Talk:Celts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Calendar

Someone might want to add a section on the Celtic calender. I belive it was based on animal grazing patterns (iirc most Celts had two major festivals a year, one for the beginning of the grazing of their domesesticated animals, and one for the end of grazing, I also believe that some Celts (mostly in Britain?) divided the calender into quarters (ie they had 4 festivals a year). I'm not sure if this is correct though, so could someone check my information and build on it? And then add it to the article?

Heads

Could someone quote sources on each of the "beliefs" regarding the uses of human heads. I have no doubt that the celts liked to cut off heads, but the "beliefs" listed about why they did it sound unfounded or made up. Cite something.

Ethnicity

Could someone explain further the bit about Celts being connected by culture and language, but not ethnicity? JHK

I do not think this make sense. The bit being referred to is "It is important to note from the outset that the term Celt denotes a cultural and linguistic identity and not one of ethnicity." According to Mirriam-Webster "ethnic" means "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". That certainly seems to apply to the celts so I am removing the sentence. --Eob

I think we were guilty of a little terminological inexactitude at worst here. What we were really arguing the toss about was interrelatedness and certainly if you use a broadly based definition such as Mirriam-Webster then you are playing in a different park. sjc

Someone has said that the Anglo-Saxons basically wiped the Celts out of England and has used the BBC News webpage from several years ago to support this. This is very annoying! Recent evidence shows that the Germanic influence was predominately a cultural one, not an ethnic one, and there were listed here pages to serve this, contradicting the BBC studies. Someone, probably a Celtic nationalist, has done this.

Of course the earlier Celtic influence was also predominantly a cultural one, not an ethnic one, so perhaps it was a British nationalist rather than a Celtic one. <grin> -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It still has not been successfully proven that the Celtic influence was only a cultural one rather than an ethnic one as well. I notice that people in this discussion seem to completely forget that the current genetic evidence, if it can be considered reliable and valid, only refers to the Y-chromosome and paternal heritage only. No evidence has been presented regarding the equally important X-chromosome and maternal line of heritage. Research of the maternal line could possibly alter controversial findings such as genes of the Irish and Welsh being virtually indistinguishable as well as those of the Frisians, southern Danes and Germans of Schleswig-Holstein. Epf 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor can it ever be proven, except in the negative sense that migrations ought to leave identifiable traces, and such traces may be, as appears to be the case now, lacking. Genetic research could fail to identify candidate migrations, but that would still not be proof of a diffusionist model. In any case, Weale and Capelli's efforts regarding the well-attested Germanic invasions of Britain and Ireland show the sort of problems involved in any such effort, not the least of which would be the debatable, and untestable, assumptions regarding initial conditions. Isotopic analysis of human remains might turn out to support a migrationist model, but it cannot prove the opposite. Angus McLellan 01:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, however I disagree that it can't EVER be proven or disproven considering these migrations aren't leaving simply "traces", they could be leaving large numbers of people which formed part of the basis for the British population. Again, to say "...such traces may be, as appears to be the case now, lacking" is unfair considering only Y-chromosome testing has been carried out and even this testing is limited to only the Y-chromosome passed down by fathers and grandfathers and doesn't reveal the x-chromosomes passed down by the father as well (not to mention those X-chromsomes passed down maternally). To put it simply, the current genetic testing can not and should not be used to support theories of cultural diffusion or mass migration/invasion of peoples. Until we can get the whole picture of where all or most of our genes come from and population genetics as a whole is made more reliable, we should rely on archaeological, anthropoligical and historical evidence only. Epf 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the ethnicity question is that the only thing we know for sure that the Celts all had in common was language, because that's how we define them. There was never a state or one leader that unified all the Celtic people (in fact Galatia, in what's now Anatolia, was the only settled Celtic state in ancient times). Nor can we even be absolutely sure that all the people we call Celts shared cultural or religious practices or the like. The evidence is poor. For this reason, to say that a particular tribe was Celtic means ONLY that it spoke a Celtic language. That's why it's right to say they were primarily a linguistic, not an ethnic group. garik 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some are now stating that Celts would have looked like Basques from Southern France and thus the recent UCL project on DNA in the UK would appear valid when it concludes that virtually all peoples in the UK have the Germanic Y Chromosome. This would thus demonstrate why people in the UK do not look like Basques. Can anyone comment?

Miner 20.55 24 Jan 07

I agree with Miner. Besides, we can NEVER find the true ethnicity of the Celts - only get very close to it through historical reasoning. And according to this reasoning, the Basques don't fit the physical descriptions applied by the Romans and Greeks; and therefore, based on genetics, makes it impossible for them to be related.--Belorix 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the word 'Celt', 'Celtic', et al...

The word Celt and its derivatives should in American English actually be pronounced Seltik (unless actually spelled with a K, in which case the hard K sound is correct). The 'K' spelling is considered to be a variant and wasn't countenanced until fairly recently. It being the more common method of pronunciation is even more recent (the 1960s, give or take). Prior to that, it was nearly always a soft C.

Sorry for being a pedant about this. -- 64.132.82.61 (Subjugator)

I can't speak for American English, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "should be" pronounced, but where I live (in Wales) the pronouncation is always "keltik". The "seltik" version is only ever used for sports teams. Are you trying to prescribe or describe? i.e. do you actually hear people talking in this way, or are you providing us with a rule for us to follow? --Nickco3 14:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly American about this. It's just one of those pronunciations used by English speakers who assume the C followed by E should always be pronounced as if it was S. There are plenty of English speakers doing this who have never been near America so I don't see why you think that this is purely an American English pronunciation. The reason that the K spelling is used more often nowadays is for the same reason that spellings like thru or lite are used -- in order that people with poor reading skills are not misled into mispronunciation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:51, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Well, the Greeks called them "Keltoi" and although the Romans spelled it with a C, their C was of course a K sound. I don't know how much more prior than that you can get; did the "selt" version not arise because that is how "ce" is usually pronounced in English? Adam Bishop 04:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word "celt" was borrowed into English twice, once from German, once from French. The earliest nineteenth century Celticists, that is those practicing the academic disciplines involved in studying Celtic languages, literatures, art, history, etc.--were German speakers. So the academic study has traditionally used the "K" version, rather than the "S" version, which is reserved for basketball in Boston, and football in Glasgow.

