From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: info wanted on runes
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:09:49 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <1992Aug27.183037.8109@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>I had not thought to divide the groups by language type, given the way
>languages change over time and distance. Reference English for example.
>A quote that comes to mind as a definition of England and America, two
>countries separated by a common language. Even American english has 
>undergone many changes from state to state. But you raise a good point.
>The language differences would be a good reference for diferentiating one
>group of Celto-Germanic people from another. Perhaps your reference to
>the Celtic languages being grouped in the Italic (and I assume here the
>Medeteranean languages) could account for the theories that sailors from
>Crete did migrate to the British Isles long before the Roman invasion.

	If I recall my Indo-Euro prof aright, the languages are the basis
for the distinction of "Celticness".  Celtic was admitted to the
Indo-European group late in the history of research on I-E lanaguages; it
was previously thought to be non-IE and the relations between the languages
was not well understood.  The Celts themselves never (as far as anyone can
tell) thought of themselves as one people and never had a word that
denoted "Celt" - they distinguished by tribes alone.  "Celt" comes from a
Greek term.
	BTW, don't take my Celto-Italic grouping _too_ faithfully.  That
info comes from a book about 20 years old.  When we're looking at something
as far back and tenuous as "Celto-Italic" scholarly opinions change readily
enough over time.  I don't know the current theory, but Celto-Italic may
still be in vogue.
	Crete, to me, sounds unlikely.  Cretens as far as I know spoke
archaic Greek even that far back.  But recall the Irish story about the
Milesians from Spain - Celtic was spoken throughout France and Spain at the
time, which were right next to the Italic speakers in Italy ... some kind
of connection here, maybe ...

>>	BTW - there are a number of Celtic elements in what we would
>>normally think of as English (A-S) folk tradition.  This can be put down to
>>the widespread absorbtion of the rural Celts into Saxon society during the
>>Vortigern/"Arthurian" period.  During the various rebellions and civil
>>wars, the Saxons fought with the remenants of the Romano-British
>>aristocracy in the towns, while the great number of the rural British
>>population fell in with the Saxons.  Thus elements like Morris Dances and
>>"Horned God" survivals in English folk tradition.
>
>Also, isn't the word Anglo-Saxon a combination of the names of two separate
>peoples, one of whom, the Angles, originated in Angleland (ie., England)?
>This would seem to make the Angles a Celtic people joined with the Saxons,
>a Celtic-German (by your definition) people. Three quarters Celtic is pretty
>close to all Celtic for most purposes.

	The Angles actually came from the Schleswig-Holstein region of
Denmark/Germany - a place still known as Angeln today.  So the Angles were
completely Germanic.  The Saxons were completely Germanic too, as were the
Jutes and Frisians who came to Britain at the same time.  The name England
arose after the various Germanic tribes had established their dominence in
that part of the British Isles.  England as a term arose later in the Saxon
period too, as up until about the time of Alfred the Great, there were a
number of small un-unified Germanic kingdoms in "England".
	It's hard to say what percentage of Celtic blood found its way into
the modern English population.  Clearly there were enough original Saxon
settlers to impose their lanaguge (compare with the Vandals in Spain, who
retained political control, but their Germanic language died out).
Obviously there was enough Celticness in England to retain those
Celtic folk traditions I mention, though the English as a whole are largely
Germanic as a culture.

>>	They are very similar.  The Scythians were an Indo-European group,
>>and their art styles (especially in something as simple as a triskele) were
>>probably the ancestors of later patterns used by the Celts and Germans.  
>
>Agreed, especially when you consider that many anthropologists as well as
>ethnogrophers conclude that the Celtic-Germanic peoples derived from the
>Scythians. It follows that art and religion would tend to follow more closely
>than language.

	It seems likely that the Scythians belong in the Celto-Germanic
family tree somewhere, it's just hard to tell where or how.  The problem is
that all those Greek called everyone else a barbarian, or if they were in
an especially good mood, a Scythian or a Celt.  It's hard to tell exactly
what they mean, and as often as not they don't seem to have known what they
were talking about anyway!  And then references to "Germans" appear much
later, and get a similar treatment from the Romans, who sort of lump them
in as an especially unfortunate brand of Celt ...
	It's a hairy mess and that's for sure!

>BTW, just what does "Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn at manni eigi hafi
>vidh kommit" mean. I hope I haven't just cast a spell on my computer by 
>typing that in. ;-)

	No worries, just some good colloquial Old Norse :)  It's a quote
from Chapter 120 of Njals saga and means: "Also, I have never so raised a
weapon at a man that has not hit."  Gotta love that cra-zy Skarphedinn!

Cheers,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------