The Spanish, Celts and Germans

[Lutiferre]

I've heard the Spanish referred to as Celtic many times, but never quite understood it.

From what I've understood, the Spanish are primarily Romanized Iberians, previously having a mixed native and Celtic La Tene culture from the invading Celts, who later emigrated to other parts of Europe?

And what about the Germanic invasion and control of Spain? What ethnological significance does it pose? In any case, does it not pose as much significance as the Celtic invasions/control?

[Galaico]

The Celtic influence in Spain, as in most Western Europe, was basically cultural and linguistical. There never was anykind of mass migration from Central to Western Europe.

As for the Germanic influence, it is estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 Germanics (Visigoths and Suebi) settled in Spain after the fall of the Roman Empire. Taking into account that the population of Spain at the time was of about 6,000,000 we could talk about an influence of 2-5%. Not much really.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Galaico

The Celtic influence in Spain, as in most Western Europe, was basically cultural and linguistical. There never was anykind of mass migration from Central to Western Europe.

I've never seen any substantial proof of that opinion.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I've never seen any substantial proof of that opinion.

At least looking at Y Chromosome haplogroups it seems that way. R1b1c* which is overwhelmingly majoritary in Western Europe is of Upper Paleolithic origin according to most scientists, therefore it wasn't brought by any IE speakers.

Kurgan theory supporters relate IE groups with R1a1, which is found at very low rates in Western Europe, being only significant in The Netherlands (~12%).

[Freebooter]

I've never understood why people claim to be Celtic, Swabian or Visigothic. When people ask me what I am, I just say "Spanish".

If I do have ancestors that were Germanic or Celtic, then so what? I'm not Germanic, nor am I Celtic, nor do I live in old days when there was a Germanic and, perhaps, a Celtic presence in the Peninsula. I live here and now, and I am Hispanic.

I'm a little more open to the term "Celtiberian", though. I guess because it is more regionally specific; that is, it refers specifically to the past inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula which I believe I descend from. I suppose I just don't like being clumped together with people I feel I have no present relation to...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I've heard the Spanish referred to as Celtic many times, but never quite understood it.

From what I've understood, the Spanish are primarily Romanized Iberians, previously having a mixed native and Celtic La Tene culture from the invading Celts, who later emigrated to other parts of Europe?

It is not even certain who the Iberians were, if they were natives who developed a particular culture, or if they arrived from somewhere else. Both the Celtic and the Iberian element in the Peninsula expanded under a model of cultural demic-diffusion, meeting at some points and overlapping, and their respective boundaries often being not all that clear.

For example, it is not known if the Basques were a people like the Iberians proper, and if the Iberian language would be like the Basque one.

Also, it is not possible to adscribe all of the Celtic element in Iberia to only one source. In an oversimplified way, I would make a division between central and littoral Celts.

The Celtiberians were not a mixed lot of Celts + Iberians, like the name would suggest. They were actually a set of central Celtic tribes.

Look at the attached map. Bear in mind that the map is far from being exact in the boundaries, or even in the expansion. For example, the pre-Celtic, Indo-European overlap north of the Douro/Duero river (faded yellow over light brown, NW of the Peninsula) looks suspiciously as an agenda to link the Lusitanians to the Callaecians. Also, the boundaries of the Celtiberian tribes are known to me to be farther into the East in the territory of the Edetanians: only 33km NW from the city of Sagunto, there is the city of Segorbe which was Celtiberian. That's so far proved by archaelogy, but lately I read an article in a local newspaper about the people of a village in the area, which had been DNA tested for a genetic problem derived from depigmentation, caused by a mutation that developed in Central Europe in Pre-Historic times. However, on that map the area of Celtiberian expansion would arrive approximately to Teruel.

For comparison, I've also attached a screenshot of a road map, showing the location of Sagunto and Segorbe, with the distance marked in green.

What you call a native population (romanized or not) mixed with Celt invaders is what is usually called as 'Celtic', if the language lasted.

And what about the Germanic invasion and control of Spain?

No such invasion or control, strictly speaking.

You are referring to the Goths, who did not invade Iberia. They settled in Iberia under the terms of the Roman Hospitalitas. And though the native romanicized population rejected them, only a few hostile attempts are known to have happened and most accepted their presence as federated troops of the Empire. Unfortunately, Rome in her decadence had leaned to the Eastern part of the Empire, leaving the provinces of the Western Empire devoided of Imperial troops.

I've said no control, because the Goths were unable to even control themselves. The whole period leaves much to be desire and the end of a large series of civil wars and royal assassinations (the morbus Gothorum; out of 33 kings, 15 died assassinated) was toppled with a treacherous alliance with the Muslim Governor of Nortwest Africa, and the Islamicization of Hispania.

Others like the Vandals and their federated allies, the Alans, did invade and raid through Iberia. Until they were defeated by the Goths, who had been called into Hispania by Rome for this matter, and pushed towards Northern Africa. And the Suebians, who settled in NW Spain.

