I suppose it would depend on what you wanted to define as Scots. (And I’m not even going there.)
The Encyclopædia Britannica starts off its section on the People of Scotland with the statement:
(I suspect that “Anglo-Saxon” is simply accepted shorthand for the rather widely based groups that happen to live south of the Highlands and who probably include Celts and Norse along with a few other groups (the Normans certainly did not stay south of Hadrian’s Wall) and are not intended to indicate a “pure” ethnic group of non-Celts.)
The Scottish language is one of two Germanic languages spoken in Great Britain (the other one being English). This is according to the Oxford Companion to the English Language, s.v. “Scottish.”
The book also reported that linguists of England regard Scottish as a dialect of English … while Scots linguists say Scottish is a separate language in its own right.
I used to believe the former view, based on the fact that I could read Robert Burns poems on the printed page and understand them quite well.
Then I asked my friend from Dundee to speak for me a sample of undiluted Scots idiom … and was converted to the latter view. Could not understand a single word she uttered!
There is no such thing as a “racially pure” population. Everyone is a mixture of all different ancestral strains. There’s the answer to the OP.
The Scottish Gaelic language, spoken in the Highlands, is Celtic. The Scottish language mentioned above (not to be confused with Scots Gaelic), also known as “Lallands” (i.e. Lowlands), is descended from Anglo-Saxon. Both languages have been used in Scotland since the Anglo-Saxons occupied Britain.
Would the Scots linguists here consider that Lallands speech is part of a continuum with Northumberland dialect?
Anglo-Saxon? No - Unless we are talking English culture, which is an entirely different question. Anglo-Norman influence became predominant in the Scottish Lowlands from the 12th century, starting primarily with David I ( r. 1124-1153 ), though the influence was there even before his reign. Gaelic soon disappeared from the non-Highland, non-Island regions, as did many facets of Gaelic culture, replaced with a version of Norman feudocracy.
The Angles were a presense in Northumbria of course and the Scottish monarchy had often contentious relationships with the later West Saxon kings. After the triumph of the Danes, Malcom II was able to seize Strathclyde definitively, which certainly had some old Angle influence and settlement. But by and large, no - there was no significant Anglo-Saxon penetration of what is today Scotland.
However insomuch as the Norse were Germanic and did have a sizeable influence, that could count as Germanic influence.
Actually, I should just say Celtic - How predominant ( if at all ) Gaelic in particular became in the Lowlands over Pictic Celtic, before being ousted by Norman influence, is an open question. Certainly the Picts aolmost certainly outnumbered the Gaels in the unified kingdom when it was established by Kenneth MacAlipn in 842.
Just to be a little more clear - By Anglo-Saxon, I’m referring to those Germanic peoples and kingdoms stretching from the invasions of Roman Britain until the the defeat of Harold Godwinson in 1066 ( which from at least the early or mid-9th century is probably best referred to as simply “Saxon” to indicate the dominance of the West Saxon dynasty ).
Not “Anglo-Saxon” as a synonym for English or the Germanic language of the English.
Thanks everyone. I certainly realize there are no “racially” pure nations, but that wasn’t the question I was intending on posing.
Tamerlane - Your mention of numbers of inhabitants is I suppose at the heart of my question. The Picts and Gaels were both “Celtic” peoples, correct?
You differentiate between Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman cultures. Isn’t Anglo-Norman synonynmous with English? At least early in the assimilation period?
And you say Anglo- Saxon - no, suggesting that there was not significant A-S influence in what became modern Scotland. Northumbria and Strathclyde were A-S kingdoms, at least amongst the ruling classes, but that relations were contentious between the presumably Celtic Scottish rulers and people, and the presumable A-S rulers, and A-S/Celtic/Roman-British(?) peoples of Strathclyde and Norhtumbria? Thus there was not a great mixture of peoples at this point?
The Danish invasion, and the establishment of the Danelaw: did this extend into Modern Scotland? and if so did the Danes (Norse, German subset, presumably) come to settle, and in great numbers. Did the Scots, if they are veiwed as a unified people (culturally/racially at least) at this time and still a Celtic people, have become a Celtic/Norse race? Did the Danes settle in lowland Scotland in great enough numbers to effect the culture and “racial” make-up?
