result tended more and more to dominate Scotland.

My use of the term "English" was generic; I'm talking about the Northumbrian dialect, which was originally referred to in Scotland as "Inglis", but eventually became "Scots". I'm well aware that Scots became the national language of the country.


Also Northumbrian was not just adopted by the masses just like that, it spread throughout lowland Scotland through settlement and intermarriages.How do you know that? I think you're making a deduction, just as I am; it remains to be seen whose deduction is correct.

Gododdin, in the south-east Lowlands, was conquered by Northumbria around the 600's, and it is my opinion that Northumbrian spread through that region because it became politically dominant at this time, becoming the language of administration. But it must have taken many centuries before it became the native language.


I explained how Scotland got its name earlier. What do you mean by Gaelic establishment?The kingdom was established by Gaels, and the royalty was for a long time of Gaelic descent. They gave Scotland its name.


So Lowland Scots with a Germanic language and evidently high amount of Germanic blood, particularly in the East, is less Germanic than a France which speaks a Romance language and a high amount of people of Romanic and Celtic origin? :stop :D Think what you like.France was established by, and named after, the Germanic Franks.

I don't agree that Scots 'evidently' have a high amount of Germanic blood. In general they are easily distinguishable from Germanics. Blond hair, if that's what you're referring to, does not equal Germanic; the Bronze age invaders were brown and blond in hair colour, and their descendants are common in Eastern Scotland.

As for language, are the Irish more Germanic than the French, since the vast majority speak a Germanic first language?


Do you mean that England is also less Germanic thatn France?'Comparable' is the word I used; in other words I believe they're about equal in that respect.

The subject of England being Germanic-speaking, whereas France is not, is an interesting one, and I think the reason is not due to a difference in the nature of the Germanic invasion and settlement, but to the peculiar position of Latin in Britain. I have an opinion on it, which I might post soon on another thread.


Firstly the Anglic expansion through the Northumberland Kingdom is no more imperialist than gaelic "imperialism" remember they are originally from Ireland and Gaels speak a dialect of Irish.Exactly. Gaelic was the language of administration all over Scotland as a result of imperialism, and that's why it spread over much of the Lowlands and North-East Scotland.


Have you ever been to Eastern Scotland? Edinburgh can seem more English than England.I know what Scotsmen look like, and I wouldn't argue that they are very dissimilar to the English. But as I've said on many threads, I don't think the English have much Germanic blood either.


Thirdly, if the Germanic Settlement was so small how did the vast majority of Scots speak a Anglo dialect?As I said, England loomed large over Scotland, and English came to be the language of the Scottish royal court (also helped by the fact that Anglo-Norman aristocrats were becoming influential); but they adopted the variety of English which was already spoken in their realm. This, of course, gave it very much a dominant position, and slowly but surely, it began to supplant Gaelic.


Ystrad Clud which was a Brythonic Kingdom was defeated by the Gaels and not the Northumbrians so how come it became an Anglic speaking area and not a Gaelic one? The people would go on to replace their Cymric language with an Anglic one.
Its obvious that once the kingdoms of Scotland was united the Germanic settlers spread westwards into Western Central and Southern Scotland mixing with the Britons there.The people of Strathclyde were adopting Gaelic when "Inglis" became politically dominant. However, Gaelic may have continued to replace Brythonic even after this; at any rate it survived in parts of Ayrshire and Galloway until at least the 17th century.
But the fact that Inglis spread through Scotland is due to its position as the administrative (or official) language of the country.


Again i think your wrong. The divide geographically is somewhat exagerrated.
To assume any kind of divide existed throughout history si to assume the geography is responsible. This is not true.
I mean the divide is mostly cultural and not geographic. The Gaels were always considered different simply because they were Irish invaders and quite successful invaders too. So there was an element of fear.
Even the Britons who were also Celts would see them as just as different as the Anglic invaders simply because there was no notion of a "Celtic" identity and their languages which although share the same celtic roots were vastly different.
The Britons and the Picts are known to have influenced each other and the most probable theory for the Picts now is that they were a Britonic speaking people with a culture that pre dated the arrival of the Celts.
Picts have also lived in many parts of the lowlands.
Also the Kingdom of Strathclyde included large parts of the Highlands too.
So the difference isnt geographic its cultural.Geography can have a considerable effect on culture; mountains often isolate people from cultural innovations and civilising effects.


Also the Romans considered all of Scotland uncivilised, including the Brythonic areas. Take another look at where Hadrians wall is located. Far south from the Highlands.Less civilised than England yes, but the Brythonic areas came under Roman rule three times (only about twenty years each time though, I think), and don't forget about the Antonine wall, north of Strathclyde. The Brythonic areas were constantly subjected to Roman influence (even when not part of the Empire), whereas the Picts remained uncivilised in the more isolated Highlands. As far as I know, the Britons in southern Scotland were not considered Barbarians in Late Roman times, unlike the Picts and Scots.

Wayfarer
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 08:14 PM
Scotland became English-speaking mainly because of the dominance of the Kingdom of England (particularly after the Norman Conquest), although it was the Northumbrian dialect which was adopted; this had already established itself in the former Northumbrian south-east Lowlands, around the capital Edinburgh.
I never suggested it was due to Normans invading Scotland. I'm referring to the fact that England seems to have become more powerful after the Norman Conquest, and as a result tended more and more to dominate Scotland.
Yet Scots or Inglis was spoken in Scotland before England even existed as a state. It kept its distinctive character and changed little well after the Normans invaded. The only noticable English influence only came about after the act of Union, like i said earlier over 600 years after the Norman invasions. Therefore England and the Normans had little influence on the development of the Scots language, and therefore its spread in Scotland.


How do you know that? I think you're making a deduction, just as I am; it remains to be seen whose deduction is correct.
Gododdin, in the south-east Lowlands, was conquered by Northumbria around the 600's, and it is my opinion that Northumbrian spread through that region because it became politically dominant at this time, becoming the language of administration. But it must have taken many centuries before it became the native language.
I think my deduction is more logical. What reason would the illiterate common folk of the Cymri have in speaking Norhtumbrian? If the Northumbrian became a dominant political class then how would knowledge of their dialect and all its peculiarities spread amongst the Brythons? I mean there wasnt exactly any schools for the upper class Northumbrians to teach Inglis to the masses were there?
Wasnt there a time when Latin was the administrative language of much of Europe? Did that mean Europeans started to speak Latin? Except for the middle classes the common folk retained their own languages.
So the most reasonable deduction to make for the Gododdin changing from a Cymric speaking region to a Inglis one is through spread of native Inglis speakers and intermixing between the two.

I'd say Scotland (with a Gaelic name and establishment)
The kingdom was established by Gaels, and the royalty was for a long time of Gaelic descent. They gave Scotland its name.
Like i said i already know that the Gaels gave Scotland its name, however what do you mean Scotland has a Gaelic establishment? When you said Scotland with a gaelic name and establishment you said it in the present tense. I would still like to know what you mean by this.

France was established by, and named after, the Germanic Franks.
It has already been explained in this thread that France is a very complex country with the Germanic element only comprising one part of the country. France is as much Germanic as Scotland is Gaelic. France got its name from a Germanic tribe and Scotland from a Gaelic tribe. The main languages of both countries are not the language of the founding peoples (France speaks a Romanic language and not a Germanic one and Scotland speaks a Germanic language and not Gaelic.
So France may be named after the Germanic Franks but that doesnt mean all French people are Germanic, likewise Scotland being named after a Gaelic tribe the Scotti doesnt mean all Scots are Gaels.
The origin of a peoples name is not an indicator of that peoples ethnicity. Ill give an example, the Prussians named after a Baltic people, does that mean they're not Germans but Balts? Sudeten Deutch, the Sudete comes from a Greek word, does that make them Greeks?

I don't agree that Scots 'evidently' have a high amount of Germanic blood. In general they are easily distinguishable from Germanics. Blond hair, if that's what you're referring to, does not equal Germanic; the Bronze age invaders were brown and blond in hair colour, and their descendants are common in Eastern Scotland.
I never mentioned blonde hair. Im not an anthropologist so im not going to talk about phenotypes and anthropological types and so on, but to say Scots are easily distinguishable from Germanics is silly in my opinion. Because firstly "Germanics" is not a genetic term but an ethno-linguistic one. Germanics differ throughout the Germanic world. Secondly i dont believe for a minute you can spot out of a crowd a Scot or someone from Northern England. Thridly like i said earlier Scotland is a Celto-Germanic country that has also had various waves of human migration even prior to the arrival of the Celts so the make up of Scotland will be very diverse.

I'd say Scotland (with a Gaelic name and establishment) has less Germanic influence overall than France (which is comparable to England in this respect)
'Comparable' is the word I used; in other words I believe they're about equal in that respect.
The way it came across seemed to suggest to me that Scotland is as Germanic as England both of which is less Germanic than France. France which has a small Germanic element to it restricted to the North and extreme East of France it appeared like you were doing your best to undermine the Germanic peoples of the farthest west of Europe.

The subject of England being Germanic-speaking, whereas France is not, is an interesting one, and I think the reason is not due to a difference in the nature of the Germanic invasion and settlement, but to the peculiar position of Latin in Britain. I have an opinion on it, which I might post soon on another thread.
Interesting id like to hear it. I always thought Latin was the main reason France became Romanic speaking and the absence of a great Latin influence in the British isles is why Britain is still a Germanic speaking place today. The only Romanic influence was from the French speaking Normans which is why Romanic words are found in Standard English.

Gaelic was the language of administration all over Scotland as a result of imperialism, and that's why it spread over much of the Lowlands and North-East Scotland.
The people of Strathclyde were adopting Gaelic when "Inglis" became politically dominant. However, Gaelic may have continued to replace Brythonic even after this; at any rate it survived in parts of Ayrshire and Galloway until at least the 17th century.
But the fact that Inglis spread through Scotland is due to its position as the administrative (or official) language of the country.
Gaelic was the administrative language of the parts of Scotland under their control not all over Scotland since when the South East of Scotland became part of the Kingdom the administration of the Kingdom moved to Edinburgh and the administrative language thereon was Scots. Therefor Gaelic was never the administrative language there.
I get the impression you seem to think that every time some people invade a part of Scotland the people just stop speaking their native tongue and adopt the language of the invader. They must have really good linguistic skills since there were no schools to teach them the invaders language and since you think settlement by the invaders was either minimal or not at all then the only way they could learn the new language is to listen intentively to the invaders until they could get a grasp of the language, but not only that, so good were their skills that they also adopted the same dialect and peculiarities of the invaders language so well that they were indistinguishable from them. At least linguistically. Of course some where down the line you need to be realistic and try and see it as if you were there at the time. Its not as simple as oh the Angles invaded but did not settle however because of the Anglic invasion the local people adopted their language. It might sound good written down but in reality not very practical.
The "Gaelic" spoken in Galloway is actually Manx and is different to the Gaelic spoken by the Scotti. Ayrshire is a coastal region looking over to Ireland so there had always been even before the Scots invaded Strathclyde, Gaelic speakers in Ayrshire. Apart from that and the Gaels who moved into Strathclyde following its invasion, Gaelic language was minimal in Strathclyde. Just because there were some speakers of Gaelic in Strathclyde doesnt mean they all were and isnt proof that Brythonic was being replaced by Gaelic.

I know what Scotsmen look like, and I wouldn't argue that they are very dissimilar to the English. But as I've said on many threads, I don't think the English have much Germanic blood either.
isnt this a contradiction to what you said earlier that the English were comparable to the "Germanic" French?


Geography can have a considerable effect on culture; mountains often isolate people from cultural innovations and civilising effects.
I dont think you understood what i was trying to say. The geography is not what distinguishes the different people in Scotland so it is not a reason for the divisions in Scotland. Like i said Picts lived mostly in the Highlands of Scotland AS WELL as the Lowlands of North East Scotland and there were ALSO Pictish communities in South West Scotland.
Brythons didnt only live in the Lowlands of Central Scotland but also in the Highlands too as well as the Southern Uplands.
Gaels were not exclusive to the Highlands either but that was were they were strongest simply because it was were they were the longest and they dominated the region unlike elsewhere in Scotland. Not because of its isolation.
Its not the geography thats responsible for the different cultures, this is were you are wrong.
Most of the Highlands isnt as isolated as its made out to be. In fact the "mountains" arent even that big at all. its mostly hilly because of glacial scars from the last ice age.

Rhydderch
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Yet Scots or Inglis was spoken in Scotland before England even existed as a state. It kept its distinctive character and changed little well after the Normans invaded.I never suggested otherwise.


The only noticable English influence only came about after the act of Union, like i said earlier over 600 years after the Norman invasions. Therefore England and the Normans had little influence on the development of the Scots language, and therefore its spread in Scotland.I think there is a Norman French influence on the Scots language actually. However I was only referring to England being stronger after the Norman Conquest, and therefore perhaps more inclined to dominate Scotland.


I think my deduction is more logical. What reason would the illiterate common folk of the Cymri have in speaking Norhtumbrian? If the Northumbrian became a dominant political class then how would knowledge of their dialect and all its peculiarities spread amongst the Brythons? I mean there wasnt exactly any schools for the upper class Northumbrians to teach Inglis to the masses were there?I would say the Gododdin nobility, after they were conquered by Northumbria, would have found it convenient to learn English (as a second language) because it was the language of their conquerors' royal court and administration. As time went on, its use would have increased, until their native tongue dropped out of use. It's a slow process though, and must have taken many generations. Now once the nobility were English-speaking, it would have slowly spread through the lower classes, which almost invariably happens in such situations.

I think it's quite likely (and I'll stress it's only a deduction) that Brythonic was still widespread among the peasantry of Lothian at the time Inglis became the language of the Scottish court. If so, they could well have been mostly bi-lingual.


Wasnt there a time when Latin was the administrative language of much of Europe? Did that mean Europeans started to speak Latin? Except for the middle classes the common folk retained their own languages.I can give the example of Roman Gaul. Here, Latin became the language of administration, and the native Gaulish nobility eventually became native speakers of it, then it spread through the lower classes, although the process was apparently not complete until after Roman rule had ceased. It was not due to an influx of Roman settlers.


Like i said i already know that the Gaels gave Scotland its name, however what do you mean Scotland has a Gaelic establishment? When you said Scotland with a gaelic name and establishment you said it in the present tense. I would still like to know what you mean by this.I probably should have used the past tense. I was using the present tense in the same way that someone might say Scotland 'has' a Gaelic past. I just mean it was established by Gaels.


So France may be named after the Germanic Franks but that doesnt mean all French people are Germanic, likewise Scotland being named after a Gaelic tribe the Scotti doesnt mean all Scots are Gaels.
The origin of a peoples name is not an indicator of that peoples ethnicity. Ill give an example, the Prussians named after a Baltic people, does that mean they're not Germans but Balts? Sudeten Deutch, the Sudete comes from a Greek word, does that make them Greeks?In my opinion neither the French, Scots or English are really Germanic. What I'm saying is that the early Germanic peoples had a strong influence on the formation of England and France, but less influence on the formation of Scotland.


I never mentioned blonde hair. Im not an anthropologist so im not going to talk about phenotypes and anthropological types and so on, but to say Scots are easily distinguishable from Germanics is silly in my opinion.When you said eastern Scots evidently have a high amount of Germanic blood I assumed you were talking about phenotype.


Because firstly "Germanics" is not a genetic term but an ethno-linguistic one. Germanics differ throughout the Germanic world. Secondly i dont believe for a minute you can spot out of a crowd a Scot or someone from Northern England. Thridly like i said earlier Scotland is a Celto-Germanic country that has also had various waves of human migration even prior to the arrival of the Celts so the make up of Scotland will be very diverse.There is variation everywhere, however I find that as a rule, Scots are quite distinguishable from people like Dutch and Germans. That's not to say look-alikes aren't found between the two regions.

But Scots would usually be difficult to distinguish from people of Northern England.


Interesting id like to hear it. I always thought Latin was the main reason France became Romanic speaking and the absence of a great Latin influence in the British isles is why Britain is still a Germanic speaking place today. The only Romanic influence was from the French speaking Normans which is why Romanic words are found in Standard English.French is basically derived from the Latin which the Gauls adopted; it also has a strong influence from the Germanic spoken by the Franks.


Gaelic was the administrative language of the parts of Scotland under their control not all over Scotland since when the South East of Scotland became part of the Kingdom the administration of the Kingdom moved to Edinburgh and the administrative language thereon was Scots. Therefor Gaelic was never the administrative language there.Gaelic was the administrative language over the whole of Scotland for a time (apparently not long enough to establish itself as the native tongue of the south-east though). The royal court continued to be Gaelic-speaking until at least the time of Malcolm III; he married an English princess, and their son grew up in England; this young man returned to take the throne, bringing with him many Anglo-Norman nobles, who settled in the kingdom. Inglis gradually took hold and became the language of the court, and these things probably had something to do with it too. But as I said earlier, it was the Northumbrian variety of English which was taken up, presumably because it was already spoken in part of the kingdom.


I get the impression you seem to think that every time some people invade a part of Scotland the people just stop speaking their native tongue and adopt the language of the invader. They must have really good linguistic skills since there were no schools to teach them the invaders language and since you think settlement by the invaders was either minimal or not at all then the only way they could learn the new language is to listen intentively to the invaders until they could get a grasp of the language, but not only that, so good were their skills that they also adopted the same dialect and peculiarities of the invaders language so well that they were indistinguishable from them. At least linguistically. Of course some where down the line you need to be realistic and try and see it as if you were there at the time. Its not as simple as oh the Angles invaded but did not settle however because of the Anglic invasion the local people adopted their language. It might sound good written down but in reality not very practical.Languages spread without formal education, and it doesn't exactly happen in the blink of an eye.
I doubt that many 16th century Cornishmen learnt English at school, but over the next two or three centuries their language was supplanted by English.


The "Gaelic" spoken in Galloway is actually Manx and is different to the Gaelic spoken by the Scotti. Ayrshire is a coastal region looking over to Ireland so there had always been even before the Scots invaded Strathclyde, Gaelic speakers in Ayrshire. Apart from that and the Gaels who moved into Strathclyde following its invasion, Gaelic language was minimal in Strathclyde. Just because there were some speakers of Gaelic in Strathclyde doesnt mean they all were and isnt proof that Brythonic was being replaced by Gaelic.Ayshire was part of Brythonic Strathclyde, but it was largely Gaelic-speaking by the end of the Middle ages. It's possible that it never entirely replaced Brythonic, but there can be little doubt that most natives adopted Gaelic.


I dont think you understood what i was trying to say. The geography is not what distinguishes the different people in Scotland so it is not a reason for the divisions in Scotland. Like i said Picts lived mostly in the Highlands of Scotland AS WELL as the Lowlands of North East Scotland and there were ALSO Pictish communities in South West Scotland.
Brythons didnt only live in the Lowlands of Central Scotland but also in the Highlands too as well as the Southern Uplands.
Gaels were not exclusive to the Highlands either but that was were they were strongest simply because it was were they were the longest and they dominated the region unlike elsewhere in Scotland. Not because of its isolation.
Its not the geography thats responsible for the different cultures, this is were you are wrong.
Most of the Highlands isnt as isolated as its made out to be. In fact the "mountains" arent even that big at all. its mostly hilly because of glacial scars from the last ice age.The Highlanders have historically been known to Lowlanders as uncivilised men. Geography is not what determines culture, but it has an effect on it, by allowing or disallowing cultural contact and civilising influences.

The Scottish Highlands are enough of a barrier to have a considerable influence in this way.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, October 25th, 2005, 05:59 AM
The "Gaelic" spoken in Galloway is actually Manx and is different to the Gaelic spoken by the Scotti.I'm not sure that there is any solid evidence for Galloway Gaelic being a form of Manx. I don't remember that any documents in the language have survived, or were even written, so knowledge of it probably comes only from names, in which case it would be difficult to be sure of its affiliations.

It's much more likely to have spread in Galloway through the dominance of the Scottish crown.

æþeling
Tuesday, October 25th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I think Scotland has quite a big number of divisions.

First you have the largely English south-east. They are descended mostly from Germanic settlers and are the birthplace of Scots English.

The south-west is British in origin. The old kingdoms of Rheged and Strathclyde were dominant and Welsh was spoken until the 11th century.

The Highlands are largely Gaelic in origins, particularly the clans. Although most Gaels possibly have Pictish blood.

The Orkneys and the northern coastel plains are probably more in common with Norway in terms of origins. The Shetlands are practicaly Norwegian.

I would say Scotland is the most diverse of the British island nations.

Milesian
Tuesday, October 25th, 2005, 11:01 PM
I propose we reverse the ridiculous verdict given at the Convention of Druim Ceatt and return Alba to it's proper heritage ;)

Sigurd
Tuesday, October 25th, 2005, 11:54 PM
I'd also say an admixture of Gaels and Germanics. Of course Gaels came a long long time ago, but don't forget that the Wikings also came from the North! ;)

Wayfarer
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 12:29 AM
I propose we reverse the ridiculous verdict given at the Convention of Druim Ceatt and return Alba to it's proper heritage ;)
Always the same with the damn Irish. Separatism :D
I like Scotland the way it is, i'd hate to see it broken up.

Oh, also Alba wasnt established until the 9th Century while the convention of Druim Ceatt was in 575.

Wayfarer
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 01:12 AM
I'm not sure that there is any solid evidence for Galloway Gaelic being a form of Manx. I don't remember that any documents in the language have survived, or were even written, so knowledge of it probably comes only from names, in which case it would be difficult to be sure of its affiliations.

It's much more likely to have spread in Galloway through the dominance of the Scottish crown.
Your obviously not sure about alot of things.

The form of Gaelic spoken in Galloway was Gaelg and not Scottish Gaelic. It came up from the South and not down from the North ;)

Rhydderch
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 05:25 AM
Your obviously not sure about alot of things.Better than being "sure" about something which might be false ;)


The form of Gaelic spoken in Galloway was Gaelg and not Scottish Gaelic. It came up from the South and not down from the North ;)It's no good making assertions, you need evidence. I'm not aware of solid evidence for an influx of Gaelic speakers from the south; if you are then I'd be interested to know.

The story of the GallGaidhil conquering and giving their name to Galloway is mere speculation, if that's what you have in mind. I think a better hypothesis is the one that it comes from the Brythonic for Caledonia, Calleddon/Callewyddon, which mutated to Callewydd. According to the proponents of the theory, this mutation pattern can be found in other Brythonic place names. Also Galloway was in early times often known as Galwedia or Galweitha.

The region's inhabitants seem to have been Picts, which would explain why they were called Caledonians.

There was however, an influx of Vikings from Ireland around the 800's; these men also conquered North-west England and the Isle of Man. Since they came from Ireland, it's likely that their leading men would have had a knowledge of Gaelic, making it easy to communicate with the Scots, who soon became their overlords. It's conceivable then that the Gaelic which was eventually adopted there had a somewhat more freshly Irish aspect to it than that of Dalriada.

Wayfarer
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 06:00 PM
Better than being "sure" about something which might be false ;)

It's no good making assertions, you need evidence. I'm not aware of solid evidence for an influx of Gaelic speakers from the south; if you are then I'd be interested to know.
The general consensus among historians is that the dialect of Gaelic spoken in Galloway is Gaelg. Just do any google search with Galloway Gaelic or Galloway Gaelg and you will find not one site that says they spoke Dalriadan Gaelic. Like even you claimed earlier in the thread the last speaker died in the 17th century. I would like to know what evidence you have that Dalriadan Gaelic was spoken there since it is you who disagrees with the general view that Gaelg was spoken.


The story of the GallGaidhil conquering and giving their name to Galloway is mere speculation, if that's what you have in mind. I think a better hypothesis is the one that it comes from the Brythonic for Caledonia, Calleddon/Callewyddon, which mutated to Callewydd. According to the proponents of the theory, this mutation pattern can be found in other Brythonic place names. Also Galloway was in early times often known as Galwedia or Galweitha.

The region's inhabitants seem to have been Picts, which would explain why they were called Caledonians.
Gaels, Britons, Picts. I thought you were claiming they were Dalriadan Scots. Which is it now?

Caledonia is from a Pictish tribe who were from much further to the north.


There was however, an influx of Vikings from Ireland around the 800's; these men also conquered North-west England and the Isle of Man. Since they came from Ireland, it's likely that their leading men would have had a knowledge of Gaelic, making it easy to communicate with the Scots, who soon became their overlords.
Gaelg like all Gaelic dialects naturally comes from Ireland originally. Gaelg was spoken originally in Ireland spreading to the Isle of Man and Galloway. The Gaelg dialect exists today only on the Isle of Man. If you have some new evidence that suggests otherwise please let me know and let the academic world know too since surely they must not have seen this evidence either.


It's conceivable then that the Gaelic which was eventually adopted there had a somewhat more freshly Irish aspect to it than that of Dalriada.
"more freshly Irish aspect" qo he. WTF does that mean. You do talk alot of pish sometimes.

GreenHeart
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 11:40 PM
It's quite rediculous that Celts are in a different grouping than Germanic people. All Celtic people are Germanic. There is no racial difference whatsoever.

Of course Scotland is germanic. So is England. I'm not so sure about Ireland and Wales though....

The Scots are the most nordo-germanic looking in the whole british isles, from what I've seen anyway. :thumbup

Only good things to the Scots. A very great people!

Huzar
Wednesday, October 26th, 2005, 11:57 PM
It's quite rediculous that Celts are in a different grouping than Germanic people. All Celtic people are Germanic. There is no racial difference whatsoever.
Of course Scotland is germanic. So is England. I'm not so sure about Ireland and Wales though....



I don't dubt Scotland being phenotypically very nordic ; this is true. But i have many dubt that Celtic and Germanic pop. being the same thing : imo, they're different between them like Germanic and Slavic populations are.
If Celtic pop. are Germanic, then Ireland too should be Germanic (this hasn't any sense, i think); Again, if you consider "Celtic" in it's wider sense, then France and North-Italy should be added too. Honestly, i find all that questionable.

Rhydderch
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 06:07 AM
The general consensus among historians is that the dialect of Gaelic spoken in Galloway is Gaelg. Just do any google search with Galloway Gaelic or Galloway Gaelg and you will find not one site that says they spoke Dalriadan Gaelic. Like even you claimed earlier in the thread the last speaker died in the 17th century. I would like to know what evidence you have that Dalriadan Gaelic was spoken there since it is you who disagrees with the general view that Gaelg was spoken.Most of the websites say that Manx is closely related to the Galloway and Ulster varieties of Gaelic. I'm not sure if that is just conjecture though.

But the question is whether or not there was an influx of Gaelic speakers from Man or anywhere for that matter. I haven't seen any evidence for that.


Gaels, Britons, Picts. I thought you were claiming they were Dalriadan Scots. Which is it now?Speaking the language of Dalriada does'nt make you a Dalriadan Scot. However, I didn't actually claim that they adopted the Dalriadan variety; merely that Gaelic spread in Galloway through Dalriadan political dominance, in much the same way that Inglis spread in Scotland through the dominance of England.


Caledonia is from a Pictish tribe who were from much further to the north.That's true but they seem to have been, at least largely, the dominant tribe. I would assume that the authors of the hypothesis think that 'Caledonian' was sometimes used generically to mean all Picts, as is often the case with dominant tribes.


Gaelg like all Gaelic dialects naturally comes from Ireland originally. Gaelg was spoken originally in Ireland spreading to the Isle of Man and Galloway. The Gaelg dialect exists today only on the Isle of Man.I don't think I've heard the Galloway dialect referred to as 'Gaelg'. I haven't heard of a written form of it either, so as I said it'd be difficult to know what it was like. But have you heard of a written form of it?


If you have some new evidence that suggests otherwiseOtherwise than what?


"more freshly Irish aspect" qo he. WTF does that mean. You do talk alot of pish sometimes.Well, perhaps my terminology isn't quite up to scratch, but even so, surely the context made it clear what I meant. What I'm saying is that the Vikings had come 'freshly' (i.e. directly) from Ireland, and if their leaders could speak Gaelic, it would obviously have been an Irish variety, and could be partly responsible for differences between the Galloway and Dalriada dialects, the latter of which was well established in Scotland and so had not 'freshly' arrived from Ireland.