What ethnological significance does it pose? In any case, does it not pose as much significance as the Celtic invasions/control?

In terms of 'Germanic' influence, little if any at all. I'd say none.

For a start, we are playing here with terms that acquire a certain significance with the theories of the XIXth century Romanticism. Call it Germanic and Germanicism, or Celtic and Celticism.

The Germanic adscription of the Goths means little. They had origins similar to other Germanic tribes, and they spoke a language of the trunk of the Germanic family (though arguably much of it when they arrived in Iberia). But like nearly all other East Germanics, they had an identity of their own which made them different enough. For one thing, they were a semi-nomadic people looking forward to settle in a land. They had also assimilated a degree of romanicization. Remember, that a worthy Goth would want to be a Roman. Only a worthless Roman would want to be a Goth.

For better or for worse, we do have a Gothic heritage. But not Germanic.

Incidentally, elements that have been used to characterize the Spanish, such as that temperamental character of us which idiots call "Mediterranean", is most likely a Gothic trait. Or the call of blood for revenge, in matters of honour.

Also, not to forget that the Spanish character was forged in the long centuries of the Reconquista.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

For better or for worse, we do have a Gothic heritage. But not Germanic.

Going by that notion, the Swedes of Götaland arent Germanic either?
The Goths are classified as Germanic. So anyone who has a Gothic heritage has Germanic heritage, whether the Gothic element has been absorbed culturally or not, it doesnt change that fact.

By the way, the Goths did have a relatively large influence over Iberia and parts of modern France. But it seems as if you didnt quite agree with this in your post?

And the Suebian kingdom on the northern coast of Iberia as you can see in the picture, would also suggest some Germanic influence from there perhaps.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Going by that notion, the Swedes of Götaland arent Germanic either?

First, it is not certain that Götaland derives from the name of the Goths, or the Geats.

And second, if you think that the Goths who crossed the Danube after their long wandering, were anything like the people who stayed behind, you are missing much.

The Goths are classified as Germanic. So anyone who has a Gothic heritage has Germanic heritage, whether the Gothic element has been absorbed culturally or not, it doesnt change that fact.

Have you read what I wrote?

By the way, the Goths did have a relatively large influence over Iberia and parts of modern France. But it seems as if you didnt quite agree with this in your post?

Please, provide a list of that "influence" in terms of "germanic[ism]".

And the Suebian kingdom on the northern coast of Iberia as you can see in the picture, would also suggest some Germanic influence from there perhaps.

There was no such Suebian kingdom in the "northern coast of Iberia". All of what you see in white on that map is not "Suebian expansion", but "non-Gothic domains" at a given period of history. The Goths did not settle in Aquitania (SW Gaul) and Narbonensis (SE Gaul) at the same time. And the kingdom of the Suebians was eventually conquered and assimilated in the Gothia (aka Hispania).

To be able to see better what I'm saying, you must first ask yourself this question: who influenced who?
And then come up with the right answer.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

First, it is not certain that Götaland derives from the name of the Goths, or the Geats.

It is quite certain, that the Goths inhabited several areas of modern Sweden and the Baltic. No less certain than any academical assertion in the field of ethnology.

Anyway, I dont know exactly the locations of the Gothic and Suebian kingdoms in parts of Iberia and modern France, but I know they existed for some time. Who influenced who does not change the ethnological circumstance that these peoples were Germanic and were absorbed as a component into the melting pot that today make up Spaniards.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Anyway, I dont know exactly the locations of the Gothic and Suebian kingdoms in parts of Iberia and modern France, but I know they existed for some time. Who influenced who does not change the ethnological circumstance that these peoples were Germanic and were absorbed as a component into the melting pot that today make up Spaniards.

In terms of culture or blood? I don't believe they were 'pure germanics', one way or another. I never thought seriously about this subject, but this what Mynydd said sounds logical to me:

if you think that the Goths who crossed the Danube after their long wandering, were anything like the people who stayed behind, you are missing much.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

It is quite certain, that the Goths inhabited several areas of modern Sweden and the Baltic. No less certain than any academical assertion in the field of ethnology.

As a part of the XIXth century Romanticism, in Sweden a cultural movement called Gothicismus created a confusion between the Geats and the Goths, and tried to link the inhabitants of Götaland to these.

But there is no certainty whatsoever that the Goths came from modern Sweden. Probably from the area of the Baltic. Anyway, the legacy of the Goths (for better or for worse, as I said earlier) lies in Spain. Not in Sweden.

And, anyway, this question was already settled in the Council of Basel, in 1434.

Anyway, I dont know exactly the locations of the Gothic and Suebian kingdoms in parts of Iberia and modern France, but I know they existed for some time. Who influenced who does not change the ethnological circumstance that these peoples were Germanic and were absorbed as a component into the melting pot that today make up Spaniards.