Bringing me to Anglo-Norman, which I am assuming is, as I posed above nearly synonymous with English, or differentiates only the first few generations after the conquest. Did the Anglo-Normans enter Scotland in great enough numbers to effectivel change the “racial” make-up, I know there were obvious cultural changes, and certainly moreso in the lowland regions, but were the settlement of sizeable numbers of people?
Thus, did the actual numbers of non-Celtic peoples, be they Angle, Saxon, Dane, Norman, or English ever outnumber the Celtic inhabitants, and alter teh bloodline enough that the Scots would now be considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic people (if those are even parallel and acceptable terms) and if so, when did this happen?
I realize much of this is speculative, and far from scienctific, and I attempt to use the term race carefully, as I personally have trouble with racial distincions of an kind except academically, or I suppose perhaps culturally (but then it is obviously not a feature of genetically defined race-which, again I doubt the existence of).
Thank you all again, and dont waste too much of you time on me.
There were Brythonic Celtic kingdoms throughout southern Scotland prior to about 800 AD. Approximately 500 AD the Scots tribe of Dalriada, who were Goiledic Celts from Ulster, conquered the Galloway area and spread from there throughout much of western Scotland, eventually losing their foothold in Ulster. The Picts, about whose antecedents little is known, held much of the northeast. And the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria stretched from Edinburgh south to Lincolnshire in England – split into Bernicia and Deira, one of which (can’t recall which was which) was almost totally within modern Scotland. There were also Scandinavian incursions during the Viking era, though nowhere near as much as in England or Ireland. So there was a mixed bag of peoples making up Scotland, of which only one group (two if you count the Vikings) was Germanic.
The Scottish nation dates from the union of the Scots and Picts under Kenneth MacAlpin; the Scottish language (or dialect if you insist) is largely derived from the Northumbrians’ Anglic. (IMHO Scottish is as much a separate language from English as Flemish is from Dutch – languages with overlapping vocabulary, largely mutually intelligible, but the national language of separate nations with separate literatures and a distinct historical evolution “in parallel” with the other language.
Thanks, so the Picts were not a Celtic people? Or at least this is unclear? This is definatley new to me. They are assumed to probably be Celtic then, if its not “known”.
As you say a mixed bag of peoples, but, and I suppose I’m calling for opinion here, which I guess means this doesn’t belong in GQ, but I respect your guys efforts enough to consider your opinions as near-factual, never in great enough numbers to alter the Celtic “racial” make-up of the Scots?
By comparison, the pre-Roman Britons were Celtic peoples, but ensuing migrations, or Roman, (various) Germanic, Norse, and Norman peoples resulted in the English being gnenerally considered a Germanic people, correct? Assuming anyone really has these considerations in the first place. At least they are considered distinct form the Welsh, Irish, Cornish, and Manx, who are all considered Celtic, correct? I realize the mobility of people in modern times and the overwhelming superiority in numbers of the English is obliterating at least some of these distinctions.
Secondly, if the Scots can be considered to be a German people, or at least a Celtic-German people, it would almost certainly be incorect to refer to them as Anglo-Saxon wouldn’t it?
By that point they were, essentially. The Picts, who as Polycarp noted, had uncertain affinities originally ( it’s not entirely certain whether they were even originally Indo-European or not, probably not ), had been “Celticized” by that time to the point were they were considered to speak a “P-Celtic” language ( i.e. related to that of the Brythonic Celts Poly noted as living in Strathclyde and Lothian ).
Anglo-Saxon, in the way I’m using it, refers to pre-conquest ( i.e. pre-1066 ) Germanic England, when the country had a culture and polity that was aligned ( in the loosest sense of the word ) with Germanic Northern Europe ( i.e. Scandinavia and the British Isles formed part of an interrelated unit ).
Anglo-Norman refers to the post-conquest, Norman French aristocracy-dominated, feudal, Western Europe aligned ( again in a loose, cultural sense ) England. One can see a fairly momentous political and ( and eventually cultural ) shift from one to the other.
Saxon political penetration of Scotland was more limited and mostly a matter of border wars and treaties. Norman penetration, however, was far more significant and was both political and cultural in nature.