DigitalMedievalist 04:45, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lisa

-Hrm...now that I've looked further into it, I'm getting conflicting information on the etymology of this word. Charles Harrington Elster countenances the soft S sound, citing its source as being from the French Celte and Celtique and not the Latin or Greek (Celta, Celticus (Latin), and Keltoi (Greek). However, when I checked Dictionary.com, they report Greek (with a question mark) as being the correct source. Elster has some evidence to back up his position, and lists a large number of dictionaries and lexicographers that back him up with the pronunciation he has selected (many of which didn't even include the hard K sound for Celtic spelled with a C until the late in the twentieth century (v. The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations). -Subjugator

I don't see the point of appealing to the French pronunciation. Surely, it ultimately came from the Latin, and there many French words which begin with a soft C which have as their origin a Latin word with a hard one. --Saforrest 23:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

- I would say that appealing to the French pronunciation would come from the fact that it's the origin of the word for English usage. If we'd taken it from Latin, then the Latin would be correct, but the theft is from the French. Further, this isn't just an appeal to the French, but the fact that until very recently the only countenanced pronunciation is the soft 'C'. Elster has about a dozen examples of major dictionaries and/or lexicographers that did not accept the hard 'K' sound until very late in the 20th century.

This strikes me as a bit of a pointless argument. Scholarly academics studying ancient history, Celtic studies, Celtic languages, or linguistics are all going to use the "hard" c or "k" sound. It's convention at this point. We're not going to change it here. I'm thinking of doing at poll at the next Celtic conference in Europe and asking there; I've already done polls at the Harvard Celtic conference and the University of California conference; K is the for the people, the languages and the cultures. The soft c or "s" is for athletic teams.

DigitalMedievalist 01:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lisa

What do *linguists* say about the proper pronunciation? When questioning speech, I'm not sure that a scholar on the subject matter being discussed is necessarily a good source. Many marine biologists will tell you that the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopi', when it is in fact 'octopuses' that is correct. The newfound popularity of the pronunciation of a word in an incorrect way does not sanction its use. Similarly, the popularity of pronouncing 'eschew' as if it were anything other than something approximating 'S chew' does not make it correct usage...it isn't 'S shoe', 's-kew', or anything other than its correct usage, as above.

/rant  :)

Subbie

Dude, you don't need to be a linguist for this one. Really. But after four years of of grad level linguistics classes, I'll do in a pinch <g> Keep in mind that living languages change. Common practice shapes language, whether or not we want it to. I've checked fifteen dictionaries, just to write a wretched FAQ on the pronunciation of "Celt," including one each from Australia and Canada, but most especially the OED, Chamber's and the American Heritage Dictionary, beloved by English linguists world over. NONE of them present /s/ or /k/ as the single "correct" pronunciation. Take a look <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/C0193000.html">here</a> and you'll notice the trice blessed AHD doesn't make a decision between them. But the convention, based on current practice, is that the /k/ is used for the peoples, and the /s/ for the sports. Either way, /s/ or /k/ people will figure out what you mean.

DigitalMedievalist 15:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Lisa)

It is true that the /k/ pronunciation has become more common, except in the names of sports teams, and no arguments about which pronunciation is more "correct" will change that. However, I do want to point out that in terms of "correctness" there is no reason why Celt < Lat. Celta < Gk. Keltes should be any different from center < centrum < kentron, Cynic < Cynicus < Kunikos or any of the myriad other words of Classical origin that have come into English. Certainly no one argues that we should be pronouncing German (<Lat. Germanus) with a hard g, even if it was originally pronounced this way in Latin, and still is in German (germanisch = Germanic) --68.78.133.53 10:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Iustinus))

Agreed that "there is no reason", except that pronunciations are conventions, and if you study the Celts you'll find that the convention for pronouncing 'Celt' is the /k/ pronunciation, and if you study the Germans the convention for pronouncing 'German' isn't with a /g/ sound. Language is full of ill-motivated exceptions. — B.Bryant 11:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem with that. I just find it annoying when people try to claim the /k/ version is somehow more "accurate." Granted, no one's really saying that here, so I'm arguing with straw men, i guess. Just a pet peave. --68.78.42.144 09:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Celt or Keltoi do not represent Celt's name for themselves The Greek “Keltoi” is an ambiguous transliteration of what the Greeks heard the Celts call themselves. The confusion with the spelling and pronunciation reflects the unique quality of a sound in Celtic languages that is today variously represented by the letter G or C.

The modern Irish call their language and nation Gaeilge (Gaedhilge before the spelling reforms of the 1940s). The Gs in the word Gaeilge are lightly lenited, and the sound falls, to an English-speaker’s ear, somewhere between G and K. In Irish the G is voiced deeper in the throat than in English, bringing forth the projected breath of a K. Irish has 60-plus phonemes (English has about 40), and this is one of those unique sounds.

The Greeks heard the Celts call themselves “gal-“ something with the lenited G, and when they transliterated the sound, their choice fell to the Kappa side of the sound, not the Gamma. They chose “kel-“ and not ”gal-“. The Romans changed the Kappa to a C and we inherited the results. Today the Irish use the Roman alphabet G to indicate the sound in their own language.

Another example of the variant pronunciation is the Irish word for sword, Claideamh. This is cognate with the Latin Gladius = sword, from which we get the English words gladiator, “swordsman,” and gladiolus, a plant with a sword-shaped leaf. Claideamh has entered the English language as claymore, or large sword, from Claideamh Mor.