But as for 'qo he', 'WTF' and 'pish', maybe we both need some touching up on our skills of expression :D ;)

Rhydderch
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 06:37 AM
Always the same with the damn Irish. Separatism :DDivide and conquer tactic ;)


But i have many dubt that Celtic and Germanic pop. being the same thing : imo, they're different between them like Germanic and Slavic populations are.Indeed the Slavic and Germanic groups are probably closer to one another than the latter is to the Celtic group.

Triglav
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:50 AM
It's quite rediculous that Celts are in a different grouping than Germanic people. All Celtic people are Germanic. There is no racial difference whatsoever.

Of course Scotland is germanic. So is England. I'm not so sure about Ireland and Wales though....
Why, I'm confused... :scratch Aren't all Celtic people Germanic? :)

Huzar
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 11:02 AM
Why, I'm confused... :scratch Aren't all Celtic people Germanic? :)


Are you joking right ? ;)

æþeling
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 06:51 PM
I see Celts and Germanics as two sides of a very thin coin. Beyond linguistics there is little that seperates the two. Which is as it should be. Both represent the Northern European race at its finest.

Siegfried
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:15 PM
The Celtic and Germanic peoples split rather late and have intermingled a great deal, but I disagree all Celts should be considered Germanic. I do think the gap between the two groups is so small and blurred we can speak of a Celto-Germanic ethnic complex in northwestern Europe, though.

Huzar
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:39 PM
I disagree all Celts should be considered Germanic. I do think the gap between the two groups is so small and blurred we can speak of a Celto-Germanic ethnic complex in northwestern Europe, though.


I agree. Celtic and Germanic are two different populations. In the british isles these two component are so mixed each other that we can use the term Celto-Germanic

Huzar
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 11:53 PM
Yes


Ireland too ?

Milesian
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 02:59 PM
I have one question though - are Germans Germanic?

Milesian
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Also, why is this thread called "Scots Fowk"?
Sounds really odd.

Wayfarer
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 03:28 PM
I have one question though - are Germans Germanic?
I think the most important question is, what does Germanic mean? It seems like many people have different have different opinions of what it means.
Personally i see it as a ethno-linguistic and cultural term. With that definition Lallan Scots are Germanic. So are the Germans :D


Also, why is this thread called "Scots Fowk"?
Sounds really odd.
In Scots, what you refer to as jibberish ;), fowk means folk.

You can look in the Dictionary of the Scots Language (Dictionar o the Scots Leid) which is an internet edition of both the DOST (Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue) and the SND (Scottish National Dictionary).

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/

dehook
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 10:51 PM
I must admit that I don't really understand what is and isn't Germanic. But as someone who has lived in Scotland for many years, let me say this...

In my opinion, the nordic element in Scotland is exaggerated. Traces of nordic ancestry can be seen in a lot of the population, but Hallstatt nordics aren't particularly common. Most Scots are a mix of nordic, borreby, brunn and atlanto med. So if Germanic=nordic, then Scotland is only partly Germanic. Of course there are differences between the areas; for example, I noticed that Glaswegians seemed to be more nordic than Aberdonians and those in the North East. On average, England is much more nordic than any of the Celtic nations.

Sigurd
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 11:42 PM
Ireland too ?

Don't forget the Vikings also came to parts of Ireland!

Siegfried
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 07:33 AM
Don't forget the Vikings also came to parts of Ireland!

True; the Irish have significant Germanic admixture. They identify themselves as Celtic, though.

Huzar
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 03:09 PM
I must admit that I don't really understand what is and isn't Germanic.

The most common statement i've read here on Skadi......;) However you're right, Dehook. This equivoke is hard to die. It's very strange : although this is a site on Germanic preservation, the definition itself of "Germanic" isn't (exactly) the same thing for all.




In my opinion, the nordic element in Scotland is exaggerated. Traces of nordic ancestry can be seen in a lot of the population, but Hallstatt nordics aren't particularly common. Most Scots are a mix of nordic, borreby, brunn and atlanto med. So if Germanic=nordic, then Scotland is only partly Germanic. Of course there are differences between the areas; for example, I noticed that Glaswegians seemed to be more nordic than Aberdonians and those in the North East. On average, England is much more nordic than any of the Celtic nations.

Exactly my same thoughts.

Siegfried
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 03:45 PM
It's very strange : although this is a site on Germanic preservation, the definition itself of "Germanic" isn't (exactly) the same thing for all.

Every ethnic and racial group has blurred edges. Go to Stormfront and witness the 'Who is White?', 'Is [s]he White?' threads. Irish nationalists may argue about the 'Irishness' of some American citizens, Russians about how Slavic the Bulgarians are. These issues only arise when people no longer have a concrete community of which they are a part, and take refuge in more abstract levels of identity.

Sigurd
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 03:57 PM
I would say that the group of Celto-Germanic resembles everything that is Northern European in nature, that is generally likely to be people now in UK, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Eastern Switzerland (germanspeaking part), Northern France (Normandie, Alsace, Lorraine), Northern Italy (Southern Tyrol, Lombardy), Northern Slovenia (South Styria), West Czech Republic (Sudetenland), North-West Poland (the Corridor), Russia's "Kaliningrad Oblast" (East Prussia), Western Lithuania (East Prussia), Finland, Ireland.

Most phenotypes there are predominantly Germanic in its nature.

Huzar
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 05:32 PM
These issues only arise when people no longer have a concrete community of which they are a part, and take refuge in more abstract levels of identity.

Perfect answer (like usual :) ). That's the heart of the problem, Sieg. ; abstrac visions can be incredibly flattering; but more you're attracted by such dreams, more you're far by your reality. I'm north-Italian, Sieg., and you surely know many people claim NorthItaly being germanic : well, it should be natural and logic ,from myself, to sustain this theory on this site. But, personally, i've never sustained that , and i never will. It would be NOT honest, imo. , rather a flattering illusion (illusions haven't much sense in the real world). I believe that germanic populations have had a determinant role in the history of my country (the northern part i mean) : it's sufficient to remember Longbards Austrian empire etc. . Although that, North-Italy can't be considered a Germanic area ; It's rather a mix of Celt/Gallic-Romance-Germanic populations and then, something of not exactly classifiable (like the major part of France surely). Very different from the centre-south Italy, sure, and probably not a southern european area (rather central european), but , on the other side, not classifiable like predominantly Germanic.

I think the same about countries like Scotland or Ireland or wales (or France). Yes, Germanic influence was probably determinant in their formation, but, can we call Irish or welsh to be Germanic ? Germanic, like component (%) of a nation background composition, isn't sufficient to call a nation Germanic : the germanic component must be PREDOMINANT on the others.......Scotland language is english only cause England domain. The same in Ireland. It's clear. Imo, honestly, all these discussion originate from the fact that in America, many supporters of white nationalism are of mixed origin (large strata of white america are constituted by Irish-German or Scottish-German or Irish-Dutch mix), therefore : 1) american white nationalism is, obviously, more northeuropean oriented. 2) it's natural, from them, an attempt to unite strongly Celtism and Germanism in one thing.

æþeling
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 07:12 PM
What is Germanic?

For me it is a cultural-linguistic term. The Germanic peoples are/were those who spoke a Germanic language and shared a similiar culture, religion etc. In essence it is an ethnic term.

The problem for today is how you define a modern Germanic nation? I would argue that it is impossible except for a few exceptions. Perhaps Norway, Sweden, Iceland are closest to a "pure" Germanic nation. It is the same as using the term Celtic. Many say Ireland is Celtic. Fair enough but you have to take into account various immigrations since the Gael tribes first settled there. Norse-Danes, English, Scots, and Welsh, Bretons have all settled in Ireland. Incidentely the majority of Irish speak a Germanic tongue, English. To say that Ireland is Celtic, or that England is Germanic is, of course, a state of mind and does not necessarily fit the actual definitions of the terms.

Most nations have been shaped by various cultural impacts. England is one such. Go back a thousand years and England was solidly Germanic. We spoke a Germanic tongue little different from the Norse. Our cultural influences were Scandinavian. The Norman conquest changed that. A new culture was imposed on us, an alien culture. This new culture was French in temperament and was responsible for the change in Englands cultural axis away from Scandinavia to France and the Mediterranean. The new English identity that began to emerge in the late 13th century was a hybrid, a fusion of Germanic and Latin cultures. England, like most of Europe was exposed to common political, cultural, and social influences. Amongst these were the Renaissance, the Enlightenement, and democracy. The England that exists today is not Germanic or Latin it is Western-European.

The same is true for most nations in Europe. Sure some have stronger cultural influences from specific areas. England, for example, is still largely Anglo-Saxon in population makeup, little changed since the Dano-Norse settlements, and world view. The Anglo-Saxons were ever an insular people and most English still are. But we have "evolved" beyond our original cultural labels. It is far to simplistic to label a country as just Germanic or Celtic. If you did then certainly England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and France, would present very severs anomolies.

dehook
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I also agree that Germanic is best used as a cultural-linguistic term. Using it as a racial term is just confusing, and doesn't mean much. Someone "Germanic" could be Brunn, Borreby, Nordic, etc...genetically they are more closely related to each other than to mediterraneans for example, but they are too different to be classified under one category. I might use the term "Germanic" in reference to nordics, but not much else.

The same goes for "Celtic", although I think it is much more suitable to use as a racial term as well. I know the Celts were not just one race or ethnic group, they were a group of tribes that had similar languages, cultures and religions. Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England (not all the Celts migrated, rememeber) all have a significant mediterranean influence. I don't know how much of this influence came from the Celts, but there were bound to be many dark Celts what with the various tribes going back centuries from the iberian peninsula to the Rhineland, etc. Still, and correct me if I'm wrong, the majority phenotype of the Celts was Keltic-Nordic, so it can also be used as an anthropological term.

lil_werwolf
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 08:28 PM
Is Scotland Germanic?

In my opinion Scotland is among the Celtic Nations.
But there are not much differences between Germanic and Celtic people.
Both have mostly fair hair (i count red to fair) and light eyes.
They once believed in the same gods only their names were different.
The same religion makes the same or at least familair culture.

In these hard days Celtic and Germanic people have to stand to each other
before it is too late.

so: Scotland is Germanic

Huzar
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 09:24 PM
But there are not much differences between Germanic and Celtic people.
Both have mostly fair hair (i count red to fair) and light eyes.

so: Scotland is Germanic


Werwolf.......with all due respect , your words are the demonstration that equivokations are very persistent........

Fair hair and light eyes ??? There is an incredible number of north italians with such traits. Are they Germanic cause that ?
There is only one fundamental similarity between celtics and germanics : they're both from northeurope ; but if it's for this, even Slavs are from northeurope. Why not a Germanic Slavic brotherhood, then ?!?!

æþeling
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 10:54 PM
I think it is fair to say that racially Germanic people were essentially Nordic. The same applied for the Celtic peoples of northern Europe i.e Britain, Ireland, and northern France. Although Palaeolithic survivors, Brunn and Borreby, were common in all areas of northern Europe. Celtic culture though was adopted by other races from Spain to Turkey. There is possibly a fair argument that Bavarians, Austrians, were essentially more Celtic than Germanic to begin with. They adopted Germanic culture as the Germanic tribes began to move southwards towards the end of the 1st millennium BC. Dinarics and Alpines are the most common racial categories in both of these areas and they were also the heartland of the Celtic Hallstatt culture.

Coon certainly equated a racial type, the Kelto-Nord, with Celtic culture. The Kelto-Nord, being one of the two main divisions of Nordic, was partly Alpine. The Kelto-Nord is the most common Nordic type in Britain. Of course it is wrong to say that all Celts were Kelto-Nords and all Germanics are Hallstatt Nordic. This would be far from the truth. It is also wrong to say that blonde hair, blue eyes were essential Germanic traits. It is perhaps a reasonable assumption that 80% of Scandinavians at the time of the Vikings were various forms of blonde. I arrive at this from figures which suggest that 50% of Scandinavians today are blonde. This figure would seem to naturally have decreased due to immigration from continental Europe. From Britain though to the north German plain brown hair in various shades would seem to dominate. Black hair is restricted, largely, to the Atlantic fringes and the Alpine regions. In Scandinavia it is normally a sure sign of immigration. Racially it would seem, in northern Europe, at least there are little racial differences between Germanic and Celtic peoples. My facts may be off, but that is how it seems to me.

Wayfarer
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 04:42 AM
Scotland language is english only cause England domain. The same in Ireland.

I dont think you understand the development of Scots.
Scots, or Inglis as it was known back then, was spoken in Scotland before england even existed. You cant compare it to the situation in Ireland. Simply because Scots developed seperately from English to the point were true Scots is largely unintelligible to English ears. Ireland is different,that was a direct result of English imperialism. The Irish speak english with an irish accent. Scotland has its on Germanic language with its roots in old Northumbrian.
Its not Scottish English, or even standard English thats scotlands language, its Scots. Each of them is different.

It seems like in my opinion that too many people are quick to form an opinion on tis matter when they clearly do not know much about it. The last thing you should do is have an opinion on a matter you know very little or nothing about.
Instead firstly we should admit to ourselfs that we do know little about a subject. Then gather as much on the subject as you can, thereby gaining as much knowledge as you can until you feel that you know enough to form an opinion.

I see Scotland referred to as Celtic quite alot. I want to know what is it that makes people seem to think Scotland is celtic. Did William Wallace wear a kilt? Of course if youve seen Braveheart you would probably say yes.
What makes Scotland Celtic? The Gaels? Are Scots Gaels? Im not. And ill tell you right now you would get us Lallan fowk in stitches with laughter of you were to go to the Lowlands and call the Scots there Gaels.
Because we are not. Never have been, never will be, never want to be.

For hundreds of years we were known derogatively as Teutons. Yes Teutons. I would only say its since the World Wars that Scotland as come together as a nation were we all see ourselves as Scots, whether Gaels, Doric, Scots from the central Belt or the Southern Uplands.
It was only a few weeks ago at work i saw and i must admit participated in a bit of piss taking at work. Theres a guy there, a really Highland sounding name, his first names Angus, started with his Celtic shite at work, the stick he got was unbelievable. The usual stuff like wheres your trousers, bagpipes, biscuit tin and all that. :D
Do you really think the majority of folk from Scotland relate to that? Maybe if your from the highlands or descended from Gaels. I.e Celtic Scotland. Not Lowland Scots.
Ive witnessed another argument between a Gael and a proud Lallander where the Gael (or rather pretend Gael) was claiming only Gaels are real Scots and we should be speaking Gaelic not english and not Scots. Or as he put Inglis. To him Scots was Gaelic. The Lallander says somethjing to the words of that now Scots is Germanic language and all Scots are Scots not just the Gaels, as the teuchter persisted and called the Teton English, he said fine so what im English doesnt bother me. Of course he never seriously meant that :D, but what it did show is that the Gaelic/Germanic divide in Scotland, although nothing like it was before, is still there and most Scots do see a difference between Highland Gaelic culture and their own. Even if they dont put to much thought into it.

Rhydderch
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 05:16 AM
I dont think you understand the development of Scots.Whether he knows much about it or not, he is essentially correct. Certainly the situation differed from what it was in Ireland (it happened much later there), but the kingdom of Scotland did become Inglis-speaking because of English domination. It stands to reason though, that they would learn the variety already spoken in their realm.

Wayfarer
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 06:36 PM
Whether he knows much about it or not, he is essentially correct. Certainly the situation differed from what it was in Ireland (it happened much later there), but the kingdom of Scotland did become Inglis-speaking because of English domination. It stands to reason though, that they would learn the variety already spoken in their realm.
So he is correct because the situation in ireland is different even though he said it was the same?
ok then think what you like. Im sure it pains you to know that Scotland is more Germanic and less Gaelic than you thought it was.
Youve been doing nothing but nickpicking and contradicting yourself throughout this thread and to be honest i dont really care what you think anymore. Your blatant anti germanic agenda is pretty obvious.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 05:29 AM
So he is correct because the situation in ireland is different even though he said it was the same?He is correct in saying that Scotland became Germanic-speaking because of influence from its more powerful neighbour. Ireland became English-speaking for the same reason, but the circumstances were different


ok then think what you like. Im sure it pains you to know that Scotland is more Germanic and less Gaelic than you thought it was.I haven't changed my view, if that's what you're implying. I believe that in terms of ancestry, the vast majority of Scots would be descended from the peoples who inhabited the land when the Romans invaded, i.e. Picts in the Highlands and mainly Britons in the Lowlands. If I have an anti-Germanic agenda then it follows that I must also have an anti-Gaelic agenda :D


Youve been doing nothing but nickpicking and contradicting yourself throughout this thread and to be honest i dont really care what you think anymore. Your blatant anti germanic agenda is pretty obvious.ok then think what you like ;)

Huzar
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 08:04 AM
. Your blatant anti germanic agenda is pretty obvious.


Rhydderch isn't anti-Germanic from what i know. [Edit: ad hominen removed.]

Wayfarer
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 04:51 AM
Rhydderch isn't anti-Germanic from what i know. Perhaps you're a bit hurted by the fact you aren't germanic, rather something other...........;)
Ethno-linguistically and culturally i am. Im not hurted dont you worry about me :).
When you finish galavantin with [Edit: ad hominem removed.] maybe you can explain,

How the situation in Scotland is the same as Ireland,
why you seem to think Scotland is not Germanic,
why you think a germanic language was spread in Scotland because of the influence of England,
and what that something other is?

Rhydderch
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 11:35 AM
How the situation in Scotland is the same as Ireland,I've already explained that for you.

why you seem to think Scotland is not Germanic,Perhaps you could tell us why you think Scotland is Germanic. I can understand why someone might claim that some areas of the south are equivalent to Lancashire or West Yorkshire, but why the rest?


why you think a germanic language was spread in Scotland because of the influence of England,And perhaps you could also explain why the official language of Scotland suddenly switched from Gaelic to Inglis simply because the latter happened to be spoken at a local level by the population of a province in the south-east.


and what that something other is?Well, that's up to you to elaborate on that ;)

Wayfarer
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 10:40 PM
[Edit: ad hominem removed.]


I've already explained that for you.
Perhaps you could tell us why you think Scotland is Germanic. I can understand why someone might claim that some areas of the south are equivalent to Lancashire or West Yorkshire, but why the rest?

I think Cumbria and Northumberland are better examples than Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Not only do they speak similar but they also have the same Rievers heritage. I cant see why anyone would initially compare southern Scotland to Lancs and West Yorks.

I have never on this thread claimed that the whole of Scotland was/is Germanic. I thought that was pretty clear. Im only talking about Lallanders.
There is the Celtic Realm forum for discussions on Celtic Scotland however that misses out the Germanic side of Scotland which is a great shame to see on a Germanic site hence why it is important that Skadi does not ignore the Lowlanders giving its dominante position in Scotland.




And perhaps you could also explain why the official language of Scotland suddenly switched from Gaelic to Inglis simply because the latter happened to be spoken at a local level by the population of a province in the south-east.

Old Northumbrian has been spoken in Scotland since the early dark ages. In the Lothians initially. In about 1018 The Scots took control of the Lothians in which King Malcom the second granted the Angles there the right to have their own language and customs. This was to prove fatal to Gaelic as this was the reason that Inglis (later to be known as Scots) started to dominate most of Scotland. Soon after in 1066 following the Norman Conquests in England there was a huge influx of anglo-saxon refugees into Scotland which further boosted the Inglis language. Even before this there is evidence that Angles had been making some inroads into Strathclyde. In the same year as the Lothians being incoporated into Alba, the King of Strathclyde died without a heir and King Malcom II grandson Duncan took over. This opened up Strathclyde for the expansion of the successful Angles. Duncan was killed in and Malcolm took over the whole of Scotland. He married an english Princess who fled to Scotland too following the Norman invasions of England and she played a big part in introducing Anglic customs and language into the Gaelic monarchy.
By the 12th century according to the The Scots dialect dictionary New Lanark,2000, Inglis was dominating the entire southern Lowlands including Strathclyde bar South Ayrshire and Galloway.
Inglis speakers were beginning to dominate in the courts that by after the 12th C the Scottish courts were speaking Inglis at the expense of Gaelic.
you can see the expanding and increasing influence of Inglis. The Angles originally just from one part of the Kingdom of Scotland started to form an elite within Scotland.
By the mid 13th century Inglis was dominant in Central Scotland between the Clyde and the Forth. It even spread way up North in the Moray Firth. By the 14th century it was spoken as far North as Caithness and then on to the Northern Isles where it would eventually replace Norn.
By the 15th century Inglis became known as Scots most likely because of a growing national awareness.
Inglis/Scots was an strong expanding force ever since the Lothians was incorporated into Scotland.
So the development of Scots (Inglis) was an internal change.

This is a completely different situtation to what happened in Ireland.


Well, that's up to you to elaborate on that ;)[/QUOTE]

[Edit: ad hominem removed.]

Siegmund
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005, 11:52 PM
This thread was a most enlightening and enjoyable one for quite a few posts. Care to get back to it?

Perhaps citing sources for your arguments would help resolve matters. Just a thought...

Huzar
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 12:13 AM
Edit: ad hominens removed.



You done that in such great latin style.
Guidbye :)

:thumbup I'd like to meet you in the real life, Scottish. We could be good friends. I'm sure;)

Huzar
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 12:24 AM
You're luck Wayfarer, my answer has been removed by the rules;) . Anyway my last statement is true. I'd like to meet you (in pacific way :D )

Wayfarer
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 12:34 AM
You're luck Wayfarer, my answer has been removed by the rules;) . Anyway my last statement is true. I'd like to meet you (in pacific way :D )
Dont worry, i read it before it got removed. :D

Who knows maybe one day and i can show you the other side of scotland ;)

Take care.

Huzar
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 12:44 AM
Dont worry, i read it before it got removed. :D

Who knows maybe one day and i can show you the other side of scotland ;)

Take care.


Take care :thumbup

Rhydderch
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 10:46 AM
I think Cumbria and Northumberland are better examples than Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Not only do they speak similar but they also have the same Rievers heritage. I cant see why anyone would initially compare southern Scotland to Lancs and West Yorks.I'm basically referring to the degree of possible Germanic influence in these areas. Northumberland was taken over by the Angles in 547, whereas West Yorkshire, Lancashire and Lothian came under Anglian rule in the early to mid 600's.


Im only talking about Lallanders.Yes, but apart from Galloway, the southeast is the only part of Scotland which came under Anglian rule for any significant time.


There is the Celtic Realm forum for discussions on Celtic Scotland however that misses out the Germanic side of Scotland which is a great shame to see on a Germanic site hence why it is important that Skadi does not ignore the Lowlanders giving its dominante position in Scotland.I don't object to there being a section here on Scotland, since there are also sections on England and France, neither of which I regard as an integral part of the Germanic world. Both were formed after conquests by early Germanic peoples, and subjected to their influence. The same applies to parts of southern Scotland.


Old Northumbrian has been spoken in Scotland since the early dark ages. In the Lothians initially. In about 1018 The Scots took control of the Lothians in which King Malcom the second granted the Angles there the right to have their own language and customs.What do you mean by 'he granted them the right'?


This was to prove fatal to Gaelic as this was the reason that Inglis (later to be known as Scots) started to dominate most of Scotland. Soon after in 1066 following the Norman Conquests in England there was a huge influx of anglo-saxon refugees into Scotland which further boosted the Inglis language.Not huge, but there was an influx nonetheless.


Even before this there is evidence that Angles had been making some inroads into Strathclyde.Strathclyde and Northumbria were rivals, and the former probably expanded and contracted at various times, depending on the fortunes of Northumbria.


In the same year as the Lothians being incoporated into Alba, the King of Strathclyde died without a heir and King Malcom II grandson Duncan took over. This opened up Strathclyde for the expansion of the successful Angles.Lothian was now just another part of the realm of Scottish kings, and no longer had the power to expand, any more than Strathclyde or other provinces.


Duncan was killed in and Malcolm took over the whole of Scotland. He married an english Princess who fled to Scotland too following the Norman invasions of England and she played a big part in introducing Anglic customs and language into the Gaelic monarchy.It was around this time, and the time of Malcolm's sons, that English influence became particularly strong, and often the Scottish kings were vassals of the English king. Feudalism began to enter from England at this time as well, and English reforms were introduced into the Scottish church.

Malcolm's son brought Anglo-Norman aristocrats back into Scotland to help him gain the throne, and gave them large estates.

It's clear that England was having a strong influence, and not just Lothian, although the presence of this province within Scotland must have hastened the adoption of English. But as in England, Norman French was also being widely used.


By the 12th century according to the The Scots dialect dictionary New Lanark,2000, Inglis was dominating the entire southern Lowlands including Strathclyde bar South Ayrshire and Galloway.Do you mean the 1200's? Inglis had probably reached these areas by the 1200's, though I doubt that it was the native language of the people there. One can assume that it rapidly spread as an administrative language, once it became the primary language of the court.


Inglis speakers were beginning to dominate in the courts that by after the 12th C the Scottish courts were speaking Inglis at the expense of Gaelic.
you can see the expanding and increasing influence of Inglis. The Angles originally just from one part of the Kingdom of Scotland started to form an elite within Scotland.Inglis became the main language of the elite, rather than men of Lothian rising to power at the expense of others.

Gaelic was still widely spoken in the Lowlands for a long time after this, but in general, no longer used in elite circles.


By the 15th century Inglis became known as Scots most likely because of a growing national awareness.And probably because of increasing independence from England.

INS
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 03:53 AM
I find this thread bizarre to say the least.... To claim Scotland as a Germanic nation simply because of the fact, that there was a certain mixture of Germanics into the Celtic population is taking matters a bit far.
It's a bit like saying Ireland is a Germanic nation, simply because there was a large influx of Germanics introduced by way of the Vikings and the Anglo-Normans.....
While it may hold true, that area's such as the Lowlands of Scotland, and the Leinster/Ulster areas of Ireland have a large Germanic pedigree, that does not, for one minute change the fact that the majority of people in these regions identify themselves as Celts.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 07:31 PM
I have observed that Scottish people are on average more Scandinavian looking than the English. I have heard the same from Scandinavians who live in England and have visited Scotland.

æþeling
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Glenlivet
I have observed that Scottish people are on average more Scandinavian looking than the English. I have heard the same from Scandinavians who live in England and have visited Scotland.


Quite possible especially in the north and western islands. It depends though. I have ancestors from Perthshire who are Gael by decent and look as Celtic as any from Ireland, as you will know from seeing my profile picture. The English and Danes fairly resemble each other, both being influenced from continental populations. The Norwegians played the more important part in settling Scotland and Ireland.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 07:47 PM
I have been in Denmark and can only agree, but more with the people in Jutland/Jylland than the islands, where the brachycephalic or brachycephalised Borreby element is stronger. I would say the English Nordids are on average narrower-faced with finer features and are more leptosomic. Lundman has SE Scotland as the most Nordid region of the country.


The English and Danes fairly resemble each other, both being influenced from continental populations.

æþeling
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by Glenlivet
I have been in Denmark and can only agree, but more with the people in Jutland/Jylland than the islands, where the brachycephalic or brachycephalised Borreby element is stronger. I would say the English Nordids are on average narrower-faced with finer features and are more leptosomic. Lundman has SE Scotland as the most Nordid region of the country.



This would be logical given that the Jutes and Angles came from this penninsula. The Angles formed the larger grouping of the peoples who became the English. SE Scotland and NE England would probably both have the larger populations of Hallstatt Nordic in Britain. Norwegian settlement was extensive in both areas.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 10:27 PM
"Moreover, it is possible to classify the basic Nordic stock into several geographically defined substocks: a southwestern type, usually of sparse build (which naturally, most closely resembles the more Nordic areas of northeastern England and southeastern Scotland); a medium type in the central provinces which is somewhat shorter and a very tall type in northern central Sweden and the adjacent parts of northern Sweden and Norway."

Bertil Lundman, The Racial History of Scandinavia An Outline, reprint from Mankind Quarterly, 1962.


SE Scotland and NE England would probably both have the larger populations of Hallstatt Nordic in Britain. Norwegian settlement was extensive in both areas.

dehook
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 02:21 AM
There is no way in hell that Scottish people are on average more Scandinavian looking than the English. Maybe certain areas...I haven't been to Orkney or any of the isles, but I have lived in the North East all of my life and it's mainly UP and atlanto-med with minor nordic here. Like I said before, I did notice that Glaswegians seemed a lot more nordic on average. But whenever I go to England, and I've been all over, I'm always struck by how much fairer they are. Then again, it's kind of pointless to compare a country of around 5 million to a country of over 50 million and talk about averages.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 02:35 AM
Oh really? Have you also been to Scandinavia? I mean someone like Ewan McGregor when I say Scandinavian looking, not Michael Parkinson, who is more common in England and maybe the Low countries. It is not just a matter of pigmentation.


There is no way in hell that Scottish people are on average more Scandinavian looking than the English.

dehook
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 05:36 AM
So you associate UP features with Scandinavians? Ok, then you have a point. No, I've never been to Scandinavia, but the Scandinavian people I've met have all been predominantly nordic, with very soft features; not the darker and more rugged look I'm used to seeing.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 05:58 AM
Not necessarily "UP", I know of course when I see someone who is similar to a typical Swede or Norwegian. Scotland has naturally closer anthropological links with Norway than Sweden, which has more eastern elements. It is mainly a matter of morphology and not pigmentation. The Trönder element in Scotland is also found in central-northern parts of Norway and Sweden. The English are on average more dinaricised.

The ones with a rugged dark look are probably Palaeo-Atlantids (in the Northern European sense rather dark Cro-Magnoid Mediterranoids).

Maybe you can illustrate your point with some pictures of living examples.

Scottish Nordid of sparse build (Gothic type, indistinguishable from a typical Southeastern Norwegian or Western Swede):

http://www.ngcsu.edu/athletics/Images/soccer-m/MacKenzie.jpg


So you associate UP features with Scandinavians? Ok, then you have a point. No, I've never been to Scandinavia, but the Scandinavian people I've met have all been predominantly nordic, with very soft features; not the darker and more rugged look I'm used to seeing.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 11:15 AM
He also told us that the nobility in the area looked more like Spaniards, as they were of dark hair and complexion.This would make sense. A tribe of Picts in Perthshire were said by Romans to be swarthy and similar to Southern Iberians.

However it would be because the area wasn't settled by Gaels and Britons, and perhaps Bronze Age invaders didn't conquer much of the area either, so that the ruling class was largely descended from Neolithic men.


That I believe is the case for areas like the Western Islands.The people of the Western Islands in general are often exceptionally dark, although some individuals from the Outer Hebrides can have a bit of a Viking look.

Jibby
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 02:10 PM
The ones with a rugged dark look are probably Paleo-Atlantids (in the Northern European sense rather dark Cro-Magnoid Mediterranoids).


Yes, for years I thought that I might have Jew in my heritage, somehow... you know, because of my darker, curlier, rather desheveled-looking beard. Thanks to the folks at this forum, I have found that I'm really just a Scots throwback, from the cro-magnoid period. This is both flattering (knowing that I'm not a Jew), and depressing, knowing that I'm de-evolved.


Then I was probably thinking of the Shetland and Orkney Islands.

Those dark inhabitants of the Western Islands, are they thought to be Gaels or Picts?

I would guess that they could be, either, Paleo-Atlantids from Northern Ireland or Picts. I find, that it would be rare, for the Picts to have moved into the islands, but not at all impossible.

Picts are Paleo-Atlantids... so much to that point, that most people would like to classify them as early Celts, but find that they cannot. They're an interesting breed. I've spoken with people from Scotland, before... as they come o'er here for the Burns Society annual dinner... and they say that true Highlanders, have a darker complexion. I can only hypothesize, that they mean Picts. The Northern Islanders, have nearly always been a mix of Nordids. That is not to say that you won't find darker-hued people in the Isles, but only that you'll, most likely, find them in the Western Isles. As I have mentioned, it is not at all impossible, for Picts to have moved to the islands... possibly to expand their lands, and/or get away from the Scotti, from Ulster.

As for myself, I have both the large Nordid body structure and the darker Paleo-Atlantid complexion w/hair. I'm a strange mix, but that's not at all uncommon, since I'm American.

Jibby
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Mynydd,


Some have said that they were part of a large group extending West from Iberians (I guess that not proper Mediterranean Iberians, but the Ibericised population in the hinterlands and to the West of the Peninsula), Picts (and perhaps Prydynns too?) and the Tydal in Scandinavia.

I've encountered this hypothetical before, and it seems very possible.


A body structure of a tall and broad person does not have to be forcibly Nordoid. I'm 1.91 (6'3) and of strong build as are most of my brothers, yet there is nothing Nordoid in our ancestry.

I used the Norse reference, because my Scots heritage stems, in some part, from MacLeod of Lewis. Since Lewis has quite of bit of Norse history, I usually account my body size, to that side of the family. However, I'm of exactly your build, and I have heritage from all over Europe, so it could come from anywhere. It's just easier for me to place it there.

Strangely enough, I'm the largest person in my family... I have no idea why that is, but it must have something to do with my Grandfather, George Wade.

His family came from Wales. In fact, I think the family may be related to George Wade, the general in command of the English forces, in Scotland, just before and during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. It's hard to see my family members fighting one another, on common ground, and not knowing that centuries later, they'd be inter-related. It sometimes brings a tear to my eye, the same way the American Civil War does...

Rhydderch
Thursday, November 10th, 2005, 04:18 AM
Thanks to the folks at this forum, I have found that I'm really just a Scots throwback, from the cro-magnoid period.Dark hair in the British Isles is, in general, probably derived from Neolithic people rather than Cro-Magnons.


Then I was probably thinking of the Shetland and Orkney Islands.

Those dark inhabitants of the Western Islands, are they thought to be Gaels or Picts?Well the Gaels and Britons were Celts, and would have been light-skinned and blue eyed.

The Picts were in all likelihood descended from pre-Celtic Bronze Age and/or (also depending on the region) Neolithic invaders, probably with earlier peoples mostly constituting an underclass. So yes, those dark people in the Western Isles would have been there since the Neolithic, and therefore must have been among the Pictish inhabitants of the region.

The Orkneys and Shetlands probably have more Viking influence, but even so, quite a few people there are exceptionally dark.

Sigurd
Saturday, November 26th, 2005, 01:25 AM
I don't know if that has been mentioned, but phenotypically many people around Aberdeen are Trønder in their phenotype, and seeing that such is the case often also in "Vikings", that is, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Faroes, etc., one should consider at least the north-east of Scotland as predominantly Germanic, at least in terms of Physical Anthropology.

When we pass onto the social parts, it is a total conglomerate of Celto-Germanic culture. Many celtic features, but also many Germanic ones, as I believe I, and others, have mentioned before.

Pictish Druid
Tuesday, November 29th, 2005, 11:42 AM
In order to put this whole Celtic thing into perspective I recommend a reading of "The Atlantic Celts" by Simon James. The original Celts came from the Austrain-Swiss border. Scotland and other parts of the British Isles were a back-water during the hey days of Iron Age Celtic civilisation.

Scotland was the most remote back-water of the Celtic world. According to Simon James and other historians, Britain only began Celtic via an importation of Celtic culture from the Continent. In Scotland it was only south of the rivers Clyde and Forth that the Brythonic Celtic culture made its appearance. There was very little Celtic influence on the Picts who may have spoken a Basque type of language. Since the time of Tacitus to the 19th century some historians have even suggested that the Picts may have been Germanic, but there has been not evidence to support this supposition. While the Picts become Celticised by the Scotti from Ireland who were Goidelic Celts or Gaels the Brythonic lands of the south of Scotland became settled by Angles from Northumbria. These people brought in a language which was the foundation of the Scots language. Many more Angels came to Scotland from Northumbria after the Norman conquest seeking a safe haven. There were also Saxons from the south. This included the remnants of the English royal family after their defeat at Hastings. The princes Margaret married the Scots king and she introduced many aspects of English culture into Scotland including the promotion of the Ingis language which eventually became known as Scots.

The Normans never actually invaded Scotland, but many did settle there and they brought with them many of their Saxon and Anglo-Danish serfs and servants. This together with the settlements of Flemish merchants and trades people created a mix of Germanic speaking peoples throughout the Lowlands of Scotland and who all contributed to the formation of the Scots language. The Norse were another Germanic people who settled in the far north and west of Scotland. They had no influence in forming the Scots language. Instead many of them adopted the Gaelic while those on the northern Islands and Caithness continued to speak the Norn language up until the 17th century.

So yes Scotland is certainly Germanic from the POV that its Scots language is Germanic. From about the 13th century the Gaelic was only spoken in the Highlands while most of the people lived in the Lowlands.

Sigurd
Tuesday, November 29th, 2005, 02:18 PM
Now, I don't seem to be able to post one as none is my close friend, and it'd be kind of rude and ask someone you don't know for a picture. But between the bus stop on Littlejohn Street to Virgin Megastores, merely a 500 metre walk, I spotted 81 that were quite clearly Trønders, some of them extremely pure cases.

[And there are some at halls, but I don't have a close connection w/ them.

I know some of you don't like McCulloch's percentages, but I think they might be right in this case. For Trønder it gives "Scotland: 22% (mostly in n-e)" Which would encompass Aberdeen.
What stands for itself, though, is the racial purity of Aberdonians. i don't think I have seen a single person with brown eyes (apart from students) while in town!

Weg
Tuesday, November 29th, 2005, 03:46 PM
So how is Scotland not Germanic then? It is Celto-Germanic at the minimum!
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=345342&postcount=3

I reply to your post here Sigurd, as there's a thread on the topic already started.

Yes I agree, Scotland is a Celto-Germanic "combo". But don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean I see Scotland as non-Germanic. No, it's actually partly Germanic (at least linguisticaly it's), but not Germanic per se, since it's also partly Celtic. And to me, Celtic doesn't equal Germanic, as Slavic doesn't equal Germanic either. (Yet, notice that the Germanic -language- is closer to Slavic than it's to Celtic, so you could also say that Russia f.e. is "Germanic". What would be somewhat curious.)

Of course, it's only my view on this topic and I'm not a scholar in any sort...

æþeling
Thursday, December 1st, 2005, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Pictish Druid
In order to put this whole Celtic thing into perspective I recommend a reading of "The Atlantic Celts" by Simon James.


Nice man. He was my lecturer at university.


Scotland was the most remote back-water of the Celtic world. According to Simon James and other historians, Britain only began Celtic via an importation of Celtic culture from the Continent.

Possibly true. The problem here is that, as far as I know, there has never been a study of pre-Iron Age genetics to compare with the modern Welsh population. This makes it difficult to know whether or not we are talking about settlement or transmission. At the very least we are probably looking at an elite replacement.


In Scotland it was only south of the rivers Clyde and Forth that the Brythonic Celtic culture made its appearance. There was very little Celtic influence on the Picts who may have spoken a Basque type of language.

I think that it is difficult to judge. The Picts were probably a remnant of the Bronze Age peoples and possibly related to the Cruithne of Ireland. Some say that their language was pre-Celtic, some Celtic. I think it would have, at least, been influenced by Brythonic.


Since the time of Tacitus to the 19th century some historians have even suggested that the Picts may have been Germanic, but there has been not evidence to support this supposition.

No I think it is quite spurious as well.


Yes my ancestors were some of her guests. St Margaret was about as popular with the Gaelic Scots as Bernard Manning in a Mosque.


So yes Scotland is certainly Germanic from the POV that its Scots language is Germanic. From about the 13th century the Gaelic was only spoken in the Highlands while most of the people lived in the Lowlands.

Good article my friend. The only snag I see is that language is not necessarily an indicator of culture. After all more Irish speak English than their native tongue, but the Irish are not Germanic. I think in the case of the British Isles we are looking at an essentially Celto-Germanic sub-strata, which varies in balance between various parts of the country.

NewYorker
Saturday, December 24th, 2005, 09:47 PM
I find this thread bizarre to say the least.... To claim Scotland as a Germanic nation simply because of the fact, that there was a certain mixture of Germanics into the Celtic population is taking matters a bit far.
It's a bit like saying Ireland is a Germanic nation, simply because there was a large influx of Germanics introduced by way of the Vikings and the Anglo-Normans.....
While it may hold true, that area's such as the Lowlands of Scotland, and the Leinster/Ulster areas of Ireland have a large Germanic pedigree, that does not, for one minute change the fact that the majority of people in these regions identify themselves as Celts. I don't consider myself Germanic if that is any consolation to you. I just came here to hone my skills at classifications and to clarify some thoughts on some issues. I'm not for nor against Germanic preservation as the forum seems to suggest everyone on here is by default. I don't think that's true. There are good neutral and impartial reasons why someone would want to participate in a forum like this.

NewYorker
Saturday, December 24th, 2005, 10:18 PM
following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, the Scottish monarchy intermarried with the exiled influx of Anglo-Saxons Northumbrian inglis (on the NorthEastern side) is mostly Angle-Norse not Angle-Saxon; yet, people call it 'Angle-Saxon' due to the influence of the Saxons south of the Northumbrian Deirans- Bernicians etc.. etc.. therefore, unlike East Anglia : Northumbria was allready basically Anglo-Norman or middle English more or less and required very little to change it in that direction through admixture with other elements (e.g the influx of some into Scotland and the Norman conquest). It would not be very easy on the other hand to change say East Anglia in that direction either through ethnic mixing or culturally speaking. I remember reading a book on this subject that argued the opposite of what some are saying here: that the kings of Scotland welcomed Norman (not Saxon) adventurers from England as immigrants because they brought with them technological and military skills which the Scots of the time didn't possess: crossbows and siege engines, superior stonemasonry and armour, mastery of heavy cavalry. Naturally, many native Scottish nobles disliked this policy, and eventually rebelled against their king. He, with the aid of his new Norman subjects, suppressed the dissidents and awarded their lands to the newcomers. The result of this was a Celtic-Norman aristocracy that was the military equal of that of England, which enabled the Scots (unlike the Welsh and Irish) to resist English expansion over the succeeding centuries. If by the time that this happened (about 100 years after the Conquest), the Normans were speaking English as their primary language, it would account to a great degree for the early establishment of English in Scotland. Scotland was never conquered by England. There where battles of course though. Instead Scotland decided to merge on it's own volition with the union of the crowns with England rather than keep it's Auld Alliance with Norway and France as the primary political state of affairs or states of affairs for various reasons (some being economic and none having to do with being conquered consequently). Also, let's take the Scottish religion into consideration. Presbyterianism was founded by Calvin basically and Knox to some degree. John Calvin was a Frenchman. The church of England is the Anglican church. Espiscopalianism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not Scottish religions. So it would seem to me that even the Scottish religion would seem to point at the Celtic-Norman thesis or direction.


P.S I posted genetic findings elsewhere that show there is no clear Norwegian input below Penrith/Cumbria in Britain.

NewYorker
Saturday, December 24th, 2005, 10:54 PM
http://sa.fety.net/poll/kirsty_hume.jpg http://www.planet-tops.com/images/galerie03/Kirstyhume_big.jpg





Scottish model Kirsty Hume

NewYorker
Saturday, December 24th, 2005, 11:48 PM
http://sa.fety.net/poll/kirsty_hume.jpg http://www.planet-tops.com/images/galerie03/Kirstyhume_big.jpg





Scottish model Kirsty Hume Here is an East Anglian (Anglo-Saxon) actress pretending to be a Scot for compare and contrast :


http://web.ukonline.co.uk/redgrave.jsrpages/mary.jpg http://www.marileecody.com/maryqos/maryofguise1.jpg http://www.westminster-abbey.org/tour/lady_chapel/images/mary_queen_of_scots.jpg
Mary was half French, her mother a daughter of the powerful French house of Guise, and to Marie France would always be home. It was time young Mary met her French relatives, tasted the culture of a truly civilized court – and fulfilled French wishes by entering her betrothal to the young Dauphin of France. Someday, Mary would be Queen of two nations.

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 12:40 AM
Northumbrian inglis (on the NorthEastern side) is mostly Angle-Norse not Angle-Saxon; yet, people call it 'Angle-Saxon' due to the influence of the Saxons south of the Northumbrian Deirans- Bernicians etc.. etc.. therefore, unlike East Anglia : Northumbria was allready basically Anglo-Norman or middle English more or less and required very little to change it in that direction through admixture with other elements (e.g the influx of some into Scotland and the Norman conquest). It would not be very easy on the other hand to change say East Anglia in that direction either through ethnic mixing or culturally speaking. I remember reading a book on this subject that argued the opposite of what some are saying here: that the kings of Scotland welcomed Norman (not Saxon) adventurers from England as immigrants because they brought with them technological and military skills which the Scots of the time didn't possess: crossbows and siege engines, superior stonemasonry and armour, mastery of heavy cavalry. Naturally, many native Scottish nobles disliked this policy, and eventually rebelled against their king. He, with the aid of his new Norman subjects, suppressed the dissidents and awarded their lands to the newcomers. The result of this was a Celtic-Norman aristocracy that was the military equal of that of England, which enabled the Scots (unlike the Welsh and Irish) to resist English expansion over the succeeding centuries. If by the time that this happened (about 100 years after the Conquest), the Normans were speaking English as their primary language, it would account to a great degree for the early establishment of English in Scotland. Scotland was never conquered by England. There where battles of course though. Instead Scotland decided to merge on it's own volition with the union of the crowns with England rather than keep it's Auld Alliance with Norway and France as the primary political state of affairs or states of affairs for various reasons (some being economic and none having to do with being conquered consequently). Also, let's take the Scottish religion into consideration. Presbyterianism was founded by Calvin basically and Knox to some degree. John Calvin was a Frenchman. The church of England is the Anglican church. Espiscopalianism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not Scottish religions. So it would seem to me that even the Scottish religion would seem to point at the Celtic-Norman thesis or direction. P.S I posted genetic findings elsewhere that show there is no clear Norwegian input below Penrith/Cumbria in Britain.

http://www.bagpipesonly.com/Bagpiper_Major.jpg




"The Auld Alliance The special relationship between Scotland and France, acknowledged in the phrase 'The Auld Alliance', has formed a bond between the two peoples that survives irritations and misunderstandings. It was first and always a military alliance against the common enemy, England. Joan of Arc's personal standard was painted by a Scotsman, probably called James Polwarth, and Scots fought under her command when she relieved the siege of Orleans and at the battles of Jargeau and Patay in 1429. According to the most complete account of The Auld Alliance, Stephen Wood's book with that title, an un-named Scotsman, after returning to Scotland after Joan's execution, continued the chronicler Fordun's manuscript Scotichronicon when a monk in Dunfermline Abbey, and recorded how he had seen and accompanied 'the marvellous Maid' in her attempt to bring about the recovery of France'. By then the Alliance itself was almost a century and a half old. It may be credited to one of the least distinguished of our Kings, John Balliol, known as Toom Tabard, who had become King of Scots in 1292, when Edward I of England was invited to determine who had the best claim to the vacant Scottish throne. Edward compelled Balliol to accept him as his overlord. In fact Balliol, as a great landowner in England and France as well as Scotland, was already a vassal of both Edward and of Philip IV of France, though not, of course, in his new capacity as King of Scots. These things were confused in the Middle Ages, for Edward of England himself held lands in France and so was a vassal of the French King, too. But in 1294 he was, as King of England, at war with France and so the French King saw the advantages of a Scottish ally. That was to be the pattern of the alliance. The Scots helped France and the French helped the Scots. The French always had more benefit from the Alliance. This was partly because mediaeval wars between France and England always took the form of an English invasion of France and partly because it was easier for the Scots to invade England than for the French. Our willingness to do so resulted in some disastrous defeats, for instance Nevile's Cross, 1346 and Flodden, 1513. The so called Hundred Years War, 1337-1453, between France and England cemented our relationship with France. It also gave numerous opportunities to adventurous Scots soldiers of fortune to carve out a career for themselves. Their great period was the last stage of the long war, beginning after the French catastrophe at Agincourt, 1415, when the Dauphin of France (heir to the throne) begged Scotland for help 'in our great want and necessity'. The Scottish Parliament sent a force of 6,000 men, commanded by the Earl of Buchan, Archibald Douglas, Earl of Wigtown and Stewart Darnely. It was the Scots who gave the first check to the hitherto all-conquering English when they defeated them at Beauge in 1421. Soon after this the Scots Bodyguard of the French king was formed and then Les Gendarmes Ecossaise a regiment of mounted knights. The most vivid account of these Scots in French service is given by Walter Scott in Quentin Durward, far from the best of his mediaeval novels. It was at this time that the French coined a proverb: 'fier comme un Ecossais' - 'proud as a Scotsman'. The military alliance came to an end in the mid-16th century when the Reformation brought about a realignment of Scottish foreign policy. John Knox and other Protestant reformers favoured an alliance with Protestant England rather than Catholic France, even though the Queen of Scots, Mary, (herself for a couple of years also Queen of France as a result of her first marriage to Francis II) was herself half French and Roman Catholic - or indeed for that very reason. Even so, the Scots regiments remained in the service of the French king. It is worth noting that the form of Protestantism that was established in Scotland followed the model set out by the Frenchman Calvin. So that most Scottish of institutions, the Kirk, has French roots. If militarily, the French got more from the Alliance than we did, culturally the debt was the other way around. Most of the scholars of the 16th century Scots Renaissance studied in France. Moreover nothing shows the French influence more clearly - than the Scots domestic architecture of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Palace of Holyroodhouse itself is more like a French palais than any English house of the same period. The Union, making Scotland part of the United Kingdom, inevitably meant that Scotland, inherited English traditions of foreign policy; and so throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries, when Britain and France were locked in a struggle for empire, Scots found themselves fighting their auld allies. But they might find themselves fighting fellow Scots at the same time, for there were still Scots in the French service and France offered a refuge for Jacobite exiles. The Royal Ecossais remained a regiment of the French army. Indeed after the failure of the '45 Rising two other French regiments were formed from Jacobite exiles. When in 1759, by capturing Quebec, General James Wolf won Canada for Britain, the French officer who surrendered was a certain Roche de Ramsays, descendant of Scots Ramsays and the aide de camp was a certain Chevalier de Johnstone, who had fought for Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden. Late, one of Napoleon's Marshals was Etienne Macdonald, son of a Jacobite from South Uist. Though the Alliance was chiefly military, the connection for the last three centuries has been largely civil. A Scotsman, John Law of Laurieston, founded the Banque de France and attempted to put the French monarchy's chaotic finances on a stable basis in the 1720's, but his Mississippi project resulted in one of the most spectacular of financial bubbles. Perhaps the peak of Scots influence on France came in the years after Waterloo in 1815. The sight of Scots soldiers in the Army of Occupation and the poems and novels of Sir Walter Scott provoked a craze for tartan in Paris. The attractive and now immensely popular school of Scottish painters know as the Scots Colourists were all Francophiles and their art is inconceivable without the French example. And what do the French think of the relationship? Well, in 1942 the greatest Frenchman of the 20th century, General Charles de Gaulle, then leader of the Free French, visited Edinburgh and made a speech which he thought sufficiently important to quote in full in the first volume of his War Memoirs. He began by saying: 'I do not think that a Frenchman could have come to Scotland at any time without being sensible of a special emotion - awareness of the thousand links, still living and cherished, of the Franco - Scottish Alliance, the oldest alliance in the world, leaps to his mind'. He recalled some moments of that alliance and then said: 'In every combat where for five centuries the destiny of France was at stake, there were always men of Scotland to fight side by side with men of France and when Frenchmen feel is that no people has ever been more generous than yours with its friendship...' He spoke of the 'mutual influence of French and Scottish poets' of the philosophy of Hume, of 'what is common the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the doctrines of Calvin' of 'the influence which the great Walter Scott has exercised over the receptive mind of French youth' and of 'all the exchanges of ideas, feelings, customs and words so frequent between two peoples joined by a natural friendship'. But, since it was wartime he returned to World War II on which we were then engaged and offered a most remarkable tribute: 'For my part, I can say that the comradeship of arms, sealed on the battlefield of Abbeville in May-June 1940, between the French armoured division, which I had the honour to command, and the gallant 51st Scottish Division under General Fortune, played its part in the decision which I made to continue the fight at the side of the Allies, to the end, come what may'. And he concluded by quoting the old motto of the Compagnie Ecossaise: 'omni modo fidelis' - 'faithful in every way'. Nobody reading this speech can doubt the reality, and the deep roots, of the natural and special friendship between Scotland and France."

http://www.forumuniversitaire.com/images/joan-of-arc-big.jpg

The Black Prince
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 12:58 AM
mm.. New Yorker I like reading your posts, they are intelligent, well thought etc..

but to long, or better said make some alineas / paragraphs etc.

I don't like reading a long bade of text on the computer (I have to print it out first etc.. much work)

:)

And also inserting pics is fine (hence, the more the better, but make them somewat smaller please, otherwise I have to scroll through an whole thread, just to read what someone is saying :))

Wayfarer
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:06 AM
Northumbrian inglis (on the NorthEastern side) is mostly Angle-Norse not Angle-Saxon; yet, people call it 'Angle-Saxon' due to the influence of the Saxons south of the Northumbrian Deirans- Bernicians etc.. etc..
Yes the Northumbrians were mostly Angles but the quote you were replying to was referring to the Norman invasions where Angles and Saxons sought refuge in Scotland.


The result of this was a Celtic-Norman aristocracy that was the military equal of that of England, which enabled the Scots (unlike the Welsh and Irish) to resist English expansion over the succeeding centuries. If by the time that this happened (about 100 years after the Conquest), the Normans were speaking English as their primary language, it would account to a great degree for the early establishment of English in Scotland.
Inglis or Old Scots was already fastly spreading in Scotland before the Normans got here. When they did they had more to do with the spreading French culture and language than English. In fact early Scots literature was in French than Inglis. It was only after the Scots Makars like Barbour that there was a huge rise in Scots (Inglis) literature, an example is in my sig from The Brus by Barbour.

Scotland was never conquered by England. There where battles of course. Scotland won some and lost some but it's the collection of battles that make a war not just a few ones here and there. Instead Scotland decided to merge on it's own volition with the union of the crowns with England rather than keep it's Auld Alliance with Norway and France as the primary political state of affairs or states of affairs for various reasons (some being economic and none having to do with being conquered consequently).
The Union of the crowns had nothing to do with Scots but with the politics of the Monarchy when the King of Scots became the heir to the English throne. As if the English monarchy would just give up their throne just because the Scots wanted to merge. :D
The Act of Union which came later was an act of treachery by the Scots parlaiment which the Scottish nobles sold out on Scotland for their own interests. This act produced mass riots in Scotland. Even among the merchants in Edinburgh.

Also, let's take the Scottish religion into consideration. Presbyterianism was founded by Calvin basically and Knox to some degree. John Calvin was a Frenchman. The church of England is the Anglican church. Espiscopalianism, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not Scottish religions. So it would seem to me that even the Scottish religion would seem to point at the Celtic-Norman thesis or direction.
The first bibles in Scotland were in English and not Scots and was the beginning of the attacks on the Scots language.
Most of the Celtic population in Scotland are Catholic and not Protestant.

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:15 AM
Yes the Northumbrians were mostly Angles but the quote you were replying to was referring to the Norman invasions where Angles and Saxons sought refuge in Scotland.


Inglis or Old Scots was already fastly spreading in Scotland before the Normans got here. When they did they had more to do with the spreading French culture and language than English. In fact early Scots literature was in French than Inglis. It was only after the Scots Makars like Barbour that there was a huge rise in Scots (Inglis) literature, an example is in my sig from The Brus by Barbour.

The Union of the crowns had nothing to do with Scots but with the politics of the Monarchy when the King of Scots became the heir to the English throne. As if the English monarchy would just give up their throne just because the Scots wanted to merge. :D
The Act of Union which came later was an act of treachery by the Scots parlaiment which the Scottish nobles sold out on Scotland for their own interests. This act produced mass riots in Scotland. Even among the merchants in Edinburgh.

The first bibles in Scotland were in English and not Scots and was the beginning of the attacks on the Scots language.
Most of the Celtic population in Scotland are Catholic and not Protestant. Sorry you have no idea what you are talking about. This is a Northumbrian Englishman : http://www.sonar.es/Newsletter/2003/viernes/aphex.jpg There is absolutely nothing Saxon about him. Contrary to what some believe : The Franks, Frisians, Angles, and Swaefas were not Saxons;. The Frisians and people of Holstein had absolutely nothing to do with Scotland. It's an active fit of your imagination that you think the Saxons somehow magically warped up from East Anglia to Scotland after the Normans invaded.


( Insult removed, author warned. )

Wayfarer
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:19 AM
I never said the Northumbrians were Saxons. You replied to a quote which said after the Norman invasions of England Angles and Saxons sought refuge in Scotland. And well they did.

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:20 AM
I never said the Northumbrians were Saxons. You replied to a quote which said after the Norman invasions of England Angles and Saxons sought refuge in Scotland. And well they did. You need to read Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus."

( Personal comment removed. Borderline case: No warning necessary, but maybe you can keep your posts less personal? :) - Haldis )

Wayfarer
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:29 AM
( ... )

Listen. The post you replied to said
" following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, the Scottish monarchy intermarried with the exiled influx of Anglo-Saxons"
This is correct. OK.

Edgar Ætheling the last member of the Anglo saxon royal house married the sister of King Malcolm III of Scotland. King Malcom III married Edgar Ætheling's sister Margaret. Guess what? Edgar Ætheling and his sister were both Sassenachs :D.
( ... ) Anglo Saxons were basically two tribes of the same people.

( Personal comments removed. Borderline case : no warning necessary but can you, too, keep your posts less personal? :) - Haldis )

The Black Prince
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:31 AM
Contrary to what some believe : The Franks, Frisians, Angles, and Swaefas where not Saxons

Franks = not

Angles and Frisians also not? , where are you referring too.

I agree, a Frisian or Jute wouldn't call himself a Saxon in that age, but they all came to Britain, as the Ingwaeones (Northsea Germanics or Reihengraber people also known)

What are your sources on these information ?

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:39 AM
Franks = not

Angles and Frisians also not? , where are you referring too.

I agree, a Frisian or Jute wouldn't call himself a Saxon in that age, but they all came to Britain, as the Ingwaeones (Northsea Germanics or Reihengraber people also known)

What are your sources on these information ? Strictly speaking only the people of Holstein were Saxons. It comes down to the lumper and splitter method. Some people like to sloppily use the lumper method and lump the Frisians, Swaefas, and Franks into the Saxon category. I refuse to acknowledge that method as correct.

The Black Prince
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:47 AM
Nee, you didn't understand.

they were all Ingwaeones
But Saxons were Saxons and vica versa.

But they all conquered Britain.

Hence, the area of Kent is still Frisian (think about the Frisian god Friso / Phryso / etc.., and next about places as Frisbee, Friston etc...) ;)

Franks were definetly not, (Formed upon the tribes of the Cheruscii, Batavarii, Chatii etc..)

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 01:59 AM
Nee, you didn't understand.

they were all Ingwaeones
But Saxons were Saxons and vica versa.

But they all conquered Britain.

Hence, the area of Kent is still Frisian (think about the Frisian god Friso / Phryso / etc.., and next about places as Frisbee, Friston etc...) ;)

Franks were definetly not, (Formed upon the tribes of the Cheruscii, Batavarii, Chatii etc..) Look Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson where Attacot(Pictish)-Goidelic(Scot)-Cymru-Angle/Danish-Norse. This is my ethnic mix : Attacot(Pictish)-Goidelic(Scot)-Cymru-Angle/Danish-Norse-Alemannic/Suebi(Alsace)-Frankish-French-Hegeunot(Lorraine)

The Alamanni emerged from the Irminones. According to Asinius Quadratus their name —all men—indicates that they were a conglomeration of various tribes formed into warbands, similar to the contemporary Huns. There can be little doubt, however, that the ancient Hermunduri formed the bulk of the nation. Other groups included the Brisgavi, Juthungi, Bucinobantes, Lentienses, and perhaps the Armalausi. Close allies of the Alamanni were the east Germanic Suebi, or Suabi (hence Swabia). The Hermunduri had apparently belonged to the Suebi, but it is likely enough that reinforcements from new Suebic tribes had now moved westward. In later times the names Alamanni and Suebi seem to be synonymous, although some of the Suebi later migrated to Hispania and established an independent kingdom there that endured well into the 6th century.

I would suppose that the Juthingi where related to the Jutes in someway and that the Swaefas were basically Suebi or Alemmanic. Saxons came from Holstein ! I don't think the people of Frisia or Holstein have anything to do with Scotland. I would say the Frisians and people of Holstein have to do with parts of Southern England that are nowhere near Scotland.

The Black Prince
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 02:39 AM
I would suppose that the Juthingi where related to the Jutes in someway and that the Swaefas were basically Suebi or Alemmanic. Saxons came from Holstein ! I don't think the people of Frisia or Holstein have anything to do with Scotland. I would say the Frisians and people of Holstein have to do with parts of Southern England that are nowhere near Scotland.

A, I full agree,

the name Swaefes did not ring a bell, you ment the Swabes (Suevii)


Franks = not

Angles and Frisians also not? , where are you referring too.

I agree, a Frisian or Jute wouldn't call himself a Saxon in that age, but they all came to Britain, as the Ingwaeones (Northsea Germanics or Reihengraber people also known)

What are your sources on these information ?

I was reacting to this part of my. :D

But I would still like to point out that although Scotland is a beautifull country, I can't imagine that a group of barbarians would conquer it instead of the S-Britain, the latter is much better even in the eyes of the old germanics (Scotland is much to rocky and cold and wet) S-Britain is more fertile.

And I referred to the region of Kent, because you we're implying that it where only Saxons invading Britain, instead of a mixture of Ingwaeone people :P

BTW: I don't figure out why you called in the help of the Irminones (Suevii, Alemannii), they weren't involved, hence, they were feasting in Gaul :D

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 03:02 AM
A, I full agree,

the name Swaefes did not ring a bell, you ment the Swabes (Suevii)



I was reacting to this part of my. :D

But I would still like to point out that although Scotland is a beautifull country, I can't imagine that a group of barbarians would conquer it instead of the S-Britain, the latter is much better even in the eyes of the old germanics (Scotland is much to rocky and cold and wet) S-Britain is more fertile.

And I referred to the region of Kent, because you we're implying that it where only Saxons invading Britain, instead of a mixture of Ingwaeone people :P

BTW: I don't figure out why you called in the help of the Irminones (Suevii, Alemannii), they weren't involved, hence, they were feasting in Gaul :D Swaefas (Suevi, Alemanni) seems to be the name the general tribe was given when they settled in Swaffham England. Swaffham England is in Norfolk England which is within or right above East Anglia. You might notice how even the name 'Norfolk' sounds more like 'Northumbria' compared to say Kent England.

NewYorker
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 04:56 AM
A, I full agree,

the name Swaefes did not ring a bell, you ment the Swabes (Suevii)



I was reacting to this part of my. :D

But I would still like to point out that although Scotland is a beautifull country, I can't imagine that a group of barbarians would conquer it; instead of the S-Britain, the latter is much better even in the eyes of the old germanics (Scotland is much to rocky and cold and wet) S-Britain is more fertile.

And I referred to the region of Kent, because you we're implying that it where only Saxons invading Britain, instead of a mixture of Ingwaeone people :P

BTW: I don't figure out why you called in the help of the Irminones (Suevii, Alemannii), they weren't involved, hence, they were feasting in Gaul :D Sorry but , you people REALLY REALLY need a history lesson........ Scotland was NEVER occupied for 'hundreds of years' by the English(??)......quite where you get this idea..........in fact, no invader has ever been able to occupy(parts of) Scotland for 'hundreds of years' (there is a famous saying in Scotland: 'occupied but never conquered') England,from 1018 to 1707,FAILED to conquer Scotland......... Scots history of invaders is pretty simple: Romans: invaded, occupied much of Southern Scotland for several decades, however completely unable to hold either the north or the south permanantly. Result?.....Romans withdraw from Scotland and build Hadrians Wall to keep the Picts and Scots from overrunning Northern England....... Vikings: invaded, occupied parts of Southern and Northern Scotland for several generations, however completely unable to hold any substantial part of either the north or the south permanantly. Result?........Vikings are defeated at the Battle of Largs in 1263.......never invade again and ultimately sell the Orkneys and Shetlands to Scotland. Danes: invaded........trounced in the 9th century by the Scots..........never invaded again. The Normans: NEVER invaded Scotland to start with........in 1072, Normans and Scots armies square up at the border...........result?.......both fearful of each other,they agree to recgonise each others rights, territories............. England------the first attempt to take Scotland(1018) ends in disaster for the English at Carham ANDTHE ENGLISH FAIL TO EVER TAKE SCOTLAND........622 years(1018 to 1640) of failure..........despite numerous attempts.........despite occupying various areas of Scotland over the decades and centuries,the Scots fail to be taken.......in fact the Scots win both the first and last battles----1018 at Carham and 1640 at Newburn..... (the only 'English' army to conquer Scotland is that of Cromwell in 1651,and this army has Prot Irish,Prot Welsh and even a few Parliamentarian Scots.. Result?..........this: 'the Act of Union of 1707. Introduction Scotland was never conquered by England;. There were attempts but they failed. At the end of the 13th century, the wars of independence began. In May 1st 1707, the Act of Union was ratified between England and Scotland: the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament were suspended. They created the British Parliament and formed the Great Britain by the Union of Scotland and England.' http://www.skyminds.net/politics/scot_union.php in fact if you knew anything about British history you would know that Gibson's famous '100 years of rape, theft and murder' line is the biggest load of hokum in the film (Braveheart)......... When in fact there had only been one major flare-up in the 1200's between the two nations until 1296, that being the Anglo-Scots war of 1216-17......... Joking aside, sorry most here simply have simply no knowledge clearly of Scots/english/british history,and as a Scot(and a history graduate at that)to be told some complete crap about my own peoples history is annoying in the extreme....... Learn some history dear...........

Hagalaz
Tuesday, December 27th, 2005, 02:04 AM
How about my predominately scottish/irish uncle..typical anglo-saxon?

http://tinypic.com/j7t2sz.jpg
http://tinypic.com/j7t30k.jpg

NewYorker
Tuesday, December 27th, 2005, 10:35 PM
There are theological differences between Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism - mostly in the area of comprehensiveness (Episcopalianism being a 'Via Media' between Rome and Geneva). The few Anglican parishes that were absorbed into the Scottish Episcopal Church in the 19th c. were probably indistinguishable from Presbyterians in form of worship, and theology (being staunch Calvinist as well, and foregoing the BCP.) The native parishes of the Scottish Episcopal Church, however, have always been to the more 'orthodox/catholic' theology and practice never having the Puritan influence that the Presbyterians and Anglicans (for the most part) imbibed. What we call 'High Church' and even 'Anglo-Catholic' in England was a revival there, but in Scotland it was a survival (though more advanced due to the Non-Jurors being far more successful in Scotland than England). See "Traditional Ceremonial and Customs Connected with the Scottish Liturgy" by F. C. Eeles F.R.Hist.S., F.S.A. Scot., Longmans, Green and Co., 1910.

Much of the what Scottish Episcopalianism (the Whusky Kirk) preserves, is in fact the old Scottish Catholic ways before the Romans began to enforce Italian customs in most of the local churches.

Modern Scottish Catholicism is in fact more 'Irish' in a modern sense (though not Celtic, but rather Italian/Franciscan). Scottish Presbyterianism has a severe rejection of tradition that either requires one to either ignore most of Scottish history, or the most extreme flights of fancy to construct some 'Proto-Presbyterians' in the past. Those are the major three Scottish Christian denominations, however - all just as Scottish (just as the Scottish Quakers and Scottish Methodists are just as Scottish.) I'm not interested in arguing this exact point of contention (religious) any longer since I'm an American citizen and not a British citizen. That doesn't mean that I think you are right ; just simply that I'm not interested because it is not applicable(it's totally extraneous in fact) to my state of affairs (as an American citizen) due to the first ammendment. It's actually against my political principles as a Jeffersonian to get involved to a large degree (or any degree at that besides Tariffs etc..)

I will point out the obvious, though (to back up my main primary assertion the atomic proposition) :


Thus the Declaration of Arbroath was prepared as a formal Declaration of Independence. It was drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on the 6th April 1320, by the Abbot, Bernard de Linton, who was also the Chancellor of Scotland.


Bernard de Linton ? - 1331 Chancellor of Scotland and Abbot of Arbroath Abbey who drafted the famous Declaration of Arbroath. De Linton came to prominence as the Abbot of Kilwinning Abbey and then later, during the reign of Robert the Bruce (1274 - 1329), he was appointed Abbot of Arbroath and Chancellor of Scotland, becoming highly influential. In 1320, he drafted the Declaration of Arbroath, an appeal to Pope John XXII for the independence of Scotland. De Linton was buried at Kilwinning.
Bernard de Linton is obviously a Norman or Scots-Norman name. The world is made up of facts and not of things. The Declaration of Arbroath was a declaration of Scottish independence, and set out to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and its use of military action when unjustly attacked. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320. Sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots and a letter from the clergy which all presumably made similar points.


Amazon.com I am a Scotsman, Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, therefore I had to fight my way into the world. So did any number of his compatriots over a period of just a few centuries, leaving their native country and traveling to every continent, carving out livelihoods and bringing ideas of freedom, self-reliance, moral discipline, and technological mastery with them, among other key assumptions of what historian Arthur Herman calls the Scottish mentality. It is only natural, Herman suggests, that a country that once ranked among Europe's poorest, if most literate, would prize the ideal of progress, measuredby how far we have come from where we once were. Forged in the Scottish Enlightenment, that ideal would inform the political theories of Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and David Hume, and other Scottish thinkers who viewed man as a product of history, and whose collective enterprise involved nothing less than a massive reordering of human knowledge (yielding, among other things, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in Edinburgh in 1768, and the Declaration of Independence, published in Philadelphia just a few years later). On a more immediately practical front, but no less bound to that notion of progress, Scotland also fielded inventors, warriors, administrators, and diplomats such as Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, Simon MacTavish, and Charles James Napier, who created empires and great fortunes, extending Scotland's reach into every corner of the world.

Herman examines the lives and work of these and many more eminent Scots, capably defending his thesis and arguing, with both skill and good cheer, that the Scots have by and large made the world a better place rather than a worse place.; --Gregory McNamee--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.



http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/covers_450/0-609-80999-7.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609606352/ref=pd_cmp_rvi_3_i/104-6316622-2791112?n=283155



http://www.declaration-of-arbroath.co.uk/images/declaration.jpg http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/colonial/jb_colonial_hancock_2_e.jpg

Vestmannr
Tuesday, December 27th, 2005, 11:13 PM
Heh.

That still doesn't explain why you think Hume vs. Redgrave is supposed to be some profound contrast (they aren't, to any great degree.) The idea that 'Saxons' are somehow racially distinct maybe from Angles, despite their living on the Continent quite close to each other or century upon century? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of major differences between Angle or Saxon (or for that matter; Frisian, Dane, Norman, Jute) except in minor cultural distinctives and dialect.

I'll let you off the hook on the issue of Scottish religion (especially as you seem unaware of John Knox's career as an English clergyman prior to his invasion of Scotland! ;) ). However, you are still grossly misinterpreting the Declaration of Arbroath - not a 'Norman' document, nor an initialization of Scots identity. Again: Scots identity preceded the Arbroath Declaration, in fact, the Declaration lays out the long precedent of Scottish independence and identity - the 'Declaration' is not for some new idea of independence, but a declaration for that traditional rights and privileges of the Scots vs. the Plantagenets (the Plantagenets having ignored that King Richard the Lionhearted had sold off any claim of an English monarch to Scotland at an earlier date.) That the Normans were never more than a small male contingent in Scotland (and not even ethnically Norman in the main) should give lie to the idea of 'Norman' in Scotland being somehow distinct from English: the same peoples settled in both countries (though the Normans had less impact in Scotland, to be sure). The 'Normans' in Scotland were more likely to be Flemings anyway (which makes them closer to 'Saxon' than Viking.)

NewYorker
Tuesday, December 27th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Heh.

That still doesn't explain why you think Hume vs. Redgrave is supposed to be some profound contrast (they aren't, to any great degree.) The idea that 'Saxons' are somehow racially distinct maybe from Angles, despite their living on the Continent quite close to each other or century upon century? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of major differences between Angle or Saxon (or for that matter; Frisian, Dane, Norman, Jute) except in minor cultural distinctives and dialect.

I'll let you off the hook on the issue of Scottish religion (especially as you seem unaware of John Knox's career as an English clergyman prior to his invasion of Scotland! ;) ). However, you are still grossly misinterpreting the Declaration of Arbroath - not a 'Norman' document, nor an initialization of Scots identity. Again: Scots identity preceded the Arbroath Declaration, in fact, the Declaration lays out the long precedent of Scottish independence and identity - the 'Declaration' is not for some new idea of independence, but a declaration for that traditional rights and privileges of the Scots vs. the Plantagenets (the Plantagenets having ignored that King Richard the Lionhearted had sold off any claim of an English monarch to Scotland at an earlier date.) That the Normans were never more than a small male contingent in Scotland (and not even ethnically Norman in the main) should give lie to the idea of 'Norman' in Scotland being somehow distinct from English: the same peoples settled in both countries (though the Normans had less impact in Scotland, to be sure). The 'Normans' in Scotland were more likely to be Flemings anyway (which makes them closer to 'Saxon' than Viking.) I can't argue with a person who lives in denial of facts. All I can say is that the world is made up of facts and not of things. I put forth more 'facts' in my propositions and you put forth more 'things' in your propositions.

NewYorker
Wednesday, December 28th, 2005, 06:48 AM
Heh.

That still doesn't explain why you think Hume vs. Redgrave is supposed to be some profound contrast (they aren't, to any great degree.) The idea that 'Saxons' are somehow racially distinct maybe from Angles, despite their living on the Continent quite close to each other or century upon century? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of major differences between Angle or Saxon (or for that matter; Frisian, Dane, Norman, Jute) except in minor cultural distinctives and dialect.

I'll let you off the hook on the issue of Scottish religion (especially as you seem unaware of John Knox's career as an English clergyman prior to his invasion of Scotland! ;) ). However, you are still grossly misinterpreting the Declaration of Arbroath - not a 'Norman' document, nor an initialization of Scots identity. Again: Scots identity preceded the Arbroath Declaration, in fact, the Declaration lays out the long precedent of Scottish independence and identity - the 'Declaration' is not for some new idea of independence, but a declaration for that traditional rights and privileges of the Scots vs. the Plantagenets (the Plantagenets having ignored that King Richard the Lionhearted had sold off any claim of an English monarch to Scotland at an earlier date.) That the Normans were never more than a small male contingent in Scotland (and not even ethnically Norman in the main) should give lie to the idea of 'Norman' in Scotland being somehow distinct from English: the same peoples settled in both countries (though the Normans had less impact in Scotland, to be sure). The 'Normans' in Scotland were more likely to be Flemings anyway (which makes them closer to 'Saxon' than Viking.)



Family History In Your Surname
Gordon Johnson

Gordon Johnson Index Page (http://www.caithness.org/history/familyhistory/gordonjohnsongenealogy/index.htm)
Family History (http://www.caithness.org/history/familyhistory/index.htm)


Before Scotland achieved clearly defined national borders - settled by a treaty signed in 1237 when Scotland and England agreed on their jurisdictions, our country existed as a series of tribal areas held together by a king whose authority was needed to keep them all together. Various groupings had their own fiefdoms, and wanted to protect their interests, much like Afghanistan today.
The Scots were an Irish tribe who emigrated to the shores of Scotland nearest Ireland, what we would call Strathclyde, and easily mingled with the existing Celtic tribes which were established in several areas including the South-west. The Picts, a pre-Celtic indigenous people which gradually vanished, was resident mainly in the northern parts, and the Britons were indigenous to the central and southern areas. Angles were part of the population of a Northumberland which started in England and stretched as far north as Edinburgh. Flemings, nowadays almost forgotten in this context, were a trading nation with colonies in Scotland. Aberdeen was effectively a Fleming town in earlier centuries. The Vikings, mainly Norwegians, had been invading Scotland for so long that many had settled in Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and the Western Isles. These areas belonged to the Norwegian kingdom, though in 1266 by the treaty of Perth the Western Isles were ceded to Scotland. Then there were the Anglo-Normans. These were the relations of the Scottish and English kings who had been invited to move to Scotland to help construct a feudal society under David I (1124-1153). The legacy of this complicated past is still to be seen in our family names, and some of the most famous Scottish surnames are foreign in origin. Robert the Bruce's family was Norman, and can be traced back to Brieux in Orne, France. Other Norman families are Beaton (originally Bethune, from Pas de Calais), Boswell (Bosville), Cumming/Comyn (Comines), Grant (Le Grand) and Rennie (Rene). Sinclair was originally St. Clair, and Fraser was previously De Frisel, still surviving as the Frizzell surname in South-West Scotland. Even a surname like Stewart/Stuart, which comes from the office of High Steward of Scotland, is Norman, for this post was hereditary in the FitzAlan family who eventually adopted the title as their surname. The Fleming surname, common in Scotland, is thus from the Flemish settlers. Ogilvie comes from the Pictish placename in Angus, made over into a surname, and means a high place. Surnames starting with Pit are of Pictish derivation, meaning a part or piece of something, and the ending is descriptive, so Pittendreich is "the place of the aspect".

Norse surnames are common in Northern Scotland and Orkney, such as Swanson (Sven's son), Gunn (supposed to be from Norse Gunni, but may be of older Pictish origin), and Manson, a shortened version of Magnusson. Flett, found in Orkney, and down the north-eastern seaboard, is from a Norse forename. Kerr or Carr is from the Norse Kjarr, and the Orkney name Lamont is not French but the Old Norse "logmadr", and is the same root for McClymont. Old English features more in border names such as Elliot, and Kennedy is of Celtic origin, along with the many Gaelic surnames, most of them starting with Mac, meaning "son of". There have been entire books written on this subject, but this should be enough to show that even your surname is not as obviously Scottish as you may have thought.

NewYorker
Wednesday, December 28th, 2005, 06:51 AM
Family History In Your Surname
Gordon Johnson

Gordon Johnson Index Page (http://www.caithness.org/history/familyhistory/gordonjohnsongenealogy/index.htm)
Family History (http://www.caithness.org/history/familyhistory/index.htm)


Before Scotland achieved clearly defined national borders - settled by a treaty signed in 1237 when Scotland and England agreed on their jurisdictions, our country existed as a series of tribal areas held together by a king whose authority was needed to keep them all together. Various groupings had their own fiefdoms, and wanted to protect their interests, much like Afghanistan today.
The Scots were an Irish tribe who emigrated to the shores of Scotland nearest Ireland, what we would call Strathclyde, and easily mingled with the existing Celtic tribes which were established in several areas including the South-west. The Picts, a pre-Celtic indigenous people which gradually vanished, was resident mainly in the northern parts, and the Britons were indigenous to the central and southern areas. Angles were part of the population of a Northumberland which started in England and stretched as far north as Edinburgh. Flemings, nowadays almost forgotten in this context, were a trading nation with colonies in Scotland.
Aberdeen was effectively a Fleming town in earlier centuries. The Vikings, mainly Norwegians, had been invading Scotland for so long that many had settled in Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and the Western Isles. These areas belonged to the Norwegian kingdom, though in 1266 by the treaty of Perth the Western Isles were ceded to Scotland. Then there were the Anglo-Normans. These were the relations of the Scottish and English kings who had been invited to move to Scotland to help construct a feudal society under David I (1124-1153). The legacy of this complicated past is still to be seen in our family names, and some of the most famous Scottish surnames are foreign in origin. Robert the Bruce's family was Norman, and can be traced back to Brieux in Orne, France. Other Norman families are Beaton (originally Bethune, from Pas de Calais), Boswell (Bosville), Cumming/Comyn (Comines), Grant (Le Grand) and Rennie (Rene). Sinclair was originally St. Clair, and Fraser was previously De Frisel, still surviving as the Frizzell surname in South-West Scotland. Even a surname like Stewart/Stuart, which comes from the office of High Steward of Scotland, is Norman, for this post was hereditary in the FitzAlan family who eventually adopted the title as their surname. The Fleming surname, common in Scotland, is thus from the Flemish settlers. Ogilvie comes from the Pictish placename in Angus, made over into a surname, and means a high place. Surnames starting with Pit are of Pictish derivation, meaning a part or piece of something, and the ending is descriptive, so Pittendreich is "the place of the aspect".

Norse surnames are common in Northern Scotland and Orkney, such as Swanson (Sven's son), Gunn (supposed to be from Norse Gunni, but may be of older Pictish origin), and Manson, a shortened version of Magnusson. Flett, found in Orkney, and down the north-eastern seaboard, is from a Norse forename. Kerr or Carr is from the Norse Kjarr, and the Orkney name Lamont is not French but the Old Norse "logmadr", and is the same root for McClymont. Old English features more in border names such as Elliot, and Kennedy is of Celtic origin, along with the many Gaelic surnames, most of them starting with Mac, meaning "son of". There have been entire books written on this subject, but this should be enough to show that even your surname is not as obviously Scottish as you may have thought.


Gee, notice how it doesn't make any mention of "Saxons" within Scotland and it even says the most Royal and most famous Scottish surname "Stuart/Stewart" is of Norman origin ? How do you explain that genius ?

All I see mentioned are : Picts, Scots (Gaels or whatever), Angles, Norwegians , Bretons, Flemings and Normans. There is no mention of "Saxons".

Karasig
Wednesday, December 28th, 2005, 10:44 AM
Heil

I have read very much over the ancient German-hood, 100 ertes of books, therefore I cannot now tell you, from which sources I now take this thesis, but I have itmore than once read. one it assumes, that the Scotsmen, Skyten, Sueben, Sweben, Schwaben (Mitteldeutschland:Hauptstadt Stuttgard, similar the name Steward), is one tribe. bulkheads is Germanic in any case, can you see it?!

There is another theory. the Scotsmen is a mixture from an old megalithish peoples,( builder of Stonhenge, Matriarchal), and Celts. Maybee the tribe of "sueben" mixed with them.

I hope to help a little bit.

Best wishes from the north of Germany

Karasig

Vestmannr
Wednesday, December 28th, 2005, 10:49 PM
I can't argue with a person who lives in denial of facts. All I can say is that the world is made up of facts and not of things. I put forth more 'facts' in my propositions and you put forth more 'things' in your propositions.

A straw man - your facts are incomplete.


On the contrary, Charles II tried to force Episcopalianism on Scotland. These were the "killing times", when those who would not conform (known in Scotland as Covenanters) were hunted down, tortured and killed; churches had to use the Episcopalian mode of worship, so Covenanters met in the hills.

Blood was spilled on both sides. The persecution of the Episcopalians was heaviest after 1688 - but had gone both ways. The Presbyterian ascendancy was not a one time event (of the late 17th c.): it occurred a couple of times (and was accompanied by the greatest pro-English sentiment, and rejection of Scotland's long-standing friendship with France, Norway, etc.) The Covenanters (whom I also count as ancestors) were not persecuted during the 17th c. merely for theology, but because they were also lawless and responsible for acts of violence and destruction. (Did not the first sermon of John Knox lead to the sacking of the Scottish church he preached in, the destruction of their ornaments, etc.? )

And, for the record: I am not now, nor have ever been a member of the Anglican Communion, Roman Church, or Presbyterians.


Family History In Your Surname

Ah - internet genealogy mills as 'evidence'? :-O You should be aware that with most of the clans (whether Highlands or Lowlands) there is an argument over their original ethnic origins. The Stewarts by many accounts are the descendants of a Fleming named Flaald, for instance. By others, they are the descendants of a Gael. If one goes and follows the DNA Surname studies, one will notice that most Scottish clans do not all internally descend from the same ancestor: one may bear surname McGregor, Ferguson, Gordon, etc., and be of different Y-STR haplotype, and thus different ancestry. The Gordons themselves are claimed variously as Norman, Belgo-Gallic, Briton, Gaelic, and Angle.


All I see mentioned are : Picts, Scots (Gaels or whatever), Angles, Norwegians , Bretons, Flemings and Normans. There is no mention of "Saxons".

Your term 'Angles' is most often translated into English as 'English' as regards the Arbroath Declaration. Contemporary records do not show it to have been an easy task (or normative) to distinguish between Angle or Saxon from soon after the 'mythic' settlement'. In Gaelic terminology, all Angles, Normans, even Britons were 'Sassenach' - Saxon. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians had dwelt on each others borders for centuries: their blood was already mingled, they shared a single heroic culture, a language that was so alike in dialect that it easily merged into 'English' or 'Scots'. Like it or not, the men of Lothian and Bernicia (and even Dumfries/Galloway) have been 'Sassenach'/Angles for most of their history. (Even Whithorn is a Northumbrian 'Sassenach' monastery, the Ruthwell cross bears the Anglo-Saxon 'Dream of the Rood'.) Trying to so heavily separate Saxon and Angle is a lost cause.

And, a final fact to remember - all those nobles at the top of the Declaration of Arbroath (most of them my ancestors): all of them held lands in England, especially in the South. Their ancestors had as well. How 'un-Saxon' do you think they were? Some of them bear quite 'Saxon names' (as their own clans have it); Graham, Maxwell, etc.

Bottom line: things aren't so 'black and white' with Scotland as some here are trying to portray.

Wayfarer
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 10:25 AM
Im sure many folk are really interested in this theological debate, but isnt it a bit off topic?
Perhaps starting a new thread or taking it to the christianity section might be a good idea. :)

Siegmund
Monday, January 2nd, 2006, 10:54 AM
Im sure many folk are really interested in this theological debate, but isnt it a bit off topic?
Perhaps starting a new thread or taking it to the christianity section might be a good idea. :)
I thought the same thing myself, but hesitated since so much of the discussion is intertwined. But in the end I went ahead and split most of the posts dealing with religion to Church and Kirk (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=45466). Depending on where you posted, you may need to resubscribe to one of these two threads.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 09:26 AM
It was intertwined - however, I think the evidence is pretty clear that a Western Germanic categorization for Scotland is not out of line. The Scots tongue is Western Germanic (very close to Frisian). Scandinavian, Germanic, especially North Sea genetics are common. Scotland has always had this 'tension' of being both Celtic and Germanic - to deny one or the other is to deny a great part of Scottish history and culture.

Haplotype I
Saturday, January 28th, 2006, 08:49 AM
Scotland is Nordic on the west and Germanic on the east, with Nordic coming down the coast of the Northeast as well and Germanics going across to Glasgow too.

This is generally true and of course there are parts on both sides. the Hanseatic League traded with Edinburgh and the Norweigans sailed all along the west side.

Klegutati
Sunday, March 26th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Well both of my Scottish surnames have Norse ancestry... Like Macdonald, and Montgomery (Norman).:thumbup

Sigurd
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 08:45 PM
I would say that both in a racial and a cultural sense, that both are mixed. The same applies to Ireland, by the way, but to a smaller degree, as it is culturally very Celtic. From a racial viewpoint we have to see Scotland as being mostly made of Palaeo-Atlantids and Trønders - does that not prove that both parts are quite prevalent.

Oh, and not to forget - the Tartan is Germanic, not Celtic, if my information is correct.

I am quite astonished though how a simple question that can be answered with "Celto-Germanic" is already taking 12 pages though, :P

Huzar
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 09:34 PM
I am quite astonished though how a simple question that can be answered with "Celto-Germanic" is already taking 12 pages though, :P


When i opened the thread, i thought a couple of pages being sufficient for the subject.......:P

However, as i said many times, hybrid ethnicities are difficult to classify. France, is a typical example. Scotland too. Both are listed as "western Germanic" , but Scotland is only partially (50%) Germanic, while about France............well, the problem is much more complex : both can be considered Germanic, but only in the WIDER sense of the word (especially France, in its the complex).

Ireland can't be considered Germanic.

Imperator X
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 10:29 PM
Ireland can't be considered Germanic.

In counties like Wexford, there is much Norse influence. One must remember the battle of Cluin Tairbh, the warring rival Irish kings Brian Boru and Mael Mordha both employed Vikings in their armies. Some Irish were sympathetic and took up arms with the Vikings, and Some Vikings took up arms alongside Irishmen.

fareast
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 07:42 AM
in my opinion a scottish can be verify by his belief.Anglo-Saxons are alomost protestants while Celts are catholist.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 01:23 PM
in my opinion a scottish can be verify by his belief.Anglo-Saxons are alomost protestants while Celts are catholist.Protestanism is stronger among the Gaelic-speakers of the Western Highlands and Isles than probably anywhere else in Britain.

Milesian
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 05:02 PM
Protestanism is stronger among the Gaelic-speakers of the Western Highlands and Isles than probably anywhere else in Britain.

Actually, that is a commonly held misconception.
Catholicism tended to survive in the Hebrides while the Lowlands were almost totally changed during the Reformation. This state of affairs generally persisted until a new wave of Irish settled in the lowlands in the 19th century.

I was actually suprised myself to discover how many Catholics there are in the Highlands and Western Islands who come from "native" Scots stock.
There certainly are numerous Protestants in these areas but I'm of the opinion that is due to the strength and puritianism of their beiefs rather than solely on numerical value. Protestantism isn't quantitively stronger there than anywhere else in the UK.

fareast
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 02:14 AM
William Wallace should be Saxon for his ancestors come from Shropshire of England.Bruce is a Norman,his name derive from Broise of Normandy.Quite many famous Scottish are Germanic.

Rhydderch
Monday, June 5th, 2006, 06:29 AM
Actually, that is a commonly held misconception.
Catholicism tended to survive in the Hebrides while the Lowlands were almost totally changed during the Reformation.I'm referring to the modern state of affairs.


This state of affairs generally persisted until a new wave of Irish settled in the lowlands in the 19th century.You're right in that it largely persisted until the nineteenth century, however it was at this time that things changed drastically in the Highlands and Islands due to Protestant missionary efforts. The situation is entirely different from what it was during and after the Reformation.


I was actually suprised myself to discover how many Catholics there are in the Highlands and Western Islands who come from "native" Scots stock.There are still Catholics in some parts of the Highlands, and also some of the Southern Islands of the Outer Hebrides are predominantly Catholic.


There certainly are numerous Protestants in these areas but I'm of the opinion that is due to the strength and puritianism of their beiefs rather than solely on numerical value. Protestantism isn't quantitively stronger there than anywhere else in the UK.The population of these areas is of course, fairly low, however percentage-wise, there would be a far greater proportion of people there who are "practising" Protestants than elsewhere in the UK.

Oswiu
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006, 01:18 AM
It all depended on what were the personal inclinations of a particular Laird. A bit like in Luther's Germany.
I know Skye very well, and it's fiercely Protestant there. You can't even hang your washing out on a Sunday! They're Wee Frees and Presbyterians.

Anyone heard about the 'Prophet' of St. Kilda? :D

Rhydderch
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006, 02:02 PM
It all depended on what were the personal inclinations of a particular Laird.Actually there were instances when the Laird was absolutely opposed to his peoples' religion, insomuch that he wouldn't allow them to conduct worship on his land, so they went out on the beach at low tide.

Wolfssangel
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Alba means "Scotland". Scotland must keep it Gaelic langauge for the future. Because Scotland is first Celtic. I heard about many Chinese and Asians migrate to Scotland. They speak more English than Gaelic. :mad Stop them to come to Scotland! Scotland and Scots Gaelic must keep it white people. :thumbup

Klegutati
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 01:06 PM
I would say that both in a racial and a cultural sense, that both are mixed. The same applies to Ireland, by the way, but to a smaller degree, as it is culturally very Celtic. From a racial viewpoint we have to see Scotland as being mostly made of Palaeo-Atlantids and Trønders - does that not prove that both parts are quite prevalent.

Oh, and not to forget - the Tartan is Germanic, not Celtic, if my information is correct.

I am quite astonished though how a simple question that can be answered with "Celto-Germanic" is already taking 12 pages though, :P

Really? That might explain why the early Jutes had tartan pants.:P

Galaico
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 01:49 PM
I'm not really very informed about it, but wouldn't the Lowlands be considered more Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) or perhaps Celtic/Germanic, and the Highlands more purely Celtic?

As for the Catholicism in Scotland, has it got anything to do with the grade of loyalism towards the Union? I mean, Loyalists-Protestants and Nationalists-Catholics.

Tabitha
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Interestingly, this is not really the case. While there is a rump of Protestantism that closely associates itself with the union, these are usually fans of Rangers football team. The idea of Catholics supporting nationalism is actually a much more recent phenomenon. For instance when the Scottish National Party was first set up in the 1930s it was opposed to Irish immigration and was largely viewed as anti-Catholic. It was not until Alex Salmond became the leader of the SNP that the party made deliberate attempts to court the Catholic church and draw on Catholic support. As late as 1979 Catholics voted against a Scottish parliament in case it led to independence and fears that they would be left worse off at the hands of the SNP than they would under the union.
Catholics have traditionally supported the working class party of Labour which has always been a party in the support of the union.







I

As for the Catholicism in Scotland, has it got anything to do with the grade of loyalism towards the Union? I mean, Loyalists-Protestants and Nationalists-Catholics.

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 04:24 PM
Catholics in Scotland would be broadly pro-Union, despite their views on Northern Ireland.

Actually I've noticed that many immigrants are pro-British because they (sub-conciously) fear English/Welsh/Scottish nationalism. They know it is ridiculous to be an English Indian (or whatever) but they are happy to be a British black/Muslim/Indian, etc.

Housecard
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 09:06 PM
Siegfried? Don't you mean corporatisum? "Not Capitalisum" individuel capitalisum has worked in protecting freedom and one's culture. Corporatisum is what is destroying our heritag,e the same as socoial-isum,which is the other of, two sides of the same coin.

Look at the death of the US of A-corprate-isum and Sweden-social-isum to extremes of the same coin.Same outcome, death of one's heritage.

Oxenfoord
Sunday, November 5th, 2006, 05:14 PM
I never suggested it was due to Normans invading Scotland. I'm referring to the fact that England seems to have become more powerful after the Norman Conquest, and as a result tended more and more to dominate Scotland.

My use of the term "English" was generic; I'm talking about the Northumbrian dialect, which was originally referred to in Scotland as "Inglis", but eventually became "Scots". I'm well aware that Scots became the national language of the country.

How do you know that? I think you're making a deduction, just as I am; it remains to be seen whose deduction is correct.

Gododdin, in the south-east Lowlands, was conquered by Northumbria around the 600's, and it is my opinion that Northumbrian spread through that region because it became politically dominant at this time, becoming the language of administration. But it must have taken many centuries before it became the native language.

The kingdom was established by Gaels, and the royalty was for a long time of Gaelic descent. They gave Scotland its name.

France was established by, and named after, the Germanic Franks.

I don't agree that Scots 'evidently' have a high amount of Germanic blood. In general they are easily distinguishable from Germanics. Blond hair, if that's what you're referring to, does not equal Germanic; the Bronze age invaders were brown and blond in hair colour, and their descendants are common in Eastern Scotland.

As for language, are the Irish more Germanic than the French, since the vast majority speak a Germanic first language?

'Comparable' is the word I used; in other words I believe they're about equal in that respect.

The subject of England being Germanic-speaking, whereas France is not, is an interesting one, and I think the reason is not due to a difference in the nature of the Germanic invasion and settlement, but to the peculiar position of Latin in Britain. I have an opinion on it, which I might post soon on another thread.

Exactly. Gaelic was the language of administration all over Scotland as a result of imperialism, and that's why it spread over much of the Lowlands and North-East Scotland.

I know what Scotsmen look like, and I wouldn't argue that they are very dissimilar to the English. But as I've said on many threads, I don't think the English have much Germanic blood either.

As I said, England loomed large over Scotland, and English came to be the language of the Scottish royal court (also helped by the fact that Anglo-Norman aristocrats were becoming influential); but they adopted the variety of English which was already spoken in their realm. This, of course, gave it very much a dominant position, and slowly but surely, it began to supplant Gaelic.

The people of Strathclyde were adopting Gaelic when "Inglis" became politically dominant. However, Gaelic may have continued to replace Brythonic even after this; at any rate it survived in parts of Ayrshire and Galloway until at least the 17th century.
But the fact that Inglis spread through Scotland is due to its position as the administrative (or official) language of the country.

Geography can have a considerable effect on culture; mountains often isolate people from cultural innovations and civilising effects.

Less civilised than England yes, but the Brythonic areas came under Roman rule three times (only about twenty years each time though, I think), and don't forget about the Antonine wall, north of Strathclyde. The Brythonic areas were constantly subjected to Roman influence (even when not part of the Empire), whereas the Picts remained uncivilised in the more isolated Highlands. As far as I know, the Britons in southern Scotland were not considered Barbarians in Late Roman times, unlike the Picts and Scots.


The whole question of Scotland is open to question. First of all, the people who dominated the north and east of the country were the Picts. We know very little about them, except for their carved stones with short, often enigmatic messages in Ogham script. We don't even know their language. We do know that it differed so much from Gaelic that interpreters were needed.

As to the Scots of Dal Riata, there is a new school of thought that they weren't from Ireland at all. The archaeology shows that artefacts go from Scotland to Ireland, not the other way round. Alex Woolf of St Andrews University is at the forefront in this school of thought. Thus, there is the intriguing thought as to how they ended up speaking Gaelic. An analogy to the appearance of French culture and language in the Balearic Islands resulting purely from trade is an interesting corollory. Thus, if the Scots weren't Gaels, then they were probably Picts who are said to have come from Scandinavia. Don't let's forget earlier groups had also settled in the British Isles, so even the Picts would have been a mixture. However, were they Germanic? Tacitus thought of them as being very similar to the wild Germans the Romans had fought against, so perhaps they were. What they weren't however, is 'Celtic'. The Celts are mainland European tribes, not British.

The Britons of Strathclyde and, earlier, of Lothian, were speakers of Old Welsh. Their greatest legacy to us is the 'Gododdin' which celebrates a glorious defeat at the hands (probably) of Angles at Catraeth. Their place names still exist in south-east Scotland such as Penicuik, meaning Hill of the Cuckoo.

As to the other main groups to settle Scotland before the Normans appeared, there are the Anglo-Saxons who settled Bernicia and moved south, rather than moving north from England and the Vikings. Both groups are Germanic. However, how strong was the legacy in DNA terms? Recent (very recent) analysis of British DNA tends to show that we're all much of a muchness from Land's End to John O'Groats. 'Heinz 57 Variety' is my pet decription. Contrary to one of the statements in this string, I would defy anyone to identify Scots or English from each other in a line-up. If it were Scots and Irish, that wouldn't be a problem. The latter are quite distinctive. Equally, once you've taken the average Brit (Scot or English) into the sun for a couple of weeks, you'd find it hard to distinguish them from the average German. The latter have a greater tendency to blondness than some British. There is a greater tendency to red hair in Scots, but don't over-exaggerate it.

The main thing is that the movement of populations has blended so many peoples together that there are few, if any, in Britain who are 'pure' anything. Look at your ancestry. Go back twenty generations and everyone in mainland Britain is your ancestor. Both sides at Bannockburn who survived are your direct ancestors!

The Germanic language of Scotland, Lallans or Scots, putting Old Norse to the side, was a direct descendant of the language of the Northumbrians (Bernicia, the northern half of Northumbria was the original Scots Anglo-Saxon kingdom). It differed from southern English, but not hugely from their northern dialect. It was still called Inglis at the time of Barbour who wrote 'The Brus' about Robert the Bruce in the fourteenth century. Influences on it came from extensive involvement with the main Scots ally, France and from trade with the Netherlands. There were other strong influences on Scotland after the Angles and Vikings, of course. The Normans who came in with David I changed Scotland to a feudal state. They did not introduce English, however, as they spoke French. At the same time, records show lots of settlers coming into Scotland from all over northern Europe: Flanders, Germany, France and so on. Indeed, the Flemish were regular contributors to the Scots genetic pool. Some were settled in Moray under David I. Many more came in as skilled builders and engineers over subsequent centuries to build palaces and drain marshes. They leave a legacy in names like Taylor, Fleming and, apparently, Fraser.

If you bear in mind that there are true Celts in Germany (in Bavaria, I understand), among the Flemish and very definitely among the French, it is hard to see how anyone in western Europe can claim to be 'pure' Germanic. Scotland is more of a mystery than anything. However, I would argue that the culture of Lowland Scotland differed markedly from the so-called 'Celtic' Highlands. The language was of the Germanic family (Western Germanic like German, Dutch and Flemish). The culture was focussed on north-western Europe and the royal family intermarried with the main European families of France, Denmark, Norway and so on. Equally, the tribal system that was established by Somerled after he overthrew the Norse yolk did not exist in the Lowlands. The total cultural split between Highlands and Lowlands was emphasised by the reaction to the '45 in the Lowlands which showed not only the view of the average lowlander that highlanders were 'Irish', but that they differed in almost every way and were viewed as resembling North American Indians in the way they lived by Boswell and Johnson when they travelled through the Highlands two or three decades later. Yet those who lived in the Hebrides could call Vikings their ancestors just as Gaels.

Perhaps a more valid way of looking at the whole of Britain (even Wales) would be as a partly-Germanic culture and of very mixed ancestral origins.

Siegfried
Sunday, November 5th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Siegfried? Don't you mean corporatisum? "Not Capitalisum" individuel capitalisum has worked in protecting freedom and one's culture. Corporatisum is what is destroying our heritag,e the same as socoial-isum,which is the other of, two sides of the same coin.

Look at the death of the US of A-corprate-isum and Sweden-social-isum to extremes of the same coin.Same outcome, death of one's heritage.

As far as I know, I didn't mention capitalism in this thread. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or accidentally posted in the wrong thread? If you want, we could have this discussion elsewhere. This thread should be about Scotland's ethnic status, though. :)

Rhydderch
Monday, November 6th, 2006, 01:18 AM
As to the Scots of Dal Riata, there is a new school of thought that they weren't from Ireland at all. The archaeology shows that artefacts go from Scotland to Ireland, not the other way round. Alex Woolf of St Andrews University is at the forefront in this school of thought. Thus, there is the intriguing thought as to how they ended up speaking Gaelic. An analogy to the appearance of French culture and language in the Balearic Islands resulting purely from trade is an interesting corollory. Thus, if the Scots weren't Gaels, then they were probably Picts who are said to have come from Scandinavia. Don't let's forget earlier groups had also settled in the British Isles, so even the Picts would have been a mixture. However, were they Germanic? Tacitus thought of them as being very similar to the wild Germans the Romans had fought against, so perhaps they were. What they weren't however, is 'Celtic'. The Celts are mainland European tribes, not British.In my view the West Highlands could well have been Gaelic (or at least Q-Celtic) speaking long before Dalriada was established. It might perhaps have been simply the spreading of an Irish kingdom into Scotland with little in the way of a migration.

One Pictish tribe was said by Tacitus to resemble the Germans, however others were said to resemble Spaniards.


I would defy anyone to identify Scots or English from each other in a line-up. If it were Scots and Irish, that wouldn't be a problem.It depends on the region. I find many of the Scots closer to the Irish actually; this is probably in the West in particular. I'd imagine the Scots of the south-east would be closer to the Northern English though.


The main thing is that the movement of populations has blended so many peoples together that there are few, if any, in Britain who are 'pure' anything. Look at your ancestry. Go back twenty generations and everyone in mainland Britain is your ancestor. Both sides at Bannockburn who survived are your direct ancestors!True, no-one is "pure" but genetically, the vast majority of a Scot's genetic ancestry would be from (probably prehistoric) Scotland.

The foreign blood which has entered would be far less than the more ancient blood. It would have been small enough to be absorbed to a considerable extent.


They did not introduce English, however, as they spoke French.They were probably bilingual; their presence would have served to reinforce English influence, including linguistically.

Oswiu
Monday, November 6th, 2006, 01:58 AM
In my view the West Highlands could well have been Gaelic (or at least Q-Celtic) speaking long before Dalriada was established. It might perhaps have been simply the spreading of an Irish kingdom into Scotland with little in the way of a migration.
I don't think Argyll can be said to have been Irish speaking in Roman times. The Epidii and Damnonii were located in the area, and their names indicate their P Celtic status.

The non Gaelic Cruthen in both Ireland and Caledonia should be remembered, however. They remained strong enough in Ulster to have established a reasonably successful kingdom in the east of the province [south Antrim, north Down] known as the Dal nAraidi, once the Midland Gaels broke the power of the [also nonGaelic and ?P Celtic? Ulaid of Armagh and the Ulster Cycle] in the 5th Century.

Movement of material culture before the traditional dates assigned to Fergus Mac Erc need not involve Gaels at all. [And victorious conquering Gaels might well have shipped trophies home, anyway, in the alternate scenario].

Rhydderch
Monday, November 6th, 2006, 03:23 AM
I don't think Argyll can be said to have been Irish speaking in Roman times. The Epidii and Damnonii were located in the area, and their names indicate their P Celtic status.Were the Damnonii in Argyll? I thought it was the forerunner of Strathclyde.


The non Gaelic Cruthen in both Ireland and Caledonia should be remembered, however. They remained strong enough in Ulster to have established a reasonably successful kingdom in the east of the province [south Antrim, north Down] known as the Dal nAraidi, once the Midland Gaels broke the power of the [also nonGaelic and ?P Celtic? Ulaid of Armagh and the Ulster Cycle] in the 5th Century.

Movement of material culture before the traditional dates assigned to Fergus Mac Erc need not involve Gaels at all. [And victorious conquering Gaels might well have shipped trophies home, anyway, in the alternate scenario].That's right, and there was always considerable contact between the two areas.

Whether or not Gaelic was spoken in Argyll before the Gaels, I think it's quite possible that the extension of Dalriada into Scotland was more a case of an expanding kingdom than a great migration.

Oxenfoord
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 02:50 PM
A couple of interesting pieces of recent research go to answer some of the questions raised in this wide-ranging discussion. About three years or so ago, there was a TV series called, 'Blood of the Vikings'. In a search for the descendants of the Vikings, tests were carried out on men who had ancestry from the area being investigated going back three or more generations. The results showed generally that Viking descent (I don't remember if they differentiated between Norwegian and Danish Vikings - the latter indistinguishable from Angles) was strongest in the Northern Isles and the Midlands of England. Elsewhere in mainland Scotland and England, with a thin strip along the far west coast of the former, there was fundamentally no difference. Now, an exciting new report is unveiled in the Scottish press ('The Scotsman', September 21st, 2006). In this report, Prof Sykes of Oxford Ancestors has examined results of tests for the following groups of people he has classified as 'groups or clans'. They are:

'Oisin for the Celts; Wodan for the Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings; Sigurd for Norse Vikings; Eshu for people who share genetic links with people such as the Berbers of North Africa; and Re for a farming people who spread to Europe from the Middle East.'

Maps supplied with the article show that Oisin is heavily represented throughout all areas of major population in mainland Britain with percentages of population being:
Scotland 73%; England 64%, Wales 83%.
Eshu is 1.5%; 2% and 3%.
Wodan is 15%, 22% and 11% respectively.
Re is 1.2%; 3% and 0.7%.
Sigurd is 9%; 5% and 1.5%.
Others are 0.3%; 4% and 0.7%.

If you balance out the various types of people, the Germanic element is most significant in the Northern Isles. There, the percentage of Viking ancestry is around 40%. However, the element of the Anglo-Saxons is described by Prof Sykes thus,'The overlay of Vikings, Saxons and so on is 20% at most. That's even in those parts of England that are nearest to the Continent.'

In fact, I get Wodan plus Sigurd equalling 24% in Scotland and 27% in England. Not much difference between the two when it boils down to it, though.

I think this confirms my earlier point about 'Heinz 57 Variety' being our genetic legacy. It's probably one reason for the astonishing level of original thought that has come from the British Isles and, especially from Scotland. In fact, even now, I gather that an amazing 50% of inventions (on a world-wide basis) still come from here, whether it be the steam engine (OK,OK forget Hero of Alexandria just now) or the internet or Dolly the Sheep. Or mushy peas.

The important thing in terms of history is the cultural element. The culture we call 'Celtic' is a distinct one, yet it seems to be associated with Picts and Irish and Bretons (think of carved Pictish stones in this context). The Anglo-Saxons weren't very different from the Zulus or the Romans when it comes down to it. All three peoples assimilated other tribes into theirs and made them think of themselves as English or Roman etc. It is the clash of cultures that should fuel the debate of the informed when looking at history. Hitherto, we have not understood ourselves, who we are and where we come from. Now, I hope that a realisation of our common ancestry will bind us together in all parts of Britain.

Word Bearer
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 05:14 AM
Only now i note the scottish flag amongst western germanics section ; It sounds a bit strange to me honestly. Is Scotland Germanic ? Many think Scotland being predominantly Celtic ethnoculturally rather than germanic(me too).

What do you think ?

I would like to know where the Picts or people of pictish descent fit in?


The whole question of Scotland is open to question. First of all, the people who dominated the north and east of the country were the Picts. We know very little about them, except for their carved stones with short, often enigmatic messages in Ogham script. We don't even know their language. We do know that it differed so much from Gaelic that interpreters were needed.

As to the Scots of Dal Riata, there is a new school of thought that they weren't from Ireland at all. The archaeology shows that artefacts go from Scotland to Ireland, not the other way round. Alex Woolf of St Andrews University is at the forefront in this school of thought. Thus, there is the intriguing thought as to how they ended up speaking Gaelic. An analogy to the appearance of French culture and language in the Balearic Islands resulting purely from trade is an interesting corollory. Thus, if the Scots weren't Gaels, then they were probably Picts who are said to have come from Scandinavia. Don't let's forget earlier groups had also settled in the British Isles, so even the Picts would have been a mixture. However, were they Germanic? Tacitus thought of them as being very similar to the wild Germans the Romans had fought against, so perhaps they were. What they weren't however, is 'Celtic'. The Celts are mainland European tribes, not British.

The Britons of Strathclyde and, earlier, of Lothian, were speakers of Old Welsh. Their greatest legacy to us is the 'Gododdin' which celebrates a glorious defeat at the hands (probably) of Angles at Catraeth. Their place names still exist in south-east Scotland such as Penicuik, meaning Hill of the Cuckoo.

As to the other main groups to settle Scotland before the Normans appeared, there are the Anglo-Saxons who settled Bernicia and moved south, rather than moving north from England and the Vikings. Both groups are Germanic. However, how strong was the legacy in DNA terms? Recent (very recent) analysis of British DNA tends to show that we're all much of a muchness from Land's End to John O'Groats. 'Heinz 57 Variety' is my pet decription. Contrary to one of the statements in this string, I would defy anyone to identify Scots or English from each other in a line-up. If it were Scots and Irish, that wouldn't be a problem. The latter are quite distinctive. Equally, once you've taken the average Brit (Scot or English) into the sun for a couple of weeks, you'd find it hard to distinguish them from the average German. The latter have a greater tendency to blondness than some British. There is a greater tendency to red hair in Scots, but don't over-exaggerate it.

The main thing is that the movement of populations has blended so many peoples together that there are few, if any, in Britain who are 'pure' anything. Look at your ancestry. Go back twenty generations and everyone in mainland Britain is your ancestor. Both sides at Bannockburn who survived are your direct ancestors!

The Germanic language of Scotland, Lallans or Scots, putting Old Norse to the side, was a direct descendant of the language of the Northumbrians (Bernicia, the northern half of Northumbria was the original Scots Anglo-Saxon kingdom). It differed from southern English, but not hugely from their northern dialect. It was still called Inglis at the time of Barbour who wrote 'The Brus' about Robert the Bruce in the fourteenth century. Influences on it came from extensive involvement with the main Scots ally, France and from trade with the Netherlands. There were other strong influences on Scotland after the Angles and Vikings, of course. The Normans who came in with David I changed Scotland to a feudal state. They did not introduce English, however, as they spoke French. At the same time, records show lots of settlers coming into Scotland from all over northern Europe: Flanders, Germany, France and so on. Indeed, the Flemish were regular contributors to the Scots genetic pool. Some were settled in Moray under David I. Many more came in as skilled builders and engineers over subsequent centuries to build palaces and drain marshes. They leave a legacy in names like Taylor, Fleming and, apparently, Fraser.

If you bear in mind that there are true Celts in Germany (in Bavaria, I understand), among the Flemish and very definitely among the French, it is hard to see how anyone in western Europe can claim to be 'pure' Germanic. Scotland is more of a mystery than anything. However, I would argue that the culture of Lowland Scotland differed markedly from the so-called 'Celtic' Highlands. The language was of the Germanic family (Western Germanic like German, Dutch and Flemish). The culture was focussed on north-western Europe and the royal family intermarried with the main European families of France, Denmark, Norway and so on. Equally, the tribal system that was established by Somerled after he overthrew the Norse yolk did not exist in the Lowlands. The total cultural split between Highlands and Lowlands was emphasised by the reaction to the '45 in the Lowlands which showed not only the view of the average lowlander that highlanders were 'Irish', but that they differed in almost every way and were viewed as resembling North American Indians in the way they lived by Boswell and Johnson when they travelled through the Highlands two or three decades later. Yet those who lived in the Hebrides could call Vikings their ancestors just as Gaels.

Perhaps a more valid way of looking at the whole of Britain (even Wales) would be as a partly-Germanic culture and of very mixed ancestral origins. I know the picts sure knew how to take care of themselves. Despite the Roman juggernauts attempts to subdue us, they still had to build a wall at the end of the day.

-Bearer of the Word

Huzar
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 10:13 PM
I opened a similar thread on SKADI, years ago...........since there are sometimes dubt on the question, I'd like to read as many answers as possible, with relative argumentations......

Taras Bulba
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 10:36 PM
It was my common understanding that the Scottish are a Celtic-Gaelic people. I have never once heard of them being Germanic.

Flash Voyager
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 10:49 PM
They adopted the English language, and stopped speaking or communicate less in Scottish Gaelic the proto-Celtic descendent. But their not Germanic in origin(I suppose) thus making them not Germanic.

Janus
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 10:57 PM
Scotland is Celtic, Germanic and depending on one's view on the picts again Celtic or something totally different. The modern Scots do not have a common heritage but rather are a mix from the Irish Gaels coming in the Late Aniquity to area, Angles and Saxons settling there in about the same time period, the native Picts and and Britons aswell as the later arriving Vikings and Normans. One could argue which culture was most influential in creating the Scottish identity but there's enough Germanic in it to be recognised for sure.

Æmeric
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 11:17 PM
There are Lowland Scots & Highland Scots. The Highland Scots are closely related to the Gaelic Irish, hense Celtic. They also seem to have Brythonic ancestry, the name Aberdeen for example being of Brythonic origin. I believe the Lowland Scots are Saxon, Norse & maybe Flemish from the middle ages. If you look at a map of Scotland, many of the place names in the east of Scotland are Saxon sounding. There has been a great deal of movement in Scotland over the last 200-years, with the Highland clearances & the industrial revolution drawing migrants into Lowland towns (both Scottish Highlanders & Irish). It would be hard to say if 21st century Scotland is Celtic or Germanic-Celt unless you've actually been there, & I haven't. The popular image of Scotland though is that of a Celtic country, personified by the kilted Highlander. But this image has developed over the last 200-years, thanks to writers such as Sir Walter Scott.

Scotland is/was a Calvinist Protestant country, which seems more in line with a Germanic people. This definitely sets them apart from the Irish. The Welsh are Protestant, but this is a result of having been legally a part of England since 1536. Finns, Estonians & Latvians are Lutheran but this was imposed by their Swedish & German rulers at the Reformation. The fact that Scotland adopted Calvinism without it being imposed from the outside would indicate to me that at least Lowland Scotland was predominately Germanic at the Reformation. The adoption of Protestantism is one of the more defining events of Germanic history, which sets Germanics apart from Slavs, Celts & Latin/Romance peoples.

Sigurd
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 02:58 AM
It was my common understanding that the Scottish are a Celtic-Gaelic people. I have never once heard of them being Germanic.

That is the idea that is commonly bred. Making people believe Scotland is Celtic at large is, IMO, a tool of propaganda to breed strife between the Scottish and English even further than they already are. Only the odd few will agree that it is a Celto-Germanic nation ... of course not without the reference that, as a matter of linguistics, the Scots don't speak improper English, but that the English speak improper Scots. :D


They adopted the English language, and stopped speaking or communicate less in Scottish Gaelic the proto-Celtic descendent. But their not Germanic in origin(I suppose) thus making them not Germanic.

See above. No, there was no formal adaptation of the English language before the Act of Union in 1797...that's when English became an official language. Scots (I have seen Acts of Parliament dating back to the 1400s and 1500s - and yes they are written in an old form of Scots, rather than English) is the language that was spoken by most, it is an independent Germanic language that is still widely spoken in nowadays Scotland, especially when you go to the countryside - the cities are much more anglicised. In the north-east, even the towns/cities often speak Scots...go visit Fraserburgh and you'll realise that whatever they are speaking, it just isn't English. As a matter of linguistics, both English and Scots derive from the same older Germanic language - so neither is the dialect of the other, but they are rather related in the same way that Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are related. The border is clearly demarked: People in the Highlands do not speak Scots, but rather a more clear English than would be expected from anyone in Scotland ... that is obviously because they spoke Gaelic before. Either way, traditionally there have always been more speakers of Scots than of Gaelic, anyway.


the name Aberdeen for example being of Brythonic origin.

The origin of the name Aberdeen is still unclear, and it might be either Germanic or Celtic. If it is Celtic it can either meen: "mouth of two rivers", alternatively "mouth of the Dee" or "mouth of the Don".

Looking towards historical spellings of the name, as well as the positioning of the formerly independent Old Aberdeen burgh, would indicate that we are probably referring to the Don rather than the Dee, a position that is intensified by the idea that the inhabitants of Aberdeen are called "Aberdonians", and the local football team, Aberdeen FC, are called "the Donners".

It can also be Germanic in origin, though. The word "aber" could derive from "over", making it possible that Aberdeen actually means "burgh across from the Don".

PS: It is 4AM, so anyone finding mistakes in English expression is free to keep them. ;)

Galloglaich
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 03:56 AM
Is Scotland Germanic? The answer is yes. Is Scotland exclusively Germanic? The answer is no.

Scotland enjoys a cultural history that has been influenced by the Gaels, Brythonics, and Picts (however you classify them) surely; but (as has been alluded to) let us not forget the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norsemen, Danes, Normans, Flemish, and other Germanics that have shaped the destiny of those shores. The Gaelic language, while far from dead, is largely in the minority when compared to those that historically spoke Scots (which Sigurd has already pointed out is a Germanic based language) and English.

Americ has properly pointed out that there are Highland Scots and Lowland Scots, the Highlanders being considered to be of Celtic ancestry. To some degree this is true, but fails to address the immense genetic, linguistic, and cultural contributions made by the Norse in the Highlands and especially the islands during the 8th-13th centuries (to be conservative). There is some speculation as well as to how genetically "Celtic" the Gaels are anyway. It is possible that the linguistic and cultural conventions of the Gaels were imparted upon them only by early Celtic conquerors, which they then carried w/ them to the Isles. Even accepting the standard genetic theory that the Scots are of Celtic origin, how different is that mix really from many traditionally "Germanic" peoples on the continent?

The current reality is that regardless of whatever genetic origin the Scots enjoy, like other "Celts" they have been very much Germanized by language, religion, and culture. As a "Germanic" people they certainly occupy a unique position, but not one that precludes them from Germanic subsumption.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 04:13 AM
No doubt there was considerable Anglo influence on Lowland Scotland, but I think it'd be wise not to confuse largely cultural influences with actual ethnicity.



The adoption of Protestantism is one of the more defining events of Germanic history, which sets Germanics apart from Slavs, Celts & Latin/Romance peoples.

I'm sure Bavarians and Austrians appreciate that assestment.

Ægir
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 06:11 AM
No doubt there was considerable Anglo influence on Lowland Scotland, but I think it'd be wise not to confuse largely cultural influences with actual ethnicity.


But in the south it is more than just cultural and linguistic influences which are Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Norman. Just look at the surnames very few of them are Celtic at all. Such great Scottish heroes as Robert Bruce were actually Norman…sure he had some Celtic blood from maternal lines but he was for the most part a Norman. These influences of genetics are not only found in areas which are traditionally associated with Germanic influence. Let us take for example the only area where Gaelic is still spoken, in the Hebrides very few have Celtic y-chromosomes. Such great Gaelic families as the MacLeods and the MacDonalds are paternally of Norse decent. When you talk about the old title of Lord of the Isles you talk of a kingdom that was in league with Norway not with Scotland. As well in the far north of Caithness and Sutherland there are huge reservoirs of Norse blood. I would honestly say that culturally and genetically Scotland is largely Germanic with influences of Celts and Picts. But keep in mind all Germanic peoples are going to have a Celtic ancestor somewhere in their tree and as well possibly some other early UP blood.

Huzar
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 07:48 AM
Ok.........imo th case of Scotland is very particular, since we should analyse the thing under 2 different points of view : Genetic and cultural.

From a strictly cultural point ov view we could say that entire Scotland is Germanic since language is English at 99%.

From a strictly genetic point of view..........i repeat what i said : Viking and saxon influences are present, yes, (especially in the lowlands and the coasts in general), although the real bulk of population is largely autoctonous, and doesn't belong to any Germanic migration (and in some points, neither to a Celtic migration).

Interesting point (about correlation between culture and genetic) : Anthropologists found a strange correlation between dark hair and celtic languages. The areas of major persistence of dialect (and other residual forms of Gaelic language), share the highest incidence of Dark brown and red hair.
A similar phenomenon was discovered in Wales.


But at this point, we could say that Genetic factor isn't very important afterall. Cultural one is much more important, so it's not the matter if 80-90% of Scottish pop. belongs genetically to something different from germanic. Scotland still is Germanic cause the actual mother tongue of 99% of them.


on the opposite, if we want analyse more properly the Scotland case (from the genetic point of view), we should provide real data about numerical components (how many Germanics, historically, on the entire Scottish population ?), but so the discussion becomes VERY difficult. Fascinating but difficult (many speculations are possible).
Besides, even more complex, the same Germanic ancestry of a notable part of British isles population (England too) would be debatable at this point........





Scotland is/was a Calvinist Protestant country, which seems more in line with a Germanic people. This definitely sets them apart from the Irish. The Welsh are Protestant, but this is a result of having been legally a part of England since 1536. Finns, Estonians & Latvians are Lutheran but this was imposed by their Swedish & German rulers at the Reformation. The fact that Scotland adopted Calvinism without it being imposed from the outside would indicate to me that at least Lowland Scotland was predominately Germanic at the Reformation. The adoption of Protestantism is one of the more defining events of Germanic history, which sets Germanics apart from Slavs, Celts & Latin/Romance peoples.


This last point is interesting. Religion is the pillar of a civilisation. Effectively Scotland is very Protestant, without external impositions.

Is there Really some correlation between Germanic world and the birth of Protestant religion ? however remember that southern Germans (Bavarians, Austrians etc.) are massively Catholics, as their french and italian neighbours.

Ægir
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Scotland is/was a Calvinist Protestant country, which seems more in line with a Germanic people. This definitely sets them apart from the Irish. The Welsh are Protestant, but this is a result of having been legally a part of England since 1536. Finns, Estonians & Latvians are Lutheran but this was imposed by their Swedish & German rulers at the Reformation. The fact that Scotland adopted Calvinism without it being imposed from the outside would indicate to me that at least Lowland Scotland was predominately Germanic at the Reformation. The adoption of Protestantism is one of the more defining events of Germanic history, which sets Germanics apart from Slavs, Celts & Latin/Romance peoples.


Interesting point and I agree with you to an extent. It is important to note thou that only the lowlands were thoroughly Presbyterian and there were very staunch Catholic families and clans in the north and in the western isles. I think though you have found an interesting vein concerning the intersection of a civilization and its religion. I think the reason the Irish are catholic is because it is opposed to the CofE therefore it is easy to be Catholic and anti-English which works good for the Irish. You noted that the Welsh are protestant but they are not thoroughly CofE but instead they are Methodist. You may ask why one group of Celts would be Catholic and one Methodist. well I say it is because both of these faiths are against the establishment which is English.

Æmeric
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 05:00 PM
Is there Really some correlation between Germanic world and the birth of Protestant religion ? however remember that southern Germans (Bavarians, Austrians etc.) are massively Catholics, as their french and italian neighbours.
The Hapsburgs of Austria (along with their Spanish cousins) were staunch Catholics and supporters of the pope, as were their dynastic allies in southern Germany. They resisted the Reformation in their own territories, but in spite of that there were significant numbers of Protestants in Austria & Bavaria before the Thirty-Years War. Parts of Bavaria were ruled by Frederick ,the Elector Palatine, who was the leading Protestant prince of Germany. Frederick was elected King of Bohemia by the mostly German-Protestant nobility of that country, setting off the TYW. After the Peace of Westphalia, Germans had to follow the faith of their local sovereign prince, which is why Bavaria & Austria are mostly Catholic (at least nominally) today. Flanders is also Catholic, thanks to the Spanish garrisons that drove out the Protestants in the 16th century, which gave rise to the independent United Provinces in the northern Netherlands.

Oski
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Celts and germanics are like brother and sister, so the debate is useless. We'd have a better time comparing knotwork and rock-carvings.

Huzar
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Celts and germanics are like brother and sister, so the debate is useless. We'd have a better time comparing knotwork and rock-carvings.


Be carefull..........if Celts and Germanics are brother and sister, then many countries are sibilings of Germanic world (see France)

Ægir
Saturday, August 25th, 2007, 09:40 PM
Be carefull..........if Celts and Germanics are brother and sister, then many countries are sibilings of Germanic world (see France)

But can you really categorize France as Celtic with the exception of Brittany? I think France has a major genetic base which is Celtic but that has been overlaid with both Roman and Germanic genes. The culture is clearly more Roman influenced than anything, and this applies to far more than just language. It also makes since that it is more Romanic than Germanic as Rome had a presence there for so long. since the birth of the middle ages I think it is safe to assume that France is not Celtic at least not culturally.

Allenson
Sunday, August 26th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Oh boy. Here we go again! ;)

Where's Tabitha when we need her?!

In my opinion, it is partially Germanic but by no means wholly so--just as it is not wholly Celtic or Pictish.

Certainly the Angles had influences in the south and east and let's not forget the Norse Viking influence as well....but it was never a thorough and complete Germanicization. I'd give it 20% Germanic....maybe 30% tops.

Huzar
Sunday, August 26th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Oh boy. Here we go again! ;)


I know........but afterall it was a succesfull thread on Skadi.....why not to repeat it here ?;)





Where's Tabitha when we need her?!


It's better you don't know :D




Certainly the Angles had influences in the south and east and let's not forget the Norse Viking influence as well....but it was never a thorough and complete Germanicization. I'd give it 20% Germanic....maybe 30% tops.


Ok, with your estimation. 20-25% for Scotland

Rhydderch
Monday, August 27th, 2007, 02:30 AM
OK, well to simplify things I'll define it in terms of genetics/ancestry, and using say 500 A.D. as the point of reference, defining the various ethnicities (for example we can call the inhabitants of Strathclyde "Britons", even though it may be that the bulk of them were descended from speakers of some other language, perhaps even Q-Celtic/Gaelic).

According to this, I think the Lowlanders are essentially descended from the Britons, most of the Highlanders from the Picts, but the people of the more southwestern part of the Highlands from the Gaelic Scots.
As a whole then, probably at least 90-95% of the Scottish people would be descendants of those who were in the country by 500 A.D.

The conquests by the Scots and Angles after this era seem to have been cases of imperialism rather than folk migration, so I'd argue that Anglian blood in the Lowlands came primarily through intermarriage among dynasties and nobility; the same goes for the Scots in areas other than the West Highlands.

The Norse conquest of the Scottish Isles involved a folk migration, but the descendants of the earlier inhabitants must be a definite majority, all things considered (including that, while there are Scandinavian looking individuals there, most of the people are similar to other Scots, and to the Irish; in fact the number of people there with jet black hair and even olive skin is surprising, probably higher than in most other parts of Britain).

So as far as I'm concerned, whether Scotland is considered Germanic or not is a matter of definition. The way I consider the term, I would not include Scotland in it, although others may, perhaps even if they agreed on my analysis of the ancestry of Scotsmen.


It can also be Germanic in origin, though. The word "aber" could derive from "over", making it possible that Aberdeen actually means "burgh across from the Don".That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? :D There are lots of "Aber" names in Scotland, and it means (as pointed out) the mouth of a river, or where two rivers meet (equivalent to Gaelic "inver").

I can't see any reason to think it's not from the usual Brythonic word.

emperorlives
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 03:32 AM
Be carefull..........if Celts and Germanics are brother and sister, then many countries are sibilings of Germanic world (see France)

Normandy has Germanic origins, so does the area near Alsace-Lorraine.

Parts of France are considered Germanic to some, and not at all to others. It puzzles me why some are this way.

Oski
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 07:27 AM
I think many continental "celts" are more roman influenced than say scotland.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 09:43 AM
I think Scotland and Ireland are about the same (Gaelic, with some viking and a bit of later English influence)

AlbionMP
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 01:19 PM
I agree that Scotland has some other peoples besides Germanics.

However, I think the Germanics are the most integral with respect to Scottish history, and its future.

Rhydderch
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 03:12 PM
I think the Germanics are the most integralHow so?

GreenHeart
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 11:01 PM
How so?

How not so?

Rhydderch
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 06:35 AM
How not so?I've explained earlier in the thread.

Indeed those who established Scotland and gave their name to it (and earlier, its language) were Gaels, so it has less of a claim to being Germanic than say England.

Lissu
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 07:10 AM
I have always considered Scots as Celts; changing one's language doesn't mean changing one's meta-ethnicity too, even if that has happened centuries ago. Scot's own culture is still strongly alive.

But of course Germanic element is there too at least partially. I think it's up to Scots to decide who and what they are :) Galloglaich said it well methinks. I am in no way an expert on this...

SuuT
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 02:41 PM
I think everyone would be rather surprised how easily this issue would be cleared-up were one to actually ask a Scot (the overwhelming majority of Scots, anyway).

If your ever in the position to, get ready for intense laughter and some ribbing.

9 out of 10 English don't consider themselves to be anything other than that.

Diarmuid
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 05:56 PM
Scotland is very similar to Ireland in its cultural and ethnic make-up. Predominately Celtic/Gaelic with lesser Germanic/Norse influence. Obviously, however, racially the Celts and Germans are very close so the two groups blend together well.

AlbionMP
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 03:29 PM
How so?
Germanics have Nordic blood running through their veins.

Without the Germanics in charge, all you have is a tribal society, not a Nation.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 11:04 PM
Germanics have Nordic blood running through their veins.

Without the Germanics in charge, all you have is a tribal society, not a Nation.

They may have been the most influential in recent history, but hardly the predominant strain in the populace as a whole, and the Germanics mainly came from outside-mainly England.

Rhydderch
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 11:07 PM
Germanics have Nordic blood running through their veins.

Without the Germanics in charge, all you have is a tribal society, not a Nation.What's this supposed to mean (in the context of my question)?

Beornulf
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 11:19 PM
I think as a whole Scotland is fairly Germanic, but different regions have different origins.

For example the Shetland and Orkney Islands would be a lot different than say Strathclyde. It all depends on region and migration patterns. I think countries like Scotland are hard to judge as anything as a whole nation, other than Scottish.

Rhydderch
Monday, September 3rd, 2007, 05:15 AM
9 out of 10 English don't consider themselves to be anything other than that.I think there's something to be said for that. Some countries can't really be fit into any one category.

There can be problems with trying to associate a country with a particular ancient ethnic group, or group which first appears in ancient times. Yes, some countries (and groups of countries) are unambiguously derived, with very little alteration, from that ancient ethnicity, but that doesn't mean all countries can be fitted into an equivalent "box".

On the other hand, I think most Englishmen (and Scots, if pressed) would also identify with Britain as a whole, not just their own country.

Huzar
Monday, September 3rd, 2007, 11:56 PM
Scotland is very similar to Ireland in its cultural and ethnic make-up. Predominately Celtic/Gaelic with lesser Germanic/Norse influence.


Hmm.....interesting comparison. Anywaythe Germanic influence is even smaller in Ireland

PeterThaGreat
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:22 PM
I think someone is Germanic, only if they have some Nordic blood.

Hahh...I'd like so much agree with you but I am afraid there's no differencies in blood markers between Scandinavian Nordids and Scandinavian Cro-magnids, f.e. (atleast according to the dna autosomal tests).

I consider Scotland to enough Germanic to the extend that I wouldn't question its place in althing.com. Shetland and Orkney are as Germanic as Norway.

Allenson
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Discussions of Germanic Dinarids and Dinarid Germanics can now be carried on here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=1109

Thanks. :cool:

AlbionMP
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:36 PM
Is Scotland Really Germanic ?

My answer is: many people in Scotland are Germanic!

Huzar
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 09:44 AM
Some countries can't really be fit into any one category.
There can be problems with trying to associate a country with a particular ancient ethnic group, or group which first appears in ancient times. Yes, some countries (and groups of countries) are unambiguously derived, with very little alteration, from that ancient ethnicity, but that doesn't mean all countries can be fitted into an equivalent "box".



It's the main problem. We tend to draw distinct demarcations ("this country IS Germanic at 100%", "This ISN'T Germanic" etc etc.), but it's very questionable. The proportion of "100%" doesn't exist. In the case of Scotland could be 30/40% , for example.


Scottish case (although a substantial majority of members here consider it Germanic), imo, introduces the controversial question of the "peripherally Germanic".......the ambiguous definition of the grey area of the regions bordering the Germanic world proper..

PeterThaGreat
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Germanics have Nordic blood running through their veins.

Without the Germanics in charge, all you have is a tribal society, not a Nation.


Ludman (The Races and Peoples of Europe)

"The British Isles are more Nordid in race in the eastern regions. This is to be expected from the history of settlement of these lands. In parts of the counties of York and Lincoln and in the lowlands of Scotland, the population is just as pronouncedly Nordid in race as in Sweden or Friesland. The poorer parts of Scotland and almost all Ireland become always more North-Atlantid in race toward the west".

Gunther

"The most Nordic district in the British Isles is Scotland, and 'the Scotch yield a particularly large number of the leading and pioneer men in England and the Colonies.'4 If, then, the Nordic race has always been especially rich in creative men, it is no wonder that the peoples with Nordic blood have always gone downwards when this blood has run dry; this will be shown in Chapters VIII to X".

theTasmanian
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 03:08 PM
Is Scotland Really Germanic ?

My answer is: many people in Scotland are Germanic!

i cannot comment on the Scott's as a whole but i can comment on my mothers side Scott's x welsh and have been marrying like that for hundreds of years as they don't like the English!
but to get to the Germanic parts BOTH side of my mothers family Hutchesons( part of clan MacDonald) and simcocks where both STARTED by Danes(hutchesons) and vikings(simcocks) so they where probably Danes too but with the ways of marriage they are Celtic-Germanic as lots of families are there but then there are also "black Scott's" who are part Spanish....:eek: but that's another story;)

Rhydderch
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 01:53 PM
Ludman (The Races and Peoples of Europe)

"The British Isles are more Nordid in race in the eastern regions. This is to be expected from the history of settlement of these lands. In parts of the counties of York and Lincoln and in the lowlands of Scotland, the population is just as pronouncedly Nordid in race as in Sweden or Friesland. The poorer parts of Scotland and almost all Ireland become always more North-Atlantid in race toward the west".

Gunther

"The most Nordic district in the British Isles is Scotland, and 'the Scotch yield a particularly large number of the leading and pioneer men in England and the Colonies.'4 If, then, the Nordic race has always been especially rich in creative men, it is no wonder that the peoples with Nordic blood have always gone downwards when this blood has run dry; this will be shown in Chapters VIII to X".The question is what he's defining as "Nordic". It may be true that the Lowland Scots are less Brunn and Palaeo-Atlantid than some other British groups, but their "Nordidness" is probably more of a Keltic type, brown or dark-brown haired. This Keltic type was typical of the Britons, rather than the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings.

Ausswolf
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 03:01 PM
I'm studying at the moment so I'll make this quick.

My mothers side is likely to have descended from Clan Gunn, (their name is one of the septs, a son of the chief). I dare anyone to say this clan doesn't have Germanic blood rofl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Gunn

Also my fathers sides, a son (and family) of Somerled married into his clan, as can be witnessed by the black galley of somerled being visible on our clan crest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerled

Amazing what you can turn up with a little research into your family history.
nb: both sides have more recently been living in England for a few generations at least.

Imperator X
Friday, September 7th, 2007, 09:47 PM
then there are also "black Scott's" who are part Spanish....:eek: but that's another story;)

I don't think they blended with Spaniards. It's a Mediterranean population that migrated to the British Isles, esp. along the coast a LONG time ago.

Beornulf
Saturday, September 8th, 2007, 02:10 AM
i cannot comment on the Scott's as a whole but i can comment on my mothers side Scott's x welsh and have been marrying like that for hundreds of years as they don't like the English!
but to get to the Germanic parts BOTH side of my mothers family Hutchesons( part of clan MacDonald) and simcocks where both STARTED by Danes(hutchesons) and vikings(simcocks) so they where probably Danes too but with the ways of marriage they are Celtic-Germanic as lots of families are there but then there are also "black Scott's" who are part Spanish....:eek: but that's another story;)


I'm a Hutchison of the same clan.

Huzar
Saturday, September 8th, 2007, 05:12 PM
I don't think they blended with Spaniards. It's a Mediterranean population that migrated to the British Isles, esp. along the coast a LONG time ago.


Indeed. That's right. Neolithic wave along atlantic coasts is the only reasonable explaination.

Rhydderch
Monday, September 10th, 2007, 05:43 AM
Neolithic wave along atlantic coasts is the only reasonable explaination.Probably as well as an even earlier, Palaeolithic population, whose descendants can be found in many parts of Europe and the British Isles.

Huzar
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 10:30 AM
Probably as well as an even earlier, Palaeolithic population, whose descendants can be found in many parts of Europe and the British Isles.


Yes of course.

Paleolithic residual population is probably the source of Red hair phenomenon.

Gefjon
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 11:50 AM
In short: nope.

The Scottish Lowlands are Germanic, but the Gaelic speaking Scots aren't. it doesn't matter whether they had Viking ancestry and other stuff, fact is their mother tongue, Gaelic, is not a Germanic tongue. You can't just count all the places Germanic tribes invaded or visited as Germanic. Heck, Sicilly would be Germanic too then, cause the Normans had a kingdom there. Or Spain, cause of the Visigoths. As I said, you can't say a whole country is Germanic just cause of a region. Russia isn't Germanic because of the Volga Germans nor Finaldn because of the Finnish Swedes.

Beornulf
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 12:11 PM
Scots is also a mother tongue I believe, which is a Germanic language. I think Norse people have contributed a lot to the cultures of certain areas of Scotland, especially the western regions.

Gefjon
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 12:18 PM
Here we go:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Highlands_lowlands.png

It's the Lowlands that have something to do with "Germanic".

Huzar
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 12:19 PM
The Scottish Lowlands are Germanic, but the Gaelic speaking Scots aren't. it doesn't matter whether they had Viking ancestry and other stuff, fact is their mother tongue, Gaelic, is not a Germanic tongue. You can't just count all the places Germanic tribes invaded or visited as Germanic. Heck, Sicilly would be Germanic too then, cause the Normans had a kingdom there. Or Spain, cause of the Visigoths.



Well......the problem og "Germanicness" is far more complex than you think, and was discussed many times on Skadi and still is subject of discussion here Various are the problems.......first of all the definition of "GERMANIC". What's exactly ? A Genetic concept ? A linguistic one ? a cultural one ? a combination of all these factors ?

It's not easy. Everyone has his own opinions. Some consider Germanic a genetic/racial factor (and this would exclude Ireland and a big part of Scotland and Wales) Some others a linguistic factor (and this exclude nations who have probably a major amount of Germanic blood although belonging to a different Linguistic world. Like France for example).


Would be interesting to evaluate Historically, the EFFECTIVE demographic power of every single invasion......and its genetic impact.

Germanic (Viking) invasions in Ireland were numerically limited although famous historically. Few thousands of Vikings on a local, native, population of several hundreds of thousands peoples.

Similar thing for Scotland. Similar thing in Sicily (weird comparison for many...but not too far from reality).





As I said, you can't say a whole country is Germanic just cause of a region. Russia isn't Germanic because of the Volga Germans nor Finaldn because of the Finnish Swedes.


Indeed.