As above, yes.
Strathclyde was a Brythonic kingdom, as Poly noted, rather like ( but more unified than ) Wales. At one time it extended deep into what is now Cumbria, but gradually was limited to what is today southeast Scotland.
But otherwise, yes and no. There was in fact a fair bit of immigration into A-S Britain from continental Germanic peoples ( but more strongly in the south than Northumbria, I believe ), so the population was not Germanic in its ruling class only. However, otherwise your point stands - It was a complex mix.
No, not really. Danish raids ravaged Scotland at times, killing King Constantine II in 877 for example. But the Danes per se established no permanent footholds.
On the other hand the Norwegians ( referred to in chronicles as ‘White Gentiles’, as opposed to the ‘Black Gentiles’, generally assumed to refer to the Danes ), did settle in Scotland, first the ( probably only lightly inhabited and defended, if at all ) Shetland and Orkney Isles, then the Hebrides and, for a time, neighboring ‘mainland’ territories Galloway in the Southern Uplands. They did settle in numbers, mixing with the local populace to produce what some referred to as ‘Gallgaels’. “Great numbers” probably weren’t called for - None of these lands were densely populated, then or now.
In the Islands, yes, a Celtic/Norse mix. However I’m not sure Scotland has been a racial mix from early on ( Celtic/Pictic for starters, then Brythonic/Goidelic ), so it was nothing new.
No, but the Norwegians did settle in Galloway as noted.
No mass immigration, no. It was more a ruling class of Anglo-Norman magnates that were given lands and court positions and soon dominated the country.
Well, since there was probably never any racial purity to begin with, I consider it a non-point :). People migrate around all the time and I often tend to define ethnicity by language. So a majority of Scots adopted a Anglic-Germanic language, but probably most aren’t descended from Anglo-Saxons . Does that make them Germanic? Many Gaelic-speaking Scots in the Isles and Highlands may have Germanic-Norse blood. Does that make them Germanic? Dunno ;). Depends how you want to define things.
Mostly in this case I’d say it is too complicated to untangle and make a definitive statement of that sort for a “bloodline”. Mostly I’d go but linguistics - Scotland consists of both Germanic-speaking ( the great majority ) and Celtic-speaking populations, that jointly reflect a complex history and mix of peoples and ideas.
Ugh, ended up mixing a deleted sentence with the one I ended up posting:
However I’m not sure Scotland has been a racial mix from early on ( Celtic/Pictic for starters, then Brythonic/Goidelic ), so it was nothing new.
I AM sure Scotland has been a racially mixed populace from early on ;). The original inhabitants were non-Celts as noted. Then came waves of Brythonic Celts, then Goidelic Celts, then Norse ( and in the far south and a little earlier, Angles ). Of course there was no such thing as Scotland during those first three waves, but you get my point.
I should actually point out that there have been suggestions that thr Frisians made a few settlements on the East coast and that there was substantive Angle political influence in Strathclyde in the 8th century ( but probably not a great deal of settlement ).
Thank you all very much, i would guess we’re about as GQ’d out as my pretty open-ended and speculative question allows, but at risk of abusing the bounds of GQ, by way of comparison, wouldn’t it be safe to say (or at least generally acceptable given the limitations of the termanology) the Irish are “Celtic” peoples, in spite of the fact that they speak an Anglo-Saxon language, and have been subject to incursions by Germanic peoples?
The basic difference being (if I’m understandign everything right) that the original inhabitants of Scotland were less in number, and subject to greater numbers of invaders, even if teh total number of invaders never outnumberd the original inhabitants (as I’m assuming was the case in England, if not individually, then colectively, and the Celtic pre-Roman peoples were absorbed).
One more thing, any cites on where I can find more about 1) the distinction between Brythonic/Goidelic Celts; 2) the Picts and their origins, and 3) various info on Indo-European (and near neighbor) peoples, is this considered a field of study? even a discredited one? I know the Nazis authored a lot of propaganda on the subject, but has it ever been given serious consideration? Is there a, even speculative, “family tree” of Indo-European peoples that your aware of?
Through the Middle Ages and in a few spots surviving into early modern centuries, a Norwegian dialect was spoken in parts of Scotland. It was called “Norn.” Just a worn-down form of “northern,” to be sure, but carrying an uncanny echo of the Norns, the Fates of Norse mythology.
Norn speech survived longest in the Shetlands, IIRC, as late as the 17th century, and also on the mainland—John O’ Groats? Paul Theroux traveled around Great Britain’s coast for his book The Kingdom by the Sea and picked up hints of the countries across the sea in the four directions: at Dover he smelled garlic in the air as a soupçon of France across the Channel; in Liverpool he noticed the strong Irish presence; the bleak countryside around John O’ Groats reminded him of Scandinavia; and the flat, orderly fields of East Anglia reminded him of Holland.
Please, nobody bring up the issue of the Ürümqi mummies! The neo-Nazis took that ball and ran with it. :rolleyes:
Oh, and pfbob, the endpapers of the American Heritage Dictionary contain a great detailed family tree of the Indo-European languages. Languages, of course, emphatically not racial classification.
The Indo-European language trees will give one look at the picture, as Jomo Mojo suggested. This page discusses some of the influences on English ( including a brief discussion of Goidelic vs. Brythonic Celtic ) and includes a basic Indo-European tree:
Pretty murky, as a sidebar in the above page notes. There is very little solid evidence and continuing academic dispute over whether they were just another Celtic group or survivors of neolithic British peoples who were Celticized ( but really that description probably fits most groups, as usually one group would linguistically and culturally absorb another, rather than exterminate them ), as I mentioned. For factual analysis probably best to pick up a recent book ( my stuff on this topic is a little dated ), but this essay that has some interesting tidbits:
Surprisingly little, as others have noted, is known about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Picts.
On the Celts, the usual classification is as follows:
Continental Celts – the tribes of pre-Frankish invasion France, the LaTene culture, much of the Iberian peninsula, Cisalpine Gaul in northern Italy, Galatia in Asia Minor, and various other areas across Europe. Although people descended from them survive, their languages have vanished with only a few personal and place names surviving.
Insular Celts – originally inhabiting the British Isles. These are in turn broken into:
A. Brythonic Celts, inhabiting England, Wales, southern Scotland, and Cornwall in Roman and pre-Roman times.
B. Goiledic Celts, inhabiting Ireland and Man in that period.
Following the withdrawal of the Romans, most of England was conquered by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, though admixtures of surviving Britons influenced the language and culture. Some of the Britons, mostly from the southwest of England, settled the Armorican Peninsula in France to form the area and culture still known as Brittany. And, as noted above, the Dalriada Scots invaded and spread through much of present Scotland.
The results are the following groups:
The Cymry, AKA Welsh, a Brythonic group occupying the present Principality of Wales, with extensive English-speaking admixtures, speaking English and Welsh, largely bilingually.
The Cornish, mostly descended from the Brythonic inhabitants of Cornwall, speaking English (Cornish as a language has been extinct since about 1800).
Scattered enclaves of people of largely Brythonic descent, speaking English in one dialect or another, throughout western England and the Scottish Southern Uplands, with the old Strathclyde/Cumbria area having the heaviest concentration.
The Irish, Goiledic Celts inhabiting much of Ireland (but with admixtures of English/Anglo-Norman, Scandinavian, and other groups), mostly speaking English but with a firm intent to preserve the Irish language.
The Manx, mostly Goiledic Celts with again admixtures, speaking English. Vannin or Manx is now extinct as a “cradle language” though quite a lot of literature in it is preserved and there are living people who can remember it being spoken.
The Scots, ethnically quite mixed, mostly speaking Scottish (see above), with a small and determined group of speakers of the Goiledic-Celtic language Scots Gaelic in the extreme northwest of Scotland.
I may have missed something in that shopping list, and it is done fairly broad-brush to try to cover the main groups. Note that Welsh is still a very strong survivor as a language, with a few thousand monoglot speakers and even a few areas where it is spoken outside the British Isles (there’s an area in Northern Patagonia where it’s the native language due to a Welsh colony there, though most inhabitants also speak Spanish for dealing with the rest of the country and the world generally). Though it will offend the Irish to say so, the other Celtic languages are basically relict groups that are likely to eventually fade to extinction.