Again, the initial consonant is lenited. Where the Latin uses the hard G for Gladius, which has the same Indo-European source as the Celtic word, the Celt pronounces the word with a lenited G that cannot be accurately transliterated as a Roman G or a Roman C, or a Greek Gamma or Greek Kappa for that matter. It’s somewhere in between. In this instance, in Irish the same sound that is represented by a G in Gaeilge is spelled with a C in Claideamh. The Irish are stuck with this confusion within their own language just as we’re stuck with Celtic-with-a-K-sound in English. They (we) need a new letter!

From Asia Minor to the Atlantic, areas once inhabited by speakers of Celtic languages are called Galatia, Galacia, Gaul, and Galicia, from Turkey to Poland to Austria, France and Spain. Is this some massive coincidence? More likely, the “gal-“ sound in these names for peoples and places indicates “Celt”.

The Celts have always called themselves Gaul or Gael, names with a “gal-“ sound, something like a G followed by a vowel usually represented by an A, followed by an L. Celt and Gael is exactly the same word with the same meaning.

Regarding the origin of the Irish in Gaul or Spain: a native of the western Spanish region of Galicia is called a Gallego. There’s that “gal-“ sound, indicating the presence of the Celt. Modern Gallegos speak a Romance language more akin to Portuguese than Spanish, no trace of Celtic in the tongue. In Spanish the double-L is pronounced like a Y, so the word sounds like ga-yeh-go. But if you pronounce the double-L like an L, ga-leh-go, the name’s similarity to Gaeilge snaps into focus, that “gal-“ again. Irish myth says that the Gaels first viewed Ireland from a tower on the coast of Spain, and this is a clear linguistic pointer to that historic possibility. -- A student.

Actually, the Gallegos call themselves Galego in their language, ga-leh-go IPA: /ɡaˈleɡo/, which is considered basically the same language as Portuguese. Mencial 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't use "Gaeilge" to prove your "gal-" idea. The modern form gaeilge developed from an earlier goídelc, with the d gradually softening away to nothing. Similarly, gael developed from earlier goídel, and the similarity with galli, galatae, gallego etc is a coincidence. Caesar makes clear that a large group of Gauls called themselves Celtae, but were called Galli by the Romans, so it could be you've got it backwards.--Nicknack009 20:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plus the Gaels - the name by which Irish people were know and the root term for the name of our language - was merely a generic cover-all term applied to the people from Ireland by the Welsh (or British as they were then ... and now!). The original form was Gwyddel meaning raiders. Just like Viking was a cover-all term for the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes which described their activities (piracy/raiding). This is reflective of the fact that there were many nations living on the island of Ireland, and that they did not appear to have a collective name for themselves up to this point. Fergananim 20:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to read this whole argument, because I don't plan on getting involved. However, I'm a Celt, a Gael, and I pronounce "Celt" as "Kelt." That goes for "keltic" as well. In Gaelic, we don't use soft Cs. The Greeks used a K to refer to us, the romans pronounced it as they did, and we still use the hard c sound today. I'm a Celt, not a little leprechaun from Boston. Canaen 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm a linguist of a sort and I'm also Welsh, and I pronounce it 'kelt'! There really is no use appealing to etymology or origins though. We pronounce Cicero 'Sisero', even though he called himself 'Kikero'. That doesn't mean we're wrong - if you think that, you'll end up having to say 'Yulius Kaisser' for Julius Caesar and that way madness lies... This sort of thing is PURELY a matter of convention. As most people say 'kelt' now, that's probably recommended. But a few people still say 'selt', so you'll be in small, though not bad, company. garik 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If this means anything the Welsh C is always hard (Cymru, Cymraeg, etc.). And Welsh is a Celtic language. Plus soccer and sceptic both have hard c's when they "should" be soft.Cameron Nedland 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and keep those inverted commas tightly round that 'should'. Language is very rarely a matter of what we should say (who defines that?) and almost always a matter of what we say. If you ever hear someone telling you that lots of native English speakers don't speak English properly, roll up a newspaper and bat them round the head till they stop talking rubbish. If they add that some feature of language is wrong because 'it's not logical', bat harder. 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL!Cameron Nedland 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, if something in English is logical, it's wrong (according to generally accepted usage). -WikiMarshall 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just wanted to point out that it is generally not pronounced "Seltic" in American English. The only time you hear this pronunciation concerns the basketball team. For anecdotal evidence that "Keltic" is the proper US pronunciation I would point out that, aside from the fact that nearly everyone here in the US says "Keltic", I was watching a report on Fox News about Irish music and the female anchor pronounced Celtic as "Seltic." The producers must have corrected her in her earpiece, because immediately after the clip of the band performing she started saying "Keltic." And I certainly don't know any Irish-Americans who pronounce it "Seltic." Just an FYI. Childe Roland of Gilead 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection to intro clarification

User:India objects to the following paragraph for some reason and has unilaterally decided to remove it. I have no great objection to this and will happily acquiesce if a reasonable case for its removal can be made.

They also share many of the same traits in their cultures and languages as the original Celts. (They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.

However I do not like like the deletion of material from an article without explanation and will continue to replace it on behalf of the original contributor until an explanation for its removal is forthcoming. A mere parroting of "Cite your sources" is not enough since most of the article is uncited and thus by that criterion subject to deletion. I'd like to know why these two sentences are particularly objectionable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

1) My initial point related to the statement "(They are said to have descended from tribes or nations from mainland Celtic regions, such as Gaul and Belgium, and are known to have moved into Great Britain and Ireland, such as the Atrebates, Menapii, and Parisii.)". The phrase "They are said" needs a source. Who said it?

2) This is well known amongst historians and indeed is referred to in the same article more than once. Amongst others Simon James book "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People Or Modern Invention?" makes the point that the Romans never used the term 'Celtic' in reference to the peoples of the Atlantic archipelago, the term was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18th century. In particular, there is no record of the term "Celt" being used in connection with the inhabitants of Ireland and Britain prior to the 18th century. Many people are under the same misapprehension that you have reflected in your reply. It is worth making the point in the header.

India 15:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Copied relevant discussion from my talk page) -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Point (1) is reasonable and I am sure that a source could be found without too much trouble. Point (2) ? The fact that the Romans did not refer to the offshore Europeans as Celts is not particularly troubling to me for various reasons which I can expand upon if necessary. And there is a plausible linguistic reason why the word Celt might not have been much used in English before the 18th century: a lot of Latin terms were introduced into English or became more common at that time for scientific use. For instance the word "oxygen" was not used before the 18th century but this should not be taken as evidence that the element oxygen did not exist prior to that time. By analogy the mere fact that no one used the word Celt to refer to Britons/Irishmen before the 18th century cannot be taken as evidence that that usage is invalid. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

<Sigh>. It is rather hurtful to be accused of vandalism over what was merely a difference of opinion over what should be included in the article; one that I willingly discussed and, I hope, successfully resolved. Vandals are out to intentionally destroy articles such as this and I have never done such a thing to any Wikipedia article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

IMO we should remove the whole "contested term" section. The concept of 'Celt' is valid both linguistically and anthropologically; I'm not sure one author's stance on modern social politics is germane enough to include in a dictionary article. We certainly can't include everyone's opinion. — B.Bryant 23:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly in light of the earlier discussion, I am inclined to agree with you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the archaeological case is quite overwhelming. See my edits to Contested Term which I would be pleased to expand on. adamsan 19:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The argument you summarize there depends on (a) absence of evidence being evidence of absence, (b) celticity being primarily a matter of gentics, and (c) minorities always remaining minorities. And the linguistic argument is merely baffling. Surely Cunliffe knows that "the Neolithic" lasted a long time and doesn't refer to the same time everywhere, and that the Celtic languages must of necessity have reached their traditional homeland after "Indo-European language reached Europe", even if that was in the Neolithic. Does he actually put a number on how long ago he thinks Celtic languages have been spoken in the isles? Does he actually take issue with e.g. Mallory's chart that presents OIr spliting off from the continental languages just over 2000 years ago, and Welsh & Cornish splitting less than 1500 years ago? Or with Mallory's claim that "General archaeological and linguistic opinion assigns the intrusions which carried the Celtic languages into Britain and Ireland to sometime during the first millenium BC, although some scholars still hold to an earilier date."? I haven't read Cunliffe, but the claims as stated in the current version of the article are just too vague and too full of unspoken assumptions to be taken seriously as an argument. — B.Bryant 21:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can only provide an archaeologist's arguments, based more on the material record than linguistic or genetic data but I can further summarise Iron Age Britain's passages. I am certain that when Cunliffe says the neolithic he knows exactly what he's talking about and the Atlantic neolithic does refer to a pretty tight time frame compared with the wider Eurasian neolithic. His point is that the languages emerged very early on and this talk of traditional homelands and folk movements is meaningless. He doesn't mention any charts but considers the differences between Brythonic and Gaelic to have split due to the relative isolation of north Britain compared to the more continentally-influenced south. He says modern linguists now accept the archaeological data and are re-assessing their long-held beliefs in this field. I don't know, I'm not a linguist - how long ago did Mallory publish his theories? Clearly the two disagree.

I added those passages to the Contested Term section as I feared it was in danger of being deleted altogether, please add your own arguments and I will go and find some more archaeological bits and pieces. adamsan 18:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you wish. The information which you have just added is worthwhile, informative stuff and, unlike the earlier edit to the section, I have no problem wih it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The following linguistic facts are totally beyond doubt - Firstly, that the Goidelic languages (Ireland, Scotland and Man) are closely related to the Brythonic Languages (Wales, Britanny and Cornwall), which are in turn related slightly more distantly to the Continental Celtic languages, and even more distantly to the Italic languages. For an example of how closely they're related, compare Gaulish 'ater' and Irish 'athair' - 'father', also, Gaulish 'maponos', Welsh 'mab' - 'son'. BovineBeast

True, although the relationship with the Italic languages, beyond the fact that both groups belong to the Indo-European family, is certainly not totally beyond doubt. The evidence is annoyingly slight and many don't accept the subgrouping. garik 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Volcae

The article says that Volcae means "Falcon" in Gaulish: what was the reference used for this statement? Alexander 007 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

there isn't one -- just remove it. The name is either cognate to English folk, or to the wolf-word. dab (ᛏ) 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt so... cognate status with folk would mean much closer linguistic closeness to Germanic languages than actually exists : corresponding terms in Irish come from totally different roots. The "falco" hypothesis is no better or worse than any other. --Svartalf 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that said word is from Latin. Vulcan always refers to Falcons, or at least raptors (predetory birds), when used in English. Considering most all we know of the Gauls comes from Latin writings, this looks like a simple mix-up. From what little bits of Latin I know, "Volcae" sounds an awful lot like a group of people (perhaps Gauls) who named themselves after Falcons, or whose society was focussed around the bird. Guess work, but this isn't going into the article. Canaen 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

More likely it is a Romanisation of a Gaulish word. Possibly from the same root as "Belgae". Gabhala 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Galatia

I just realized that Galatia (in Anatolia) only became Celtic in the 3rd century BC, so arguable the image caption is wrong. It's "the greatest extent" of Celtic territory, but diachronic, it doesn't show the Celtic lands at any given point in time. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not so much that Galatia may have become definably 'Celtic' in the 3rd century BCE, but rather the records of Celts in Europe according to written sources (Greek sources, mostly, as you know) starts with ... I think the 4th century BCE was the earliest, and it ref'ed a 6th century BCE source. So, just because the Graecian peoples finally took note of them does not mean that Galatia did not have Celtic peoples before that time. P.MacUidhir 14:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hair

where are Celts "known" to have worn dreadlocks? this interpretation seems to be fairly new and not well-supported. this should be changed to more neutral language. Whateley23 03:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

after re-reading "Early Irish Attitudes Toward Hair and Beards, Baldness and Tonsure" (William Sayers, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie vol. 44, pp 154-189) and considering such images as the statue of "The Dying Gaul", i'd have to say that i just don't think that the "dreadlock" idea is supportable by any available evidence. the closest that comes to the idea is that some commentators observed that Gauls would wash their hair with lime, bleaching and stiffening it. that hardly constitutes dreadlocks. Whateley23 22:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not know of ancient records of Celts having dreadlocks, no. They might have had something similiar in appearance (like what you mention here), but having hundreds of small braids in their hair... no, I have not come across such a reference for the Celts. Since I do not understand ancient Greek, though, I cannot be absolutely certain that the references do not exist somewhere.