Who influenced who does change everything.

If you are using "Germanic" as an ancient tribal type linked to an ancient culture, i.e. in terms of blood, and if you presume a Germanic influence in Spain because of it, then you will have to deny the degree of germanicity of many of the to-day so-called Germanics, in modern speak.

But Germanic in these contexts is nearly always and invariably used based on cultures and languages, which share an origin. So if they were influenced and assimilated, instead of being them who influenced and who assimilated, there is no room for such a claim.

And, whatever remains in the Spaniards of the Gothic character, it is distinctively Gothic and not generically Germanic.

Else, you would be pretending that all Germanic tribes were equal in character, which is too pretentious especially in this case where you would be comparing peoples from settlement societies, with a semi-nomadic people who after a long wandering are assumed by logics to have acquired and assimilated a wide cultural influence from other peoples who they encountered, and who had forged their character through their long trajectory.

Originally Posted by Vincent

In terms of culture or blood? I don't believe they were 'pure germanics', one way or another. I never thought seriously about this subject, but this what Mynydd said sounds logical to me:

I wasn't referring to that. More in the line of the terms of the discussion of the Council of Basel, and of the details discussed above.

But true, it would be extremely naïve to believe that after that long age of nomadism, they did not assimilate other peoples.

Take for example the Vandals. At the time when they arrived in Hispanis, they were accompanied by a smaller tribe which was Indo-Iranian, the Alans, who were federated to the Alans. And they later merged in a joint crown of Vandals and Alans, before crossing to North Africa.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

As a part of the XIXth century Romanticism, in Sweden a cultural movement called Gothicismus created a confusion between the Geats and the Goths, and tried to link the inhabitants of Götaland to these.

But there is no certainty whatsoever that the Goths came from modern Sweden. Probably from the area of the Baltic. Anyway, the legacy of the Goths (for better or for worse, as I said earlier) lies in Spain. Not in Sweden.

And, anyway, this question was already settled in the Council of Basel, in 1434.

This explanation, however correct it may indeed be, nevertheless shows that these things are easily mixed up. The proper name in Swedish of the movement you mention is actually Göticismen.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

As a part of the XIXth century Romanticism, in Sweden a cultural movement called Gothicismus created a confusion between the Geats and the Goths, and tried to link the inhabitants of Götaland to these.

The Geats are generally accepted to be Goths, and are linked to the Goths in the area of the Baltic, where they likely originate, yes. Similarly, Jutes have been linked to the Goths, I dont know if Jutland is considered Baltic but it is certainly in that region.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But there is no certainty whatsoever that the Goths came from modern Sweden. Probably from the area of the Baltic. Anyway, the legacy of the Goths (for better or for worse, as I said earlier) lies in Spain. Not in Sweden.

I havent said so, actually I wasnt dealing with origins, that doesnt make the Geats any less Gothic.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If you are using "Germanic" as an ancient tribal type linked to an ancient culture, i.e. in terms of blood, and if you presume a Germanic influence in Spain because of it, then you will have to deny the degree of germanicity of many of the to-day so-called Germanics, in modern speak.

But Germanic in these contexts is nearly always and invariably used based on cultures and languages, which share an origin. So if they were influenced and assimilated, instead of being them who influenced and who assimilated, there is no room for such a claim.

And, whatever remains in the Spaniards of the Gothic character, it is distinctively Gothic and not generically Germanic.

Else, you would be pretending that all Germanic tribes were equal in character, which is too pretentious especially in this case where you would be comparing peoples from settlement societies, with a semi-nomadic people who after a long wandering are assumed by logics to have acquired and assimilated a wide cultural influence from other peoples who they encountered, and who had forged their character through their long trajectory.

I wasn't referring to that. More in the line of the terms of the discussion of the Council of Basel, and of the details discussed above.

But true, it would be extremely naïve to believe that after that long age of nomadism, they did not assimilate other peoples.

Take for example the Vandals. At the time when they arrived in Hispanis, they were accompanied by a smaller tribe which was Indo-Iranian, the Alans, who were federated to the Alans. And they later merged in a joint crown of Vandals and Alans, before crossing to North Africa.

Everything you are saying does not change the simple fact that the Goths were Germanic, and the content of their culture was related to the content of Germanic culture in general. It is the Germanic tribes that define Germanic culture, not vice versa. No one is truly Germanic today, seeing as the only cultural legacy is a limited level of tradition which has diverged from any uniting element in this meta-ethnic designation, that was only once preserved by the proximity of Germanic tribes, so I am not going to discuss the Germanicity of their legacy.

Anyway, they were Germanic both by blood and culture, but I am not denying that they were probably influenced culturally by the indigenous after they settled, because they were absorbed when their kingdom collapsed. That does not make their ethnicity or origin any less Germanic, though.