What's meant by Celt? From what I know (not an expert by any means but I've done a fair share of reading) the Celts are considered to be some of the Welsh, some of the Irish and some of the Scots. (But not all of them)
If that's the case, then all of those groups did settle in the Southland.
They also colonized the northern climes.
The South was heavily settled by the "Scotch-Irish"--people from the Protestant area of Northern Ireland, a people who had originally come mainly from low-land Scotland, northern England.
It's my understanding though, that the folk of this region had been originally Anglo-Saxons (to use a modern term for them) who had fled North after the invasion of William of Normandy in 1066.
They founded the city of Edinburgh, or "Embra" to give the city its proper pronunciation, and resisted the colonization of Scotland by the Normans.
These people aren't really Celts, they're Saxons, or Sassenachs as the High-land Scots (who are Celts) call them.
As we all know, the South was also home to Huguenots (Protestant French), French Canadians (Catholic), European Jews, Spanish, Africans, Indians and of course English.
Sorry, this post probably does nothing to answer the OP, but the "Celtic South" is a topic that has confused me, as I'm not sure the same mix didn't settle the northern colonies/states as well.
The topic has always confused me also. I was sent some links but I just do not know enough to trust the info. If i post the links would you look them over and give me your opinion? Maybe ask some of your friends in the old country?
Below is a portion of the email I was sent. I thought you may want to somewhat introduce yourself to what is being said before you dive into dark water so to speak. If you have the time and willing to do the research, I think this would be a great project for you. Most of us know we are the descendents of Welch, Irish and Scots, but Celts? To me that is a bit of a stretch. My way of thinking is that culture died out a couple thousand of years ago.
GP
*************************************************** Below are a few things backing up your assertion that the Ulster Scotts / Scotts Irish who settled the Southern US are the descendants of Israel through Judah and his two sons, Pharez and Zarah.
The Scotts, in their Declaration of Arbroath, claim that they came from Greater Scythia which was located in Southwest Russia. This is where they were Christianized by St. Andrew who was following Christ’s command, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matt. 10:6. This is why even though St. Andrew never went to Scotland the Scotts use the St. Andrews Cross as do the Russians and claim St. Andrew as their Patron Saint.
There is much evidence shown below that the Scythians (and Cimmerians) were Israelites who had escaped their captivity from the Assyrians and migrated North and West to eventually become known as Celts.
Assuming all of this to be true, it has very powerful implications for the land we know as “The Bible Belt”, “Jesus Land” and “God’s Country”. Deo Vindice
They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, Much More St. Andrew and Scottish Identity http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_andrew.htm
An excerpt from the above link appears below:
Andrew, of course, had never directly evangelised Scotland. But according to later Greek versions of the Acts of Andrew, he had converted Scythia and is, therefore, also the patron saint of Russia. Scotland's mythological status as a scion of Scythia therefore makes sense of the otherwise peculiar yet central claim in the Declaration of Arbroath that the Scots were called, 'almost the first to His most holy faith'.
CELTIC RELATIONSHIPS It has been pointed out in the Synopsis of the Migrations of Israel that the Cimmerians were derived from those Israelites placed in captivity in the region of Gozan who had escaped by way of the upper Euphrates gorge (2 Esdras 13:43). Most of these crossed the Black Sea to the Carpathian region, called in the Apocrypha Arsareth. Thence they migrated up the Danube into central Europe and became known as Celts. It is well known that these were the ancestors of the ancient British and the Welsh. We have now seen that the Scots as well as the Welsh came from the same Cimmerian source in Asia Minor in the seventh century B.C., but by sea through the Mediterranean. This would account for the relationship between the Gaelic and Welsh languages, while their complete separation after 600 B.C. would explain how these languages came to diverge. The Israelite captives in Media, on the other hand, had totally different contacts, and so their AngloSaxon descendants acquired a very different language.
Been doing some research on Celts/Scots/Jews but thus far haven't come up with anything definitive. There's so much "out there" on the Celts and lots of it is technical, with the different types of Celtic speech determining who was with which tribe or from what homeland in Europe/Galatia (Turkey).