I did not see any dreadlocks in Ireland either last time I was there, now that I think about it. ;) Kind of a shame, too- spotting a few lime-bleached half-naked Celts in the streets of Luim Neach would have made the trip even more entertaining. P.MacUidhir 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you were just in the wrong neighborhood. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did they smoke marijuana too?

I don't think weed grows that far north. Are the Celts the ones that had a very high percentage of red hair?Cameron Nedland 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Red hair and pale white skin is usally a good indication of Celtic hertiage. Although it is fair to say that it was not a majority of Celts who had red-coloured hair, it is just higher than in other peoples. North Scotland is a good example of this.--Rhydd Meddwl 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) So light-skinned and red-haired people are definitely Celtic, but Celts are not definitely light-skinned and red-haired. ¿Right?AnonymousII 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Red-hairedness is definitely associated with Britain and Ireland where the percentages are the highest in the world. However I haven't seen any evidence that other (and arguably more) Celtic areas of Europe and Asia Minor have a particularly high proportion of natural red-heads. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NO. Generally speaking, the Celts were a more dark-haired, light-skinned people in antiquity. I don't have a citation at the moment, but the prevalence of red hair was (IIRC) probably introduced through germanic heritage. Also, there is no evidence for Celts ever wearing dreadlocks.

Celts were dark skinned and datk haired like Basques in Southern France. The light skin and Red hair is of Viking or Germanic (Saxon) influence.

So light-skinned and red-haired people are definitely Celtic, but Celts are not definitely 
light-skinned and red-haired.

Bear in mind that this is a bit like saying 'So swarthy dark-haired people are definitely Spanish, but Spanish people are not definitely swarthy and dark haired.' garik 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement "the Celts were dark haired and dark skinned" is pure Anglo Saxon nationalism. Or at least it stemmed from such. The Celts were described by the Romans (Who would know, as they both coined the term and fought the Celts) as being a primarily blond race. Red hair has, however been historically assosiated with Celts. Queen Boudicca had red hair, as did Vercingetorix and the supposed king Arthur.--Belorix 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If this bugs people I'm sorry

It's hard to read an article when somone has a thousand links going through. It's a good one though. The Scurvy Eye 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree but don't think this applies either to the article on 3 November 2005 or now. There are ample, but not excessive, links, I feel. Which ones would you favor removing? Interlingua ^talk 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Population Genetics

I added this section on 29 November 2005.

It seemed to be lacking in the piece about "Celt or not". Sorry for not logging in, as I am new to Wikipedia, but rather than remain anon. My name is Richard. Here is the section for the discussion board;

Population Genetics With the information gathered recently by population genetics, it is becoming more clear that old ideas of largescale replacements by newer invaders is often a misleading concept. Take for example, studies of populations within Britain, which show that most of the inhabitants of Counties like Dorset or Cumbria are not Anglo Saxon nor Viking in origin, but display the original genetic traits of early inhabitants of Britian. But these people are acknowledged as being English. Mostly because they speak English, use English Law and generally behave as English people, despite their genes saying otherwise. The Celtic etnicity debate took off at a particularly early stage in population genetic studies. In his book "Neanderthal", the Archiologist Douglas Palmer (ISBA 0-7522-7214-4) refers to European-wide genetic research and states that the original modern genetic group in Europe arrived from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago with the spread of farming, displacing the earlier hunter gatherer populations. Such displacement occuring by population explosion, as farming is capable of supporting up to 60 times greater population than hunting-gathering for the same land area;

"None of Europe's subsequent historic upheavals - even catastrophic wars and famines - has seriously dented the old pattern set by the influx of farmers. The Goths, Huns and Romans have come and gone without any significant impact on the ancient gene map of Europe".

It seems futile to suggest that people who were once part of a wider Celtic cultural group, cannot be considered Celtic, in the same way that their direct decendants in places like Devon or Cumbrian can not be considered English in modern times. Perhaps our percepion of race and culture need to change, as it seems, from European population genetic history, the latter is not set by the former.

You have very good examples. I wouldn't put all my money on haplogroup testing, but the idea of an "Indo European migration" needs to change. Truth is , Indo Europeans were in Europe from the start.--Belorix 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans are people who speak Indo-European languages. That's all. IE spread from an urheimat at some point, though the location and timing is disputed. But it is meaningless to say they were in Europe "from the start". When was the the start? Paul B 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section Population Genetics

I have reinstated the sub-section on population genetics, which forms part of the section "Development of the term "Celt".

Someone deleted it without explaination. However, as this site is a "wiki" it is open for everyone to contribute. Deletion without explaination represents more of a "Crontrolling point of view" than a NPOV.

If anyone wants to discuss the contents or editing this sub section, I will happily discuss. It was posted for good reason. Pseudo-celtic soclars love to talk about Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc with passion, they probably miss the point of Simon James's perspective. Can anyone complete more details concerning Celts in what is now modern Turkey or Romania... I can already hear psudo experts running for cover, despite the fact that these territories have been open for study for many years. The fact that we have learned more about Neanderthals in the last 50 years, than Celts, is probably more to do with the "closed mindedness, axe grinding, psudo-accedimic scolars" rather than ability to explore such places, or lack of archileogical finds in those countries. Listen to the Simon James a bit, he does have a very valid point and one not only applicable to Celts. He is equally applicable to concepts such as Englishness. A point which the English themselves dont shy away from.

But, since reading Simon James, I am never sure what box to thick on one of those Ethnic Monitoring forms, as they never have one for Proto-European, European Farming Culture or for that matter simply Homo Sapien!... He definitely has lifted us out of our box.

I for my part, should stick to watching Channel 4's "The Time team", now theres a group of "English - Ancient British" Archiologists, who have created several series of archiology programmes for television, and managed on every appropriate occasion, to avoid the use of the term Celt.... for a while, I was of the opinion that the Irish only posessed "the Blarney". I wonder what they think the Welsh consider themselves to be, "Foreigners"... and that coming from one Archiologist from Dorset, whose genetic makeup is most likely ...you guessed it.... Early English Bronze Age!

Perhaps my bit should be left in concerning Population Genetics, afterall. As its far simpler to read and less confusing to most people than the detailed analysis and counter academic arguement, coupled with a bit of mud-slinging, which is posted in the main article. Richard

Your population genetics section seems like pretty uncontroversial, sensible stuff to me. I'm not sure why anyone would want to remove it. Perhaps they were annoyed that you seemed to be equating "Celt" with "British Celt" and thereby implicitly ignoring Celts in mainland Europe. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Richard- "Deletion without explaination represents more of a "Crontrolling (sic) point of view" than a NPOV." Well, posting without an account represents a non-committed point of view to other Wikpedians. I did not delete the section in question, but I would, in principle, be more inclined to do so if the contributor had no account at Wikipedia. Without some sort of information about an editor's possible biases, perspective, or education, it is very difficult to judge their contributions in the context of how an article is being edited. For example, if someone were editing an article dealing with Nazism, and that someone happened to be a neo-Nazi according to personal and stated beliefs, I would be inclined to actually verify the person's contribution due to the increased likelihood of a very personal bias infecting the edited portion of text. If, however, an atheistic sports goods store manager who happens to support the Green party were to make the same edit, I would not care as much.

In sum- taking two minutes to make an account here and then putting up a bit of a user page with an accompanying talk page will make other Wikipedians much more inclined to come to you and want to discuss your editing here. Just friendly advice. I learnt this the hard way by stubbornly editing as an anonymous contributor for around a year and having about a fourth of my work reverted because (as I later discovered), people wanted to discuss the edits and did not want to clutter up article talk pages. I would rather like having someone else around who is, like myself, interested in both the Celts as well as population genetics, so you can also consider this to be a personal request. :) --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok Ok Pádraic, I'll come clean, I'll write a little CV about myself.

I like that idea. It is good to know a bit about whom one is dealing with, at Wikipedia or otherwise. My own user page is not a particularly good model, though - it needs to be pared down and separated into pagelets rather than loading as a whole, for example. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So I took a look at yours to get a couple of ideas... wow, apart from "not" actually working in a library like your good self, I am astonished how similar we actually are.

::raised eyebrows:: You might be surprised. Judging such matters based on summarisations like those found on Wikipedia user pages is difficult at best. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So I suppose that makes us jacks of all trades and masters of none.

Not quite. I think more highly than that of my education and acquired skills. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I like you was born in Ireland (I make the assumption based on your name only),

'Fraid not. Born in Illinois to an immigrant family. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

probably puts me in the "Neo-Nazi" group rather than the "atheistic sports goods store manager" (now that one suggests America, you are now confusing my assumptions :-)),when it comes to Celtic issues,

I get what you mean, yes- you and I are more likely to be inherently biased in dealing with topics deriving from Celtic studies. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

that was at least until I read Simon James...and after several years hating the guy for his "ideas"... I began to realise with the help of further population genetic research, that he is actually right. Actually, we in Europe are all pretty much the same group. He is probably the most "un-racist" archiologist ironocally,

A few points regarding Simon James and works like "Exploring the World of the Ancient Celts":

• 'Diffusionism' in anthropology is not a dominant school of thought. Colin Renfrew, for example, has some enlightening ideas concerning Diffusionism.

• "Exploring the World of the Ancient Celts" is a text that one gives to people who are at the very beginning of their studies in understanding 'Celtic' as a term applied to groups of people. It is a coffee-table book rather than a scholarly work. Another problem is that it tends to reflect ancient Roman and Greek sources a bit too heavily. This problem pervades the text in question, to a point where one begins to wonder whether Celtic peoples ever invented anything or had a single original idea. Yet another problem with his text is that he nearly ignores many distinct Insular cultures in order to lavish his attention on the ones that are most popular these days. This is pop-science seemingly intended to sell books rather than accurately inform readers. I do not go so far as to say he set out to deceive people, but at the same time... a narrative history of the Celtic peoples that spans 192 pages is going to be only marginally useful, if at all.

• In sum, James was more or less accurate with that text, but it suffers badly from his own POV as well as other problems, and is not really worth bothering with unless someone is a complete novice in Celtic studies... but in that case, there are far better introductory works. Some of B. Cunliffe's texts readily come to mind, or even Jean Markale if one wants a feminist bias to one's studies. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

but I dont agree with his and the British Museum's assertion that Celts didnt have any writing, then you visit the British Museum and low and behold, just inside the main entrance, infront of the shop and to your right, you will see a stone with Ogham on it. The little explainatory plaque under it says that the Celts didnt have any writing and then proceeds to tell you what the Ogham says...is it just me, or can anyone see the irony.

Agreed. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The only downside ofcourse for Mr James, is that his point is equally applicable to himself. But at least the English are honest enough to debate what is Englishness quite openly, and I am even coming to the conclusion lately, that they have just as much right to call themselves British too, infact we Irish have just as much right to call ourselves British also, so there goes 30 years of Northern Irish voilence down the drain for nothing, if only we had known. Whereas we Celts huddle around our "Greek name" because we dont know what else to call ourselves collectively...and have all become experts on Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany, but know little or nothing at all about our ..er...continental cousins east of that little salt mine just outside Salzburg...but hay, it makes such a nice industry for T-shirt manufacturers.

The older tendency of British (usually English, or trained in English universities) archaeologists, historigraphers, and ethnographers to slant their writings toward 'we are all Britons!' rather than deal separately with distinct component culture groups that have inhabited and continue to inhabit Britain, Ireland, and Mann is well-known. It does not seem to be as popular these days as it used to be. This is my own POV talking. I may only be seeing what I want to see in this respect. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So I promise, I will write a profile, just after I get you that suff on Ogham in Spain, which I have been hunting down for you, got some interesting stuff too, I am sure you will enjoy....Bye the way, the interviews went well! Talk very very soon Richard

Excellent. I look forward to it. We might want to consider moving this material here to a talk page (yours or mine), as much of it really does not pertain to Celt as an encyclopaedia article, and we are probably annoying other people who read this space. I went ahead and copied this conversation's text from here to my own talk page as a precaution against possible complaints from other people. It might be prudent to focus more here on the actual article and continue our personal conversation elsewhere. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pádraic, maith an Fír... I look forward to it. I will pop over to your talk page over the weekend.

And you are absolutely correct...

MY APOLOGIES TO THE OTHER USERS.. I am new here on this Wiki... so, just getting my bearings. Now I know where to go, I wont bother you all again in this discussion page.

Richard

Population genetics - additional discussions

Confused Englishman. I read a snippet in a newspaper recently, probably the Guardian, I cant remember. It made this point that "subsequent catastrophes and population movements have not signuficantly altered Europes genetic geography" but I read this as meaning that the Irish/Welsh/Scots are not genetically Celtic any more than people from the south-east of England. That the stereotypical red-head was already living in Ireland, etc, before the coming of a relatively few Celts bringing their culture.

In short, are we all Celts, or none of us (genetically)? Jameswilson | Talk

You are absolutely correct! We Irish and other Celtophiles have been suffering the delusion that we are genetically" celtic for years....well that was until genetic research demonstrated otherwise. My point in the article (please feel free to edit) was making the point that invasion (if it existed at all), desease, famine (which there is lots of evidence of in Ireland), etc etc, have not upset the balance of genetics in the western islands off Eurasia. But, just like other early cultures like the Aboriginals in Australia, the San peole of South Africa ( I am not suggesting that the Irish genetic group goes back anything like as long as those groups), there is no collective name for the peoples- tribes- but a modern (mid 1800's)invented name is Celtic, for the Scotts, Irish and Welsh etc.... my point is that, without any other proposed "collective" name, we have chosen to adopt the Celtic name. Its not perfect I agree, (being genetically one of those people myself), but its all we got... and there is more than a bit of politics associated with its usage..especially among the book selling ex-patririot t-shirt selling world... but "WE" "ARE" using it, as no one else is claiming it at the moment.... Just like the English are a rare group in Europe, for their honesty, (or educated) enough to challange the concept of Englishness...i.e. debate the concept of Englishness (I use English as an example...its a good example of questioning history, it has nothing to do with the proximity of England to Ireland, its just an example of honest questioning of identity rare in Europe)... I also suggest that us "Celts" should also debate what celtic actually is... genetically for sure the fact that the west Irish have the oldest gene pool in Europe (98% population at 9,000 years before present).. we certainly pre-date the Celts and therefore are not genetically Celts, just using the ttle as something to collectively hang our race name on. Finally, as an Irishman, I want to know a simple thing, does any contributer to this website or any academic know what Celtic actually means.... do they know anything about Celts east of Salzburg... do they know anything about Celtic culture in Turkey for example.... to define everything to the islands off the west coast of Eurasia, I am beginning to suspect is (a) very misleading, (b) failing to engage in the study of the Celts properly, and (c) promoting a t-shirt selling vision of false history...which is such a shame, smple as it promotes untruth 80.58.50.42Richard

Good point well made Jameswilson. Best regards --Richard

There are no 'Celtic' genes. Nor are there British genes, German genes, or genes for any other arbitrary designation of a group of people based on linguistic similiarities in their community dialects. Celtic defines a related group of languages, first and foremost. An article here at Wikipedia on that topic can be found at 'Celtic languages'. Anything else that is labeled as 'Celtic' is subject to debate (cultural traits, history, distinctive art, political dominance in certain locales throughout history, et cetera). What you were probably reading is a media interpretation of studies dealing with Y chromosome and mtDNA data that are being used as evidence in the fields of historiography, anthropology, and the sub-field of anthropology that is termed ethnography. I encourage you to explore these embedded links to better understand what I am saying here.

Some specific haplogroups are common in Éireann, Vannin, and Britain. HG 1 and HG 2 are examples of such. These are not necessarily 'Celtic' gene groups. Ethnographers are still learning how to use genetic data (haplogroups are one part of that) to provide corroborative evidence as well as new ideas in their area of the study of humankind. As mentioned, historians and anthropologists are also beginning to use the same data in their respective academic fields. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Jameswilson 23:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Statements in the article such as Recent DNA studies have confirmed that the population of England maintains a predominately ancient British element, equal in most parts to Cornwall and Wales imply a level of certainty which in my opinion is not justified. There have been several studies with somewhat conflicting results - I would say that the jury is still out on this. Rhion 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but then, articles here tend to be works in progress more often than not. I see that you are doing some editing of this material, so I will wait a while before commenting further. Thank you for taking an interest in this article, too. We can use as many good editors as we can get.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole article should omit the western islands of Eurasia except for its lingustic value and actually focus on who these mysterious Celtic people actually were. It is very clear that the Irish, Scotts (western) and Welsh and Brittany people are a cultural hangover from the real tall blond blue eyed Celts, who no

Where did you get the idea about tall bond blue eyed Celts? There is a serious lack of information about the physical appearance of "Celts", but Roman authors described, by contrast, some of the ancient inhabitants of Britain as dark people. -

The Germanic people (in Northern and Central Germany), however, are described as tall, blond, blue-eyed. Nothing like this has ever been said about the Celts (or do I miss something?), so it looks like the Germanic people were "special" and needed to be characterized by Caesar, something that was not done when it came to the Celts; my conclusion would be that their physical appearance was not that spectacular, but this is only a wild guess. So genetically they most likely were different from the Germanic tribes, and this is even more clear linguistically: Celtic languages are NOT germanic languages, but another group within the indo-european languages. -MV.

longer exist as a group of people. I would love someone who actually knew what they were talking about, a real Archiologist for example, to inform us of what Celtic people are.... Irish, Isle of Mann, Sctts, Welsh and the more modern invasion of the Eurasian continent..the Bretons... are not Celtic.... but they do speak Celtic languages and hve the traditions etc... just like Akkadians continued a little bit of Sumerian culture. It seems that ancient cultures regularly didnt have enormous countrywide or continentwide discriptions of themselves.its a modern concept, related to the need for a larger collective name, possibly related to the ability to communicate over larger distances, envoking a need for a wider cultural identity. I believe that current science doesnt allow us to persue such wide colective names...but the book selling and t-shirt selling modern world does....simply as a need to sell something.

For example, I offer this, my name is Risteárd O'eHadáin.... my family has always been from the same place in Ireland..as far back as I can go... its an old clan (a pretty poor one at that)... but I recently had a genetic test... guess what, despite, never being able to trace any of my reletives to continental America... I was 10 percent Native American... a fact which supports Padraig's point.. but a University doing a genetic study of Europeans, found that genetically my ancestry went back 9,000 years in Ireland.... now there may be a point to both findings, but for the moment, I want my money back from the people who found my 10 pc Native American, unless they are really suggesting that my 10 pc was actually the south of France culture who emegrated across the ice shelf during the previous ice age (30,000) ago...which according to the Innuit, was perfectly feasable... so I again must ask, what the bloody hell am I, Celtic,...because I speak English...Germanic?.. Because I speak Irish...Celtic??...Because I speak Spanish..Latinic?? or just European.... well there sinks the ship of the idea of Celtic.... what is a culture, what is a race, what is an etnicity....Now I have spent my life loving the fact that I am one of those rare Celts... I now find myself asking what is Celt, Fír Blog..Tuadh..etc etc...but what I do find most interesting is that...there is simply no name which cnveniently fits modern discriptions.... so why not use Celtic...in the same sense that an English speaker is speaking a Germanic language without actually being German!

Unless any academic has a better colective name for us!!!! --Richard

How about just using "Irish" to describe yourself since culturally your a Gaelic Celt whose ancestors and genetics originate from Ireland...Epf 07:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-The ancient Celts were a large group of peoples covering most of Europe and parts of the near east but it is widely accepted that they weren't uniform in terms of ethnicity and culture. Just as modern Irish and Welsh have different cultures, the various ancient continental Celtic groups had differences between each other and much more so than those of the surviving Celtic cultural groups. The ancient Celts were by no means a single cultural or ethnic entity, but a milieu of different peoples which shared a degree of similar (mainly cultural) traits. The same can be said of modern ethnic groups which belong to a larger linguistic/cultural grouping (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic). For example, modern English people clearly still retain much Celtic and pre-Celtic influence in a physical/racial sense but are almost entirely Germanic (Anglo-Saxon, Viking/Norman) culturally. As an ethnic group they have several differences from the continental Germanic peoples, but do retain a degree of cultural and linguistic similarity which allows them to be classified as Germanic. - Epf 00:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes genetics... The science abused the most, remember the racial theory. A thourough test would acctualy prove that each and everyone of us (by "us" I am refering to the mankind as a whole) is 'bout 9% tomato(?!!)I am Serb, of Celtic origin (Scordiscian), with not so small part of Greek blood, but I always state that I'm Celtic. Why? It's the question of pride, don't get me wrong, I'm no racist, but I am proud of my origins, of who I am. V

If you doubt we're part tomato, check out Gena Lee Nolin. What a great pair of tomatoes. ;) Trekphiler 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, that was too EZ, wasn't it?)

I have one problem with genetic study... most of it is done from mitochondrial DNA ... meaning that if conquerors or migrants intermarried with local women, future descent will show the markers of native females, and nothing can be proved either way. --Svartalf 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The studies done in Britain were only done on Y-chromosomes as far as I know and MtDNA is insignificant in maternal genetic lineage compared to X-chroms. which are the largest portion of our DNA (coming from both the father and mothers side) and no studies have been carried out on this.

Trivial Celtics

Saw a TV doc that mentioned this stuff, maybe somebody can verify & include? Celts lived in houses (as v huts), had wood-plank "sidewalks", reached as far as Turkey, buried people with wagons & utensils, & used iron weaps & horses (but N horseshoes, for they had N roads). Trivialpursuer 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup the standard books on the history of the Celts will verify all that and more. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gallic Britain?

I've seen references to "Gallic" and "non Gallic" parts of Britain in the main article. particularly in the religious patterns section. Could somebody explain that to me? I mean, most of Britain is Brythonic, with the exception of those parts of Scotland that can be called Gaelic. On the other hand, I don't know of Gallic population movements to Britain, or major influence from Gaul to the island, to the contrary, it's Briton populations that migrated to the mainland about the time the Scots and Saxons invaded, and are the reason why Brittany wears that name, and used to be called "little Britain" in the middle ages, and why modern Breton language is so close to Welsh. So what's the story? --Svartalf 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed "non-Gallic Britain" as regards the word "Lleu" for Lugh etc to "Wales", since I know of no reference to the use of the word "Lleu" outside Wales. I wonder whether this was intended to read something like "non-Gaelic Britain", since the Irish form is given just previously? Rhion 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

p's and q's

I think that someone should add a section on the p- and q- Brythonic. Maybe some re-organization, too, so that language gets it's own section. GEM 216.130.64.102 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's in the Celtic language article, where it belongs --Svartalf 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Galicia

The inclusion of Galicia is contentious. Galicia does not retain a Celtic language. It was dominated by non-Celtic peoples at the time that Germanic peoples began to enter Britain. When compared with England which retains Celtic dialect in many areas and an identifiable Celtic culture, it is unfair, or perhaps more correctly, misleading to include Galicia and exclude England. I am removing the comment about Galicia until