Gefjon
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 12:28 PM
From Google:

Definitions of germanic on the Web:

of or relating to the language of Germans; "the Germanic sound shifts"
Teutonic: of or pertaining to the ancient Teutons or their languages; "Teutonic peoples such as Germans and Scandinavians and British"; "Germanic mythology"
a branch of the Indo-European family of languages; members that are spoken currently fall into two major groups: Scandinavian and West Germanic
German: of a more or less German nature; somewhat German; "Germanic peoples"; "his Germanic nature"; "formidable volumes Teutonic in their thoroughness"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

adjective designating the languages and/or the ethnicity of a group of tribes living in North Central Europe from the last few centuries BC. ...
www.camden.rutgers.edu/dept-pages/german/medglossary2a.html
I think that pretty much covers it. It's a combination of culture(language etc.) and ethnicity.

Rhydderch
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 04:20 AM
The Scottish Lowlands are Germanic, but the Gaelic speaking Scots aren't.It's not as clear cut as a Lowland-Highland division. Not all of the Lowlands were conquered by Northumbria, and even in a considerable part of what was conquered Germanic speech may not have become dominant until after "Inglis" (later "Scots") was effectively an official language of Scotland, widely spoken in the royal court and among the nobility.

Even Lothian probably did not experience significant Anglian settlement, so it really depends on what one defines as "Germanic".

Carl
Monday, November 5th, 2007, 01:14 PM
As a whole country, Scotland is extensively mixed up. The German kings in England encouraged such things as "celtic" kilts and the trappings of that sort of nationalism...and made it flourish as a textile industry. But the real question is not whether the Vikings landed in the north or who was St Magnus or the extent to which the Anglos from the south took over the leadership of the lowlands. It is rather whether a Germanic people are currently guiding the Leitkultur in Scotland......Well, most of the country given a choice , seems to want to remain with England! - or an I mistaken? And if with England, then ultimately guided by the intrinsically Germanic Leitkultur of the south. No real change at all.

Dagna
Thursday, February 7th, 2008, 08:50 PM
I believe this is a good example of Germanic heritage in Scotland:


Scottish islanders gather for Viking fire festival

LERWICK, Scotland (AFP) — One of Britain's most remote communities came together Tuesday to celebrate its Viking heritage with a spectacular festival of fire and fancy dress.

During Up-Helly-Aa, hundreds of residents of the Shetland Islands off northern Scotland dressed up as Norsemen -- complete with helmets, chain mail and axes -- or in other fancy dress for a day and night of raucous partying.

The high point of the festivities was an evening parade through Lerwick featuring 900 people brandishing fiery torches which sent a blanket of smoke and sparks over the port town, Shetland's biggest.

At the centre of the procession was a specially crafted Viking longship, which was set on fire at the end of the procession when all the marchers threw their torches into it, creating a giant, intense pyre.

Celebrations were continuing through the night as teams of "guizers" -- the roughly 1,000 locals taking part in the procession -- toured parties performing songs and sketches.

As well as blazing an unforgettable spectacle across the night sky, observers say Up-Helly-Aa, which is largely funded by locals themselves, also highlights Shetland's strong and enduring sense of cohesion.

The festival represents something "very important and quite distinctively Shetland and that is the community working together as a community," said Alistair Carmichael, the lawmaker from the centre-left Liberal Democrats who represents the islands at the House of Commons in London.

This allows Shetland to incorporate 21st century newcomers as it did the Vikings when they invaded in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, he suggested, contrasting that flexibility with the rest of Britain, where immigration is still highly sensitive.

The community spirit is highlighted by the "guizer jarl's squad" -- a group of 72 men who head the evening parade dressed as Vikings.

Typically, they spend a couple of years and around 2,000 pounds (2,700 euros, 4,000 dollars) each of their own money on their hand-crafted, perfectly detailed costumes and associated costs.

On the day of Up-Helly-Aa, they tour local hospitals and schools performing Viking songs and posing for pictures with onlookers. They will also visit elsewhere in Scotland and Norway afterwards.

"It's a privilege and an honour to be doing this," said Ryan Wright, 27, who when he is not decked out in full norse attire is a chef and truck driver.

"I wouldn't save 1,600 pounds for a holiday but I would happily spend it on a suit that I would wear five or six times and then put in the attic.

"You grow up with Up-Helly-Aa. Most people here consider themselves more Scandinavian than Shetlander."

More:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ivDrL3SZA7AirJcAPe8UijuT-z8A

http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5jehKnlm-CvulKMXQfYGbCZvU6Lew?size=m

Galloglaich
Thursday, February 7th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Cool article. The Scandinavian influence in Scotland is a major subtopic of my senior thesis. Most of the history majors I meet (at my school, anyway :() have no conception of this period in a cultural context (or would care to, either). At one time, Scandinavian influence extended from Norway down through the Shetlands and Orkneys, Caithness and Sutherland - penetrating into the eastern seaboard. In the West the Norse established themselves in a swath that included the western coast & the Hebrides, sections of eastern Ireland, and as far south as the Isle of Man. Norse hegemony waned in the middle of the 13th century, but some of their legacy (militarily, economically, politically, & socially) survived with their descendants. Scandinavians were the progenitors of some prominent families that would play a significant role in British affairs for some centuries later. I've always considered this (along with all the additional Anglo-Norman influence) a pretty good argument for the constituent "Germanicness" of Scotland (but "Celtogermanic" is the only truthful term-I'd like to see what the opinions of some of the physical anthropologists on this forum think concerning that, actually).

On another note, I saw some film of this on TV, and was a little let down by the quality of period costume. I guess there's a time & place for the "fantasy viking" thing, especially at festival time, but it made the whole thing look inauthentic to me.

Beornulf
Saturday, February 9th, 2008, 01:57 AM
Indeed, the Scandinavian influence is heavily overlooked. I myself have a Norse derived last name and come from a clan (as does Galloglaich) which was loyal to Norway until Norwegian defeat at the Battle of Largs in 1263, after which we made peace with King Alexander III.

There is a rich influence of Norse, Norman and Angle blood in Scotland, though most is today genetic and heavily overlooked in favour of being "Celtic". It's sometimes irritating talking to those who are "Celtic nationalists" because of how naively a majority of them reject their heritage and history. It's great to see that in the Shetlands they are still well aware of their roots, though I do find most re-enactment to be nothing more than dress-ups and wonder how their heritage impacts on their day to day lives (obviously not as so much directed at the Orkneys and Shetlands but at mainland Scotland in the areas of high Germanic influence).

Diarmuid
Saturday, February 9th, 2008, 03:47 AM
A lot of people tend to forget the Norse influence in Scotland. The Norse actually held significant power in Scotland for many years. The Shetland and Orkney Isles were ruled by the Norse until 1468. Norse influence lasted a lot longer in Scotland than in Ireland (where the Norse settlers pretty much became Gaelic by adopting Gaelic language and customs, a lot like what later happened to the Normans). The Norse in Scotland seem to have remained a bit more distinct from the Celtic population, but certainly not entirely.

I consider myself Celtic, but am well aware of the Norse contribution and presence in my heritage and ancestor's historical past. The reason for this is, like I said, due to the fact that the Norse blended in and were pretty much indistinguishable from the native Celts by the time the Normans or English came.

Brynhild
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008, 12:01 AM
I hope my Scottish ancestry is a lot easier to trace than the Irish!

Given that Scandinavia lays in such a close proximity to Scotland, it's not surprising that there is a heavier Norse influnce, and vice versa the Scots who inhabited mostly Norway - especially around Bergen for that was (and probably still is) the main seaport.

VilhelMina
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, 12:04 PM
I think everyone would be rather surprised how easily this issue would be cleared-up were one to actually ask a Scot (the overwhelming majority of Scots, anyway).

If your ever in the position to, get ready for intense laughter and some ribbing.

9 out of 10 English don't consider themselves to be anything other than that.

LOL...it's about time. Most of us will tell you we are English. Unless you are knowledgeable about your actual root ancestry, which some are, (most don't care).....then you will hear the majority say English. My Mother is Scottish Lowlander, Father Norwegian, so I consider myself Germanic. It is not too often I hear Celt.....unless I am in the city and over hear an American. :ner-ner0:

Youenn
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008, 11:56 PM
I always saw Scotland as a Celtic country. Since I was little I see them at the Interceltic festival of my town, they were even the guest of honour last year. So,to see them considered as Germanic make me curious.

I found this map on Wikipedia :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/SCOTLANG1100.PNG

Did Scotland become Germanic just because she adopted the English language despite her substrate and superstrate being Celtic (Briton/Pict and Gaelic)? I don't think so.
Of course, there is the south of Scotland which is connected with the Northumbrians and the Viking invasion but that doesn't make Scotland as predominantly Germanic.

Gefjon
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 01:51 AM
Who said that Scotland is predominantly Germanic? :confused:

Loyalist
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 02:04 AM
I always saw Scotland as a Celtic country. Since I was little I see them at the Interceltic festival of my town, they were even the guest of honour last year. So,to see them considered as Germanic make me curious.

Did Scotland become Germanic just because she adopted the English language despite her substrate and superstrate being Celtic (Briton/Pict and Gaelic)? I don't think so.
Of course, there is the south of Scotland which is connected with the Northumbrians and the Viking invasion but that doesn't make Scotland as predominantly Germanic.

The Scots may not be entirely, or, in some cases, even predominantly Germanic, but the input of Angle, Dane, and Norse blood, followed by subsequent Norman settlement (many of the most prominent clans stem from the latter) has had an undeniable effect upon the demographics of Scotland, ethnically, linguistically, and otherwise. One could present a counter-argument concerning certain Highlanders, but overall, the Scottish people nonetheless stem from a largely Germanic background.

Youenn
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 03:21 PM
The Scots may not be entirely, or, in some cases, even predominantly Germanic, but the input of Angle, Dane, and Norse blood, followed by subsequent Norman settlement (many of the most prominent clans stem from the latter) has had an undeniable effect upon the demographics of Scotland, ethnically, linguistically, and otherwise. One could present a counter-argument concerning certain Highlanders, but overall, the Scottish people nonetheless stem from a largely Germanic background.

I don't believe this, that reminds me an old article :


Scientist mulls Anglo-Scottish split

Cultural differences which divide the Scots and the English date back 10,000 years before Britain was an island, a professor has suggested.

Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, says genetic evidence shows Celts descended from ancient people living by the Atlantic coast.

The English are more closely related to Germanic people, he added.

The professor was due to speak about his theory at the Edinburgh Science Festival on Sunday.

In the past, the split was attributed to migration, invasion and replacement, in particular by the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Vikings.

However, while conceding foreign invasions hundreds of years ago would have influenced the cultures in different areas, he does not believe the split originated then.

Professor Oppenheimer said: "The first line between the English and the Celts was put down at a much earlier period, say 10,000 years ago.

"The English are the odd ones out because they are the ones more linked to continental Europe."

"The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the Cornish are all very similar in their genetic pattern to the Basque."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3618613.stm


Who said that Scotland is predominantly Germanic?

Scotland is considered as Germanic on this forum :

"The Althing > Germanic Lands: Europe & Outlying Islands > http://forums.skadi.net/images/flags/Scotland.gif Scotland"

Gefjon
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Scotland is considered as Germanic on this forum :

"The Althing > Germanic Lands: Europe & Outlying Islands > http://forums.skadi.net/images/flags/Scotland.gif Scotland"
Another one... do some reading.


The Althing supports the preservation of our Germanic heritage, the development of an all-Germanic consciousness, as well as the defense or reestablishment of the Germanic leitkultur in all Germanic states, communities, and places of settlement.

So is South Africa eventhough Afrikaners ain't the majority there. Who says they have to be predominantly Germanic? :confused:

Loyalist
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 08:05 PM
I don't believe this, that reminds me an old article :



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3618613.stm



Scotland is considered as Germanic on this forum :

"The Althing > Germanic Lands: Europe & Outlying Islands > http://forums.skadi.net/images/flags/Scotland.gif Scotland"

I've seen as many scholarly articles stating the Scots are predominantly, or even entirely, Germanic, wheras others have asserted the English share in this Basque/Iberian origin. It seems evident to me that, given the scale and influence of Germanic settlement in the British Isles, this theory couldn't possibly hold any realistic weight. The individual interpretation of these conclusions depends largely on the agenda one is working towards.

Youenn
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 10:06 PM
So is South Africa eventhough Afrikaners ain't the majority there. Who says they have to be predominantly Germanic?

So why Finland is not represented ?
The Fenno-Swedes keep their language unlike the Vikings (Danes or Norses) in Scotland who has been assimilated.
I don't know about Scotland, but the Vikings in Brittany was been assimilated in one or two generations.


I've seen as many scholarly articles stating the Scots are predominantly, or even entirely, Germanic, wheras others have asserted the English share in this Basque/Iberian origin.

Who seriously can believe Scotland is fully Germanic ?
Who seriously can believe Scotland is more Germanic than England ?

Can you post your scholarly articles ?

Loyalist
Thursday, February 14th, 2008, 10:16 PM
So why Finland is not represented ?
The Fenno-Swedes keep their language unlike the Vikings (Danes or Norses) in Scotland who has been assimilated.
I don't know about Scotland, but the Vikings in Brittany was been assimilated in one or two generations.

Who seriously can believe Scotland is fully Germanic ?
Who seriously can believe Scotland is more Germanic than England ?

Can you post your scholarly articles ?

They are things I've come across from various sources over the years, and I am not mandated to dig any up. Similarly, I do not accept an unsupported assertion from an obscure figure named "Oppenheimer" as to the genetic identity of the Scots.

What is the purpose of you being here? Every one of your very few posts on this forum have been directed at attacking the stated mission of the Althing, and none have contributed to the purpose of Germanic preservation, identity, and so on (exactly the opposite). Might I suggest that you start making a meaningful contribution to the board, and stop directing your very limited efforts solely towards refuting the idea of a Germanic Scotland.

Youenn
Friday, February 15th, 2008, 01:41 AM
What is the purpose of you being here? Every one of your very few posts on this forum have been directed at attacking the stated mission of the Althing, and none have contributed to the purpose of Germanic preservation, identity, and so on (exactly the opposite).

I don't have to proved my motivation who aren't anti-Germanics.
I already posted cultural and political threads on Alsace-Lorraine (Elsass-Lothringen) and South-Flanders (Westhoek) on Skadi/Thiazi. I can repost some articles if you are interested.


Might I suggest that you start making a meaningful contribution to the board, and stop directing your very limited efforts solely towards refuting the idea of a Germanic Scotland.

I gave my opinion, posted articles on genetics and a linguistic map. And you ?

Loyalist
Friday, February 15th, 2008, 01:48 AM
I don't have to proved my motivation who aren't anti-Germanics.
I already posted cultural and political threads on Alsace-Lorraine (Elsass-Lothringen) and South-Flanders (Westhoek) on Skadi/Thiazi. I can repost some articles if you are interested.

Don't talk; act.


I gave my opinion, posted articles on genetics and a linguistic map. And you ?

A short, unproven assertion by a Semitic professor hardly qualifies as an article on genetics.

Sigurd
Friday, February 22nd, 2008, 02:48 PM
Who seriously can believe Scotland is fully Germanic ?
Who seriously can believe Scotland is more Germanic than England ?

Can you post your scholarly articles ?

I cannot readily supply you with scholarly articles, but I can certainly provide you with the given fact that at any given time, even before the Highland Clearances, the speakers of Scots - the language which is related to English but closer to the common ancestor - surpassed the number of those who spoke Gaelic as a mother tongue. Gaelic was only ever present in the Highlands proper: Up to Banchory in the middle north, Moray in the north, and the upper ends of Urgyl in the western north everything spoke some dialect of Scots ... adding to that the Islanders well north with the Orcadians speaking Norn until about 1850, Norn being a dialect of Old Norse. Germanic enough for you. ;)

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, February 22nd, 2008, 06:51 PM
A nation being Germanic is mainly to do with a long history of speaking and writing in a Germanic tongue. The people of Scotland, England, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands and so on are overwhelmingly descended from folk who have always been aboriginal to northern Europe, existing well before the IE language bearers arrived. The conquest greatly influences the culture, even if the genetic impact is slight.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 23rd, 2008, 03:35 AM
I cannot readily supply you with scholarly articles, but I can certainly provide you with the given fact that at any given time, even before the Highland Clearances, the speakers of Scots - the language which is related to English but closer to the common ancestor - surpassed the number of those who spoke Gaelic as a mother tongue. Gaelic was only ever present in the Highlands proper: Up to Banchory in the middle north, Moray in the north, and the upper ends of Urgyl in the western north everything spoke some dialect of ScotsGaelic was also spoken in the Lowlands, it didn't become completely extinct in Fife and Ayrshire until the 18th century. In Lothian it may never have become entrenched as the native language of the common people, but it would certainly have been widely used there as an elite language after Lothian was incorporated into the Scottish kingdom.

With the influx of Anglo-Normans and the strengthening of England (and indeed of ties with England), the Northumbrian dialect of English became acceptable as a second elite language in Scotland. No doubt the fact that it was already spoken in the south-east of the kingdom would have helped; the upper classes in Lothian no longer needed to speak Gaelic, and "Inglis" spread from there, slowly ousting Gaelic from the Lowland upper classes and the royal court, and eventually the ordinary people. However it's likely that in some areas the common people were still speaking "Cumbric" (a northern dialect of Brythonic) at the time English became an elite language in Scotland, and so were never Gaelic speaking.

At any rate, it probably wasn't until about the 15th century that Celtic speakers were no longer a majority in Scotland.

Nagelfar
Wednesday, March 5th, 2008, 09:09 AM
Is Germany really Germanic? For example. By which one could mean mostly Germanic. From the time of Tacitus to the spread of Old High German & Low German as the predominant language, how many "celtic" speaking tribes and people were subsumed in the area that is now Germany?

I've seen articles which state Germany is mostly celtic, meaning Germanic language was largely adopted there and the original Germanic speakers formed a minority stock. I'm sure there are as many viable arguments from such sources which could promote with good reason that Scotland is by one measure or another as Germanic as Germany.

The idea of culture is often times more unifying than whatever the truth is, or rather, more defining of the truth than lost facts which would change it if not for the lack of them.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 7th, 2008, 01:11 PM
I've seen articles which state Germany is mostly celtic, meaning Germanic language was largely adopted there and the original Germanic speakers formed a minority stock.Difficult to say, given that the Germanic languages themselves may well be the product of an overlay of Celtic influence on an earlier Indo-European language; Germanic would, however, be predominantly derived from the latter (which might have been associated with the Corded people).

In that case, "Germanic" almost by definition would mean partially Celtic.

Corin
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Putting aside scholarly articals, on touring around Scotland would you get a mainly physical Germanic impression visually from the people living there? Would you notice a physical difference in the people living in Scotland from people living in Wales or Ireland or could they be comparable to people living in predominantly Germanic areas of England or even Sweden or Germany etc?

Rhydderch
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Putting aside scholarly articals, on touring around Scotland would you get a mainly physical Germanic impression visually from the people living there? Would you notice a physical difference in the people living in Scotland from people living in Wales or Ireland or could they be comparable to people living in predominantly Germanic areas of England or even Sweden or Germany etc?My impression is that the sub-racial composition of the Scots is most similar to the Irish, though in somewhat different proportions. To a large extent they lack the Borreby element common in parts of England, and the Borreby and Corded types of Scandinavia, Germany and Holland.

æþeling
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008, 09:23 PM
England is English, Scotland is Scottish. Works for me.

MacNèill
Friday, May 30th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Scotland is a Celtic-Germanic nation.

Carl
Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 02:39 PM
Scotland is a Celtic-Germanic nation.

Well yes, one can't disagree - but the situation deserves a better analysis I think. Scotland is a lot more complicated than England - which can only ever be seen as strongly Celtic in parts of the West.

Just check Aemeric's post from earlier times -

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=6036&postcount=5

or the thoughts of Sigurd here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=45956&postcount=66

What might you say about these ideas?

I have come to think of lowland Scotland as predominantly Angle ( Germanic) --- whereas the highland West (-- and East???) -- as perhaps a lot more "Celtic" ( - aye - and possibly Catholic ?? - or maybe not....)

Did all those Protestant Ulstermen come fom all over Scotland rather than from just the Western parts?

And what about the NorthEast ? Pictland --- are they simply an old "celtic" tribal grouping - or is it perhaps a lot more complicated than that. One reads they are somewhat unique:rolleyes:

MacNèill
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008, 08:22 PM
Well yes, one can't disagree - but the situation deserves a better analysis I think. Scotland is a lot more complicated than England - which can only ever be seen as strongly Celtic in parts of the West.

I understand the situation needs a better analysis, but I can only work with so much when forming a reply. You have provided me with the material now that we can indeed have a healthy discussion.

First though, we must look at how we are using the Celtic and Germanic designations.

If you want to try and say that Scotland has more "Germanic blood" than "Celtic blood" or vice versa, then you really need to understand that on a genetic level - besides the fact I don't believe a Celtic or Germanic "blood" exists - the majority of the Scottish population - as is the case with the majority of the British Isles - is practically the same as the genetic populace that existed even before the Celtic expansion.

The Germanic and Celtic designations - to me at least - only have a cultural/linguistic significance.

The four baisic components of the Scottish people - in regards to those people who were inhabiting Scotland around the time of the formation of the Kingdom of Scotland - were the Britons (south-west), Angles (south-east), Gaels (west/north-west) and Picts (north/north-east).


Just check Aemeric's post from earlier times -

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=6036&postcount=5

First I take issue with Aemeric's assumption that lowland Scots are mostly Saxon, Norse and Flemish.

In later years, the Lowlands would indeed give home to Norman and Flemish settlers, and the Angles would eventually become Anglo-Saxons, but the Norse had alot more influence in Gaelic (west/north west) and Pictish (north/north east) territory.


Scotland is/was a Calvinist Protestant country, which seems more in line with a Germanic people. This definitely sets them apart from the Irish. The Welsh are Protestant, but this is a result of having been legally a part of England since 1536. Finns, Estonians & Latvians are Lutheran but this was imposed by their Swedish & German rulers at the Reformation. The fact that Scotland adopted Calvinism without it being imposed from the outside would indicate to me that at least Lowland Scotland was predominately Germanic at the Reformation. The adoption of Protestantism is one of the more defining events of Germanic history, which sets Germanics apart from Slavs, Celts & Latin/Romance peoples.

This brings up a very interesting subject I would like to discuss, but it will take this thread completely off topic and will delve deep in Scottish politics, society and culture at the time of the reformation, including France and Englands involvement.

So, If Æmeric doesn't mind, i'll start a new thread with the above and my reply when I get the time :).


or the thoughts of Sigurd here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=45956&postcount=66

What might you say about these ideas?

Scottish Gaelic was spoken in most parts of Scotland from the 9th to 11th centuries. Evidence of its influence is still to be found all over the county in the names of places and people.

So, I don't believe Sigurd is right to say that Scottish Gaelic was never spoken widley in the lowlands.

Scottish Gaelic was my first tongue, and I obviously have agreat love for the langauge, and wish to preserve Gaelic heritage, language and culture. But I am against such moves by the likes of the SNP who try and paint a romantic sunset where Scotland was a mighty all-Gaelic empire where the evil English invaded and destroyed the langauge. I don't believe Scotland should be a Gaelic-speaking Nation.

I mean Norman French was the language of the Scottish Royal court before English.


I have come to think of lowland Scotland as predominantly Angle ( Germanic) --- whereas the highland West (-- and East???) -- as perhaps a lot more "Celtic" ( - aye - and possibly Catholic ?? - or maybe not....)

The Lowlands is a blend of several Germanic peoples with Celtic influence. Where as the Highlands and Western Islands are much more predominantly Celtic with some Germanic influence.


Did all those Protestant Ulstermen come fom all over Scotland rather than from just the Western parts?

They came from all over Scotland, but also all over England. Most of the Protestants in Ireland are those decendant of the Cromwellian sldiers who were granted land, and Cromwell had soldiers from all over the Kingdom.


And what about the NorthEast ? Pictland --- are they simply an old "celtic" tribal grouping - or is it perhaps a lot more complicated than that. One reads they are somewhat unique:rolleyes:

Sheep-shaggers, that's all the North-East inherited from the Picts :D!

The North-East is Lowland.

The conclusions we can really draw is that Scotland is a blend of Gaels, Picts, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norsemen, Norman French and Flems, who have all came together to create the marvelous Scottish Nation, with a wonderful and rich culture, history and identity.

Carl
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008, 08:49 PM
A brilliant answer! let no one say that the Althing is all silly & pointless dramas! Other things are really going on when such replies are given. I must now think a while to consider some meagre response ( :o ) ; I am ever mindful that the great 'Celtic' civilizations of pre-Roman Europe were centred largely in the lands of southern Germania and eastwards . This points to an equally complex tribal scatter in early Germany itself ( and beyond ). The tribes throughout Britain and the coming of the various Germanic peoples over time left an equivalently complex array of interacting peoples.

Berrocscir
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 01:58 PM
The flag of the the Scottish highlands features a Scandanavian Cross which suggests kinship with the greater Germanic family:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Flag_of_the_Highlands_of_Scotland.svg/120px-Flag_of_the_Highlands_of_Scotland.svg.pn g

MacAdder
Sunday, September 28th, 2008, 05:32 PM
O.K here it is.
My father’s father was a Scot. His mother was Irish.
My Mothers mother was English and father was French.

I was born in South Africa with a Scots name. I think this makes me South African.

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 12:17 AM
To me Scotland is Celto-Germanic, but more so Celtic(sorry to those that oppose). Linguistically their language is Celtic and has German influence to an extent. Unfortunately, Scots-Gaelic is dying, but I think there is a revival of the ancient tongue beginning.

I am not an expert on DNA, but Scots generally are subracially quite similar to the Irish. That is another topic though which I will not discuss right now.

Æmeric
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 02:31 AM
Linguistically, Lowland Scotland was English speaking. The Highlands were Gaelic speaking. Once many centuries ago, the Lowlanders referred to the Highlanders as "Irish". The Scotti having come from Ireland & the Celtic Scots culture being pretty much the same as Irish Celtic.

Jagerzen
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 02:42 AM
Yeah, I don't think it's correct to paint all of Scotland with a celtic paintbrush.
Some of my family is originally from the lowlands of Scotland, and is very English in origin.

I also hear that Orkney is very Scandinavian in origin; and the mythology and language of the area reflects that.

forkbeard
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 01:36 PM
Roman historian Tacitus clearly says in "Agricola Germania" that the inhabitants of Caledonia are "clearly of Germanic origins on account of their large frames and reddish hair." I believe recent work on mitrochondria also shows two previously unknown prehistoric "viking ages." One in the stone age and one during the bronze age in which Norwegians sailed from Scandinavia and contributed a significant genetic input. This on top of the original continental Germanic input that followed up behind the ice sheets.
It is interesting also that Hitler was mightily impressed with the Highlanders he encountered during WW1, as regards physical specimens.
My own view is that the Scots are probably the toughest Germanics on the planet on account of their harsh environment and lack of domestication. In my experience quite often A single Scot can enter an English bar and intimidate it. The reverse cannot be said.
I have always thought Richard Jobson represented a perfect Germanic countenance.

Anfang
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Roman historian Tacitus clearly says in "Agricola Germania" that the inhabitants of Caledonia are "clearly of Germanic origins on account of their large frames and reddish hair." I believe recent work on mitrochondria also shows two previously unknown prehistoric "viking ages." One in the stone age and one during the bronze age in which Norwegians sailed from Scandinavia and contributed a significant genetic input. This on top of the original continental Germanic input that followed up behind the ice sheets.
It is interesting also that Hitler was mightily impressed with the Highlanders he encountered during WW1, as regards physical specimens.
My own view is that the Scots are probably the toughest Germanics on the planet on account of their harsh environment and lack of domestication. In my experience quite often A single Scot can enter an English bar and intimidate it. The reverse cannot be said.
I have always thought Richard Jobson represented a perfect Germanic countenance.

There is a Guy In the North East Netherlands I want you to meet.lol.

"A single Scot can enter an English bar and intimidate it. The reverse cannot be said."
A single German can come into the bar, after it closes, let 20 German and Norsk Heavy Metal friends in and drink till the morning for free.

rockytanner
Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 06:30 PM
The Bible says save me from the really confused. It talks about the confused. I have known some confused people they do everything backwards and sideways. Not that it makes any sense to them. They just like doing things that way.

I asked a confused person once. He replied: "It's not that I intentionally confuse things. It's not that I don't want anyone to catch on. I just like the confusion."

The Bible says to avoid evil. (sorry Evil) I asked him about that. "I hate Christians he said. To many mistranslations in that book they have. I think Christians are stupid anyway." Yep I said some of them are.

Would you ever become a Christian I asked. "Well I go to Church every Sunday he said. I am a Christian. The Church is filled with my relatives." Yes I thought Ive really got a confused one here.

Where do your people hail from I asked, your ancestors? "I really don't know he replied. I come from a long line of confused people." Yes I said the Church says we all started in the middle east. So most everyone came from there. "Nope he said the anthropoligists all say we came from apes and dinosaurs." Do you believe everything you read then I asked. You know a book isn't evidence. The world can be filled with confused evil, (sorry evil), I said and backwards sideways people. "No I don't think so he said."

So your an Anglo I asked. "Nope I am a Saxon he replied." You mean from Saxxony in Germany I asked. "No he said big damn coincidence though isn't it. I went up there once to see if I was. Was doing some Home building. On the way all the tires blew out on my car. When I got there I asked who they were. They could'nt tell me. The whole damn thing was so confused."

Yep lot of people up there I said. "Yep he replied." I felt I was getting somewhere. Not really fast but there was hope.

Lots of home builders up there huh? "Nope he said they keep running their cars into things." They would make good cops I thought. Nothing like a really exciting car chase. Well I thought. Much confusion. The world can do things in a really exciting way.

"Hold on he said. I think I am Roman." You mean from Rome I asked. "Yep he said read it in a book."

Slætartind
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 03:33 PM
Scotland is partly germanic.
What i´ve read then Scots are Anglos, Saxons, celts and norse in origin.
I don´t know what scots concider themself most as. But i suppose there are some who strongly want to identify themselfs as celts.

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 04:08 PM
But i suppose there are some who strongly want to identify themselfs as celts.

Well, alas that is the case, so you have people celebrating their "Celtic" heritage of speaking Doric, which is a bit of an oxymoron really.

The main issue there is the activism of the SNP, who would like to claim that all of Scotland is Celtic, to justify it being considered as a whole different from the English, which is of course an agenda based on the ill-information of the people as regards their Germanic roots.

One reason why they get away with it so easily is what I consider the evidence of a late split between Germanics and Celtics anyhow, for which reason many traditional customs and viewpoints will be shared more so than they might be shared with let's say Slavs --- but that is a different matter altogether.

In general I would be in favour of Scots independence, but I am in much disagreement over the terms of the SNP in regards to it, and in even greater disagreement over the unfortunate timing, as all nations of the British Isles need to stand as one in this time of strife, fight one battle at a time.

Either way, to get back at the original point - the SNP would introduce Scots Gaelic into schools of Edinburgh and Glasgow, even Aberdeen, if they had their way - which is a distortion of the truth, for they aren't really teaching them the language of their ancestors, as the Lowlands Scots and the East Coast dwellers never spoke Gaelic anyhow.

But then again, which "common foot folk" on the road wonders why the Invernetians speak such clear Queen's English but the Aberdonians, Dundonians or Glaswegians speak a dialect heavily accented by Scots properties; and how it relates to a similar phenomenon in Germany, where the Low German speakers had to learn High German and pretty much took it from the written language to speak a clearer German than those in the areas upon which it is based.

The Horned God
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 09:42 PM
Scotland is a Celto-Germanic country by culture; it has both Celtic and Germanic cultural elements. Brythonic and later Gaelic influence was followed by the Germanic elements from Saxons, Danes and Norse. The Picts are a mysterious people, most likely Celtic speaking, or perhaps were surviving remnants of a pre-Celtic culture.

The proportions of the genepool formed by descendants of physical culture bearers of all these elements in the modern Scottish and British population is highly debatable, but imo it has probably been considerably overestimated up to now. The reason is that all the available evidence suggests that the population of hunter-gatherers who reached Britain long before either the Germanic or Celtic culture existed are still alive and well today (see cheddar man) and perhaps still make up the greatest single portion of the Genepool of Britain, if not the majority of the population in many areas.


Sykes argued that this modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle Eastern migratory farmers, but rather modern Britons are descended from ancient European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer tribes who much later on adopted farming.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man

Walterina
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 06:47 PM
I am not au fait with the extreme details of Germanic Racial Types but many Highland Scots look and sound extremely like Norwegians.

I think when some people think of 'Germanic' it brings up unconsciously ideas of how German it is. From my own knowledge of Scotland, my reading of history and albeit limited knowledge of genetic studies it seems to me that taking Germany as a whole (rather than just North Germany) it appears that that though Scotland might be less Germanic it is more Norse than Germany.

TheGreatest
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I am not au fait with the extreme details of Germanic Racial Types but many Highland Scots look and sound extremely like Norwegians.

I think when some people think of 'Germanic' it brings up unconsciously ideas of how German it is. From my own knowledge of Scotland, reading of history and albeit limited knowledge of genetic studies it seems to me that taking Germany as a whole whole (rather than just North Germany) that though Scotland might be less Germanic it is more Norse than Germany. I think recent genetic studies showed that in Germany there is a 20% male ancestral element that is Slavic and Jewish.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Especially in the Southern Germans a lot of them had dubious features. Leads me to suspect that there was some wide scale mixing going on during the Hapsburg's reign.

Myrkvidr
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009, 08:31 AM
I think you can make the argument that Scots is more Germanic than English is (that is modern English - post Norman)

Walterina
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009, 09:59 PM
I think you can make the argument that Scots is more Germanic than English is (that is modern English - post Norman)

Make the argument then!

Myrkvidr
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009, 11:54 PM
Make the argument then!

certainly

Scots is more archaic than English - it missed the Norman influence. The Great vowel shift did not occur in the Scots language as it did in English among other things. There is more in the vocabulary (if you do not count loan words) in Scots that is Germanic and from the Angles than in modern British English.

British English is approx 28% Norman French
28% Latin
25% Germanic

BeornWulfWer
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009, 02:03 AM
Scots is more archaic than English - it missed the Norman influence.

Are you discussing the Scots Gaelic or the Scots English? You are quite aware that the Scots were heavily Normanised?


British English is approx 28% Norman French
28% Latin
25% Germanic

That accounts for 81%. Saying that those were figures were actually correct, what would the other 19% be exactly?

Myrkvidr
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009, 03:10 AM
Are you discussing the Scots Gaelic or the Scots English? You are quite aware that the Scots were heavily Normanised?



That accounts for 81%. Saying that those were figures were actually correct, what would the other 19% be exactly?

Scots English. And I am aware of the Norman influence but it was not to the extent of the southern English. And the remaining percent is words of Greek, German, Scandinavian influence etc.

I'm talking about standard British English.. the Queens English (what you might hear on Sky Sports or the BBC). If you go to South-West England or Northern England.. or really most dialect areas outside of the mainstream English it is similar to Scots in that they are more Germanic and less Romance influence.

Let me say - my point is not to say English from England is not Germanic. My point is that Scots English (who are actually Angles anyway) have more Germanic words than the Queens English. For example the word bairn is Germanic and the word baby or infant is not. While both the Queens English and Scots English (Inglis) are Germanic, Inglis has a larger (perhaps only slightly) vocabulary of Germanic/Anglic words. With that said, I would indeed consider the Scots Germanic people.

Sigurd
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009, 03:40 AM
Are you discussing the Scots Gaelic or the Scots English? You are quite aware that the Scots were heavily Normanised?

Indeed, many notable clans trace their descent back to Normans: Agnew, Barclay, Boyd, Boyle, Bruce, Colville, Fraser, Hamilton, Jardine, Lockhart, Lyon, Maitland, Montgomery, Napier, Nicolson, Ramsay, Riddell, Sinclair, Spens/Spence, Stuart/Stewart, Wallace ... all these names/clans are Norman in origin.

Burnett, Chisholm, Dunbar, Irvine, Johnstone, Lumsden, Nesbitt, Scrymgeour, Swinton are all names which are likely derived from Anglo-Saxon sources.

Murray, Sutherland both trace their lineage back to the same Flemish nobleman, Freskin de Moravie.

Gayre, Gordon, Guthrie, Lindsay, Morrison and Ruthven are all undoubtedly Norse in origin. MacAlister, MacDougall and MacDonald trace their name back to Norse/Manx chieftain Somerled. MacLeod is likely also derived from Norse. Clan Rollo - as rare as the name may be these days, DO trace their name back directly to Sigurd Rollo, the Viking. :P

Most other clan names, just under half, are of Gaelic origin. This is especially notable for the Highland Clans. Most Lowland Clans are fundamentally of Germanic origin one way or the other. And yes, many of them Norman. ;)

Walterina
Thursday, March 26th, 2009, 11:20 AM
certainly

Scots is more archaic than English - it missed the Norman influence. The Great vowel shift did not occur in the Scots language as it did in English among other things. There is more in the vocabulary (if you do not count loan words) in Scots that is Germanic and from the Angles than in modern British English.

British English is approx 28% Norman French
28% Latin
25% Germanic

Gaelic is not a Germanic language but is Brythonic.

I have pointed out in another thread that the amount of all possible vocabularly is not the same as the language that is used day to day.




Let me say - my point is not to say English from England is not Germanic. My point is that Scots English (who are actually Angles anyway) have more Germanic words than the Queens English. For example the word bairn is Germanic and the word baby or infant is not. While both the Queens English and Scots English (Inglis) are Germanic, Inglis has a larger (perhaps only slightly) vocabulary of Germanic/Anglic words. With that said, I would indeed consider the Scots Germanic people.


Bairn is also used in many parts of England.

RP (Received Pronunciation) is alien to many English people. They are looked down upon because of it.

Myrkvidr
Thursday, March 26th, 2009, 11:29 AM
Gaelic is not a Germanic language but is Brythonic.

I have pointed out in another thread that the amount of all possible vocabularly is not the same as the language that is used day to day.

We were not talking about Gaelic? I'm confused about that comment

That is very true about vocabulary. For instance, much of base English used is Germanic.. there are a large amount of French/Latin words but these are primarily for "flavoring" the language as some might say. For instance the word royal and things like that.





Bairn is also used in many parts of England.

yes exactly (northern parts... the same Angle groups that the Scots are part of. I think the word is Norse in origin)... once again, my point is not to say English is not Germanic.. rather it's to say that Scots is Germanic.

Walterina
Thursday, March 26th, 2009, 05:25 PM
yes exactly (northern parts... the same Angle groups that the Scots are part of. I think the word is Norse in origin)... once again, my point is not to say English is not Germanic.. rather it's to say that Scots is Germanic.


True, much of Lowland Scotland used to part of an Anglo Saxon Kingdom.

BeornWulfWer
Thursday, March 26th, 2009, 10:12 PM
Gaelic is not a Germanic language but is Brythonic.

Very true, but I'm sure you meant to say Gaelic is Goidelic, not Brythonic?

Rhobot
Friday, March 27th, 2009, 01:05 AM
Scotland is "Germanic" to the extent that Germanic languages were traditionally spoken in some parts of the country. So the Lowlands and northern Isles are Germanic, and the Highlands and Hebrides are not. There are Viking place names and genetic evidence of Viking ancestry in the Hebrides, but the language and culture are Gaelic.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 03:38 AM
I like to think that the Scots are ''Celto-Germanic''. Although I'm not 100% Scottish - I feel that most Scotsman feel a closer affitinity to the English and the rest of the Germanic world. A lot of Scottish inventors, generals and soldiers, contributed greatly to the creation and expansion of the British Empire.

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 04:12 AM
I feel that most Scotsman feel a closer affitinity to the English and the rest of the Germanic world, than say the Irish

Correct.



(who hate both the Scots and English and conspire to find a connection with the Basque, Bretons and Northern Spaniards.

On a racial plain, I do not hate the Irish at all. Now when it comes to their political orientations and personal identification, that is another story.



That's all Irish. We're Celto-Germanic"

And I do not consider myself “Celto-Germanic”.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 04:14 AM
On a racial plain, I do not hate the Irish at all. Now when it comes to their political orientations and personal identification, that is another story.

Their obsession with Northern Spain and Breton comes with their belief in Catholicism. The Ulster (Northern) Irish are the exception, considering themselves loyal subjects of the British Empire and being Germanic in their outlook.



And I do not consider myself “Celto-Germanic”.

But what of other Scotsman? There are some Scotsman who look like Vikings but others who are darker-complexioned.

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 04:29 AM
Their obsession with Northern Spain and Breton comes with their belief in Catholicism. The Ulster (Northern) Irish are the exception, considering themselves loyal subjects of the British Empire and being Germanic in their outlook.

Yes, this is why I support more or less the Ulaid movement, however they are a minority and get constantly smeared as being "Nazis" by the Black Irishes.



But what of other Scotsman? There are some Scotsman who look like Vikings but others who are darker-complexioned.

Most people do not consider themselves to be anything more than just “white”, “black” or “asian” few are the ones with a clear racial consciousness and hence just think of themselves as either being regular Englishmen or just citizens of the UK.

Boernician
Monday, May 4th, 2009, 11:51 PM
I like to think that the Scots are ''Celto-Germanic''. Although I'm not 100% Scottish - I feel that most Scotsman feel a closer affinity to the English and the rest of the Germanic world. A lot of Scottish inventors, generals and soldiers, contributed greatly to the creation and expansion of the British Empire.

Absolutely Celtic and Germanic,look at The Bruce, Gaelic one side Norse the other. The Highlanders mixed with the Vikings the lowlanders were Britons who mixed with the Angles and Norse. DNA show it as well often Nordic Y Celtic mtd.
After R1a I think I1 is the most common in Scotland and the borders.
None of my relatives on the Scots side had much affinity for the English, unless of course they were good looking women then to hell with history.:D

Astrid Runa
Sunday, May 17th, 2009, 03:34 PM
I always thought that Scots were indigenous to Scotland, as in, we were here way before people started invading us and mixing up the bloodlines.
So no, we're not Germanic originally. But we were invaded, so that mixed the bloodlines up and now we've got Germanic traces.
But originally, no. we're not Germanic.

Slætartind
Thursday, May 28th, 2009, 07:19 AM
Scotland is hardly a homogenous country. There can be people such as the actor Kiefer Sutherland, whos origin is scotish. He looks pretty nordic. I would say trønder/hallstat even if i have very little experience with classifying persons. And then there are persons such as Sean Conery who doesn´t look nordic at all.

I don´t understand this urge for all of the world to identify themselfs as Germanic and Scandinavian. I see persons from Italy claiming to have 3% of viking blood and being extremly proud of it. And persons from bosnia who talk about his viking heritage. I think it is extremly stupid!

Norway and Sweden has samis living there.
Iceland, Faroes and Norway to a lesser degre has celtic influence from slaves (mostly women) taken in scotish/irish in viking times.

Only country i´m thinking about who is truely ethnicaly germanic is Netherlands, maybe Denmark too!
Even thow Denmark probably is fully germanic then their sometimes not counted as fully North germanic. They have more DNA similarities with northern germany and england than with the typical Swede according to some. (Can´t find sources for it right now thow)
But those two got lots of muslims living there now also.

KevinMacleod
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 05:05 PM
I like to think that the Scots are ''Celto-Germanic''. Although I'm not 100% Scottish - I feel that most Scotsman feel a closer affitinity to the English and the rest of the Germanic world. A lot of Scottish inventors, generals and soldiers, contributed greatly to the creation and expansion of the British Empire.

The Scots are Celto-Germanic to call the Scots either just Germanic or Celtic is idiocy (well Celtic inasmuch as the Welsh and Irish are considered celtic but the study below will dispute that they are mostly Celts). I just came to this forum but I see some kind of revisionism as I browse through here to try to make Scots look fully Germanic or more Germanic than they are I am going to be pissed off. I'll post a genetic study below to prove what I just said here


Yes, this is why I support more or less the Ulaid movement, however they are a minority and get constantly smeared as being "Nazis" by the Black Irishes.


How does one distinguish a dark complexioned Scot from a black irishman ? I'm not implying that it can't be done I think it probably can be done. I'm just asking if there is some readily apparent physical anthropological morphological way to do it that I'm not aware of. Also it's strange that they would call them Nazis since Scots aren't fully Germanic nor are they German Chauvinists. Also it's strange because Ulster Scots have French Huguenot admixture (well at least the genuine Ulster Scot has French Huguenot admixture). How likely is it for someone who is part French to be a Nazi ? Sure some French callaborated with the Nazis but they were a minority.




Most people do not consider themselves to be anything more than just “white”, “black” or “asian” few are the ones with a clear racial consciousness and hence just think of themselves as either being regular Englishmen or just citizens of the UK.Maybe in America most people do not consider themselves as being anything but just white but I find it hard to believe that most Europeans simply view themselves as white (as you are from the UK though I understand that the people from the British isles do not feel affinity with continental Europe but the British isles are technically European).

KevinMacleod
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 05:09 PM
June 13, 2003

CELTS AND ANGLO-SAXONS

I have at last got my hands on C. Capelli et al.: A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles, Current Biology, vol. 13, 979-984, 27 May 2003.

Capelli et al. took DNA samples from men in 25 small towns around the British Isles, excluding men whose paternal grandfathers were born more than 20 miles away. For comparison they also took samples from Norway, Denmark, North Germany (Schleswig-Holstein), Friesland (Netherlands), and the Basque region of Spain. Using comparison of Y chromosome haplotypes, the Danish, North German and Frisian samples are all closely similar to each other, but the Norwegian sample is significantly different from these, and the Basque sample is widely different.

In a Principal Components analysis the Irish and Welsh samples (with one exception) cluster together with the Basque sample, supporting earlier findings. As the Basques speak a pre-Indo-European language, this suggests that the Irish and Welsh (so-called ‘Celts’) have a largely pre-Celtic genetic ancestry, possibly going back to the Palaeolithic. In Britain, the Orkneys, Shetlands, Western Isles, Isle of Man, and Cumbria (Penrith) show a clear Norwegian input, as expected. Elsewhere in mainland Britain there is no obvious Norwegian input, but varying degrees of German/Danish ancestry. Scottish mainland sites are intermediate between English sites and the ‘indigenous’ (Welsh/Irish) ones. However, all the English and Scottish sites show some ‘indigenous’ ancestry. The German/Danish component is strongest in eastern England and weakest in England south of the Thames.



Most of this is unsurprising, but there are two more controversial conclusions.
One is the claim that ‘the results seem to suggest that in England the Danes had a greater demographic impact than the Anglo-Saxons’. This is based on the finding that the German/Danish element is strongest in areas like Yorkshire that are known to have been settled by Danes. The conclusion seems to me a non-sequitur. The areas settled by Danes were the areas most exposed to invasion from Denmark and North Germany, and they got a double dose of German/Danish genes: first from the Angles, then the Danes. It would be very surprising if they did not have the strongest German/Danish element.

The other controversial conclusion is that the German/Danish element in southern England (south of the Thames) is limited, and that the male ancestry of this area ‘appears to be predominantly indigenous’. This may be true, but I would want to see it replicated with different samples and methods before taking it as firmly established. It should perhaps be noted that the samples with the smallest German/Danish element all come from areas (Wessex, Sussex, and Kent) reputedly settled by Saxons and Jutes, while the samples with larger German/Danish elements come from areas settled by Angles (East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria). Conceivably there was already a genetic difference between these three ethnic groups before migration, though this does not seem particularly likely, as they all came from much the same area of Northern Europe.

As Capelli et al. recognise, their results seem to conflict with those of Weale et al., ‘Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2002, vol. 19, pp.1008-21, which found a sharp distinction between central English and Welsh populations, but no significant difference between the English population and a Frisian sample. This discrepancy needs to be reconciled.

As I am a historian and not a geneticist it may help if I outline the historical evidence on the ethnic origins of the English. There is no dispute that British Celtic) elements were predominant in Cornwall and Cumbria, where Celtic languages survived long after the Anglo-Saxon invasions. There is also good evidence of British elements surviving in Kent and Wessex (see esp. Myres, ‘The English Settlements’, pp.147-73). But beyond that, there has been controversy since Victorian times. At one extreme, which I call the ‘Wipeout’ theory, it is believed that Celts were virtually exterminated or expelled by the invading Anglo-Saxons. At the other extreme, which I call the ‘Upper Crust’ theory, the Anglo-Saxons took over as a ruling elite but left the peasants largely untouched (rather like the later Norman Conquest). And of course there are intermediate positions.

The main lines of evidence are as follows:

Written sources: the main sources - Gildas, Bede, and the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle - make it clear that invaders from the Continent took political control of what is now England, and that in many places there was violent conflict between the invaders and native forces. But there are no reliable written sources on the numbers and proportions of different groups.

Language: the Old English or Anglo-Saxon language, in its various forms, is purely Germanic in its grammar and vocabulary, with no discernible Celtic element. If the Celts learned English, they learned it very thoroughly. The later Danish settlements strongly influenced the form of Old English spoken in eastern England, but did not replace it.

Place-names: the names of major towns and rivers often show some derivation from Celtic or Romano-British names, but the names of rural settlements are overwhelmingly Germanic (Anglo-Saxon or Danish), except in western England, where there is a ‘cline’ of increasing Celtic influence. However, there have been controversial claims that some Anglo-Saxon names have disguised Celtic origins.

Continental evidence: before the Anglo-Saxon settlement of England there were people known as Angles in northern Germany, and after it there weren’t. Around the same time, the Armorican peninsula was settled by Celtic Britons, to the extent that the area became known as Britain (Bretagne or Brittany). This certainly looks like a mass displacement of populations.

Religion: late Roman Christianity and Celtic religions disappeared from England and were replaced by Anglo-Saxon paganism until Christian missionaries from Ireland and Rome arrived.

Archaeology: there are few recognisable remains of any kind from the 5th century. After that, archaeological remains are mainly Germanic in style. It was formerly assumed by archaeologists that a change in style of this kind involved a migration of people, but the recent tendency has been to assume that styles change by ‘cultural diffusion’ or elite influence. Sometimes archaeologists seem to forget that ‘no conclusive proof that A’ is not the same
as ‘conclusive proof that not-A’.

Social structure and customs: the evidence from Anglo-Saxon poetry, laws, etc., is of a Germanic/Scandinavian society and customs. However, some sources do refer to ‘wealh’ (Welsh) inhabitants, who are presumed to be surviving Britons. The laws of Ine, king of Wessex in the late 7th century, make it clear that ‘wealh’ people could be either free or slaves (theow), and that they could belong to ‘wealh’ kinship groups, which implies survival of more than isolated individuals. Also, some charters and other documents refer to substantial numbers of slaves. (It complicates matters that the word ‘wealh’ itself, which originally meant ‘foreigner’ or ‘stranger’, may sometimes be used to mean ‘slave’, implying status rather than necessarily ethnic origin.)

The positive evidence, so far as it goes, seems to me consistent with something closer to the ‘Wipeout’ theory than the ‘Upper Crust’ theory, though with survival of ‘wealh’ populations in varying proportions. The advocates of the ‘Upper Crust’ theory rely heavily on an ‘argument from impossibility’: it is impossible, they say, that a relatively small number of Anglo-Saxon invaders can have wiped out a much larger Romano-British population. However, I think this is a misunderstanding of the invasion scenario. Roman-British society rapidly broke down when the Romans left. Even without invasion there would have been a population crash. The Romano-British were virtually defenceless apart from mercenaries who were themselves mainly Germans (Saxons), and quick to invite their relatives over to share the spoils. To destroy a defenceless population, it is not necessary to kill them individually. Just take a few captives in the first village you come to, skin some of them alive in the market-place, and let the rest of them go to spread the news. A wave of panicking refugees will spread out in all directions, and starvation and disease will do the rest. For analogy, suppose you heard that Martians with invincible weapons and sadistic habits had landed twenty miles away. You would run like buggery!

However, the feasibility of a scenario does not mean it is true. Further genetic evidence may finally resolve the controversy. If it is in fact proved that the ‘Celtic’ element was predominant in southern England, this would have interesting implications for cultural history and evolution, for it would show that a complete change of language and culture can be imposed by a dominant minority, in an illiterate pre-industrial society, and in a short period of time.


DAVID BURBRIDGE


http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html

KevinMacleod
Thursday, June 4th, 2009, 06:36 AM
I must admit that I don't really understand what is and isn't Germanic. But as someone who has lived in Scotland for many years, let me say this...

In my opinion, the nordic element in Scotland is exaggerated. Traces of nordic ancestry can be seen in a lot of the population, but Hallstatt nordics aren't particularly common. Most Scots are a mix of nordic, borreby, brunn and atlanto med. So if Germanic=nordic, then Scotland is only partly Germanic. Of course there are differences between the areas; for example, I noticed that Glaswegians seemed to be more nordic than Aberdonians and those in the North East. On average, England is much more nordic than any of the Celtic nations.

Scotland is presumably about 5% Hallstatt Nordic. I dunno if most Scots are a mixture of nordic, borreby, brunn and atlanto-med but I certainly am (at least phenotypically ). I dabbled in anthropology a bit but I'm far from an expert like agrippa. I think I read once that Anglo-Saxons don't just have Brunn but also have a smaller amount of Borreby admixture. I dunno how true that is. So I'm not sure if I got the borreby from any of my English ancestors or Scottish ancestors (Scotland is 4% Borreby presumably) . However, I do know for a fact that there was Borreby involved with my ancestry from Alsace-Lorraine (Germanic part of France). I think my phenotype is either like an exotic nordid or a nordicized mediterranean w/ UP. (Brunn and Borreby) Doesn't really matter to me which one of those I am since both would be a Scottish phenotype regardless. I'm also not comfortable posting my picture on the internet(not because I'm ugly because I'm not ugly but for other reasons) so someone like agrippa won't be able to classify me definitely as either one. Also, I have these small pink dots on my skin in some spots (not a lot of them though) that can only come from a Germanic element I think. I don't know if it comes from Germanic heritage from Britain or Alsace-Lorraine or from both but I do know my grandmother from Alsace-Lorraine had such pink markings but they were bigger.

These are the percentages from Mcculloch but I'm not sure I necessarily believe all these types are just simply clear cut rather than somewhat fuzzy.

Scotland = 25% Keltic Nordic, 22% Trønder (most common in the northeast), 10% North-Atlantid (most common in the west), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the southeast), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common in the southwest), 10% Brünn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 04:15 PM
How does one distinguish a dark complexioned Scot from a black irishman ?

The same way someone distinguishes a dark complexed french from a dark complexed spaniard, it is all about how much someone is used to the looks of each groups.



I'm not implying that it can't be done I think it probably can be done.

It can be done if you are used to the looks of each groups, if you are a foreigner such as an american for example you won't be making distinctions between the two.



I'm just asking if there is some readily apparent physical anthropological morphological way to do it that I'm not aware of.

Nothing abolute, expect for the fact that the Black irishmen are more mediterneanid influenced than the black complexed Scots.



Also it's strange that they would call them Nazis since Scots aren't fully Germanic nor are they German Chauvinists.

Anyone gets called “Nazi” these days, Germanic or not as long as someone is a White Gentile and harbor feelings of racialism or at the least racial consciousness.



Also it's strange because Ulster Scots have French Huguenot admixture (well at least the genuine Ulster Scot has French Huguenot admixture).

And? About 300,000 Germans have Huguenot ancestry, does that make them actually French?

The Huguenot influence on Ulster Scots is perhaps around of 5%, even probably less considering that an estimated 80% + of the Protestant settlers in Ulster were Scots.



How likely is it for someone who is part French to be a Nazi ? Sure some French callaborated with the Nazis but they were a minority.

But Ulster Scots are not (or hardly) part French.



but I find it hard to believe that most Europeans simply view themselves as white (as you are from the UK though I understand that the people from the British isles do not feel affinity with continental Europe but the British isles are technically European).

This is how it is mostly nowadays, most of the European youths are Americanised and with Americanisation comes what you described here:

Maybe in America most people do not consider themselves as being anything but just white

Blod og Jord
Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 04:37 PM
I spent some weeks on a vacation in Scotland,
and it was interesting to see how the locals thought.
All people I met considered themselves as Celtic.
That's not to say it invalidates the argument of being Germanic,
because many Englishmen also consider themselves as Celts,
but there are far more Scottish who do than English.
The English won't use a word like Germanic,
but they will use words like Anglo-Saxon or even Danish!