Most of what I've been able to find on the Celts doesn't mention in any way a connection with the Jews, except as speculation by modern amateur investigators, or people who are half-Irish and half-Jewish.
Almost everything that's known about the Celts' first contact with the Mediterranean world is through the writings of the Romans. Since they looked with such disdain on the barbarian Celts, the Romans aren't really a very reliable source of info, IMO.
Here's a sample of what I'm finding:
"Caesar's conquest of Gaul took place in the period 58 to 50 BC. His notes on the Gallic War give us occasional glimpses of the ancient Celtic people and their culture. Roman Gaul comprised France, part of Holland, Belgium and the greater part of Switzerland. These lands, together with Britain had long been settled by warlike Celts, a people from central Europe. Soon after 500 BC, the Celts wandered east and west in their search for fertile farming land. Around 390 BC, the Celts had even invaded Rome and sacked the city. It was to take two hundred years for the Celts to be driven from Italy and by Caesar's time Rome already controlled southern Gaul."
*Yaaawn*
Sure would be nice to find some modern scholarship on the Celts, not stuff that's two thousand years old!
If you have an understanding at all of the Celtic cultuire and lines you are doing better than i did. Like you all I could find was material that was oldand no new studies. To way way of thinking the Celtic culture died out about 1,00 years ago under theRoman, Saxon and Norman conquests. That being the case, I can't possibly see the connection between theCeltics and the South. Just my $.02 worth.
After looking around all over the net, came across this long-ish article. Entitled Who Were the Scots? it was written by WE Filmer, have no idea who he is.
The article is included in archived copies of The Ensign Message which is dedicated to "TO THE BRITISH AND ALL THE CELTIC, ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES OF THE WORLD." It's actually quite an interesting site.
The last paragraph of Who Were the Scots? sums up Filmer's main thesis:
"It has been pointed out in the Synopsis of the Migrations of Israel that the Cimmerians were derived from those Israelites placed in captivity in the region of Gozan who had escaped by way of the upper Euphrates gorge (2 Esdras 13:43). Most of these crossed the Black Sea to the Carpathian region, called in the Apocrypha Arsareth. Thence they migrated up the Danube into central Europe and became known as Celts. It is well known that these were the ancestors of the ancient British and the Welsh.
We have now seen that the Scots as well as the Welsh came from the same Cimmerian source in Asia Minor in the seventh century B.C., but by sea through the Mediterranean. This would account for the relationship between the Gaelic and Welsh languages, while their complete separation after 600 B.C. would explain how these languages came to diverge. The Israelite captives in Media, on the other hand, had totally different contacts, and so their AngloSaxon descendants acquired a very different language."
I'm not a scholar of this subject at all, but a lot of it seems to be contradictory mumbo-jumbo, but I could be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time!).
For instance the last sentence above says the Jewish descendents of Media were Anglo-Saxons not Celts. So it's confusing.
After reading the whole articled though, I guess it could be argued that the Scots might indeed be a tribe of Jews, maybe a mixed breed that intermarried with Jews fleeing up into Europe after the fall of the temple (that Jesus predicted) in Jerusalem.
There's also a Spanish connection, seems some of these people spent some time in Spain before they went into Britain, or whatever the islands were called at the time, Alba or Albion perhaps.
There are some interesting maps in the article as well:
"It was by no means unusual for ancient and medieval people to construct elaborate genealogies and histories based on pure speculation and guesswork: they did not, after all have any of the 'scientific' techniques of historical study (like archaeology, linguistics and archaeo-genetics) available to them. The Declaration of Arbroath's connection of the Scots with the Scythians is probably based upon the coincidental similarity of the words 'Scoti' and 'Scythi' -- archaic aetiological myths are full of false etymologies like that.
For an extremely accessible but nevertheless scholarly account of the modern view of the origin of the modern Scottish people, I'd strongly recommend the early chapters of John Prebble's The Lion in the North. In essence Scottish people are likely to have Picts, Gaels, Anglo-Saxons, Norse/Vikings and French/Normans in their ancestry, but pretty unlikely to have Scythians or lost Israelite tribes."
This makes sense to me, but it's still likely that Jews fleeing the Holy Land intermarried with early Celts in the regions of southern Russia and eastern Europe in the first century.
Also, in reading about the Declaration of Arbroath it seems like it was more of a political statement to the Pope against King Edward I, protesting his annexing Scotland to England.
Holy smokes what a confusing mixture!! I guess at best to say that the South was settled by people of Celtic descent would be saying the South was settled by people of Scot, Irish and Welch ancestry. Now I have doubts about a Celtic connection at all but lean more to more more modern version of these people.
Thanks for your hard work, I see I have some reading to do.
In response to my observation that the Declaration of Arbroath was a political statement, rather than a true genealogical one, my correspondent replied:
"Certainly it was, and some claim that it influenced the drafting of the American Declaration of Independence.
There are dangers, however, in reading near-modern values back into history, and in considering the Arbroath Declaration to be a founding document of the Scottish nation in the same way. Nations didn't really exist in the same manner as modern nations do.
In effect Arbroath was an appeal by some Scottish magnates to the Pope to extricate them from feudal contracts which they had got into with the English king sometime before (he'd been invited by them to adjudicate in various dynastic wrangles, and their fealty to him was his fee for doing so [but I'm over-simplifying a bit]).
To do this, the Declaration has to persuade the Pope that the Scottish are an ancient and distinct people, hence the almost certainly bogus claims of their origin in Scythia (the reference to Spain is another false etymology, possibly based on the similarity of the names 'Galicia' and 'Gael').
But you have only to look at the names of some of the signatories to the Declaration e.g., Randolph (Saxon), Mowbray (Norman French), Umfraville (Norman French), St Clair (Norman French), Lindsay (Saxon), Ramsay (Norse), Cheyne (Norman French), Abernethy (Pictish), Malcolm (Gaelic), to realize what a mixture of folk and origins there were in Scotland, as much there as anywhere else.
Some other interesting facts: the Declaration boasts of a genocide ("the Picts they utterly destroyed"), but fortunately this is no more true than any of the other 'historical' facts it quotes; and one of the signatories, John Menteith, was reputed to be the betrayer of William Wallace to the English, some fifteen years before the Declaration."
Interestingly, my married name is Ramsey (English spelling, "ay" is the Scottish spelling). I was told by a Scottish Ramsay that the name is Norman French, but the poster I'm quoting calls it Norse.
As the Normans were originally Norsemen, hence their name, possibly the name Rams(ay)(ey) could have been based on a Norse name.
As to the Declaration, my conclusion from what I've read would be to take almost all statements made in the Middle Ages about a peoples' origins as in the main political statements, based on the needs of the hour and not on scientific research (which didn't even exist at the time).
I have never read the Declaration of Arbroth to any great extent; I will make an effort to at least read over it to some extent. I am really curious as to the influence it may have had on our own Declaration of Independence. I fully understand reading values of today into history that is done on a daily basis with the South and our ancestors.
I think you assessment is more than likely correct simply based on the names I have studied pulled from rosters of Confederate soldiers, they seem to be a mixture of those cultures you have mentioned above. I know my own family lines include Pit(t)man, Morris, Purvis, Oliver, and Campbell. Purvis is said to be Norse while Campbell is Scot, and Oliver is French. Pittman we have been able to trace back to the early 1500s in Wales.
Thank you for your time and effort working on this project. What should we jump into now, the war with King Charles and the migration to America, which is how my Pittman lines came here?
Thought I would just toss that up in the air. After Charles was defeated 3 of my 6 Pittman ancestors (brothers) were beheaded and 3 came to America, so I am told. I have not been able to verify that story at this time, but continue to look for resources that can verify this story.
I do have another project I would llike for you to take on, that is assuming we are given to permission to use the researchers info and you are willing to do the work. I would like you to make a nice article out of the information whuich has been gathered. We will give the researcher full credit for the research and you of cource will be the author of the article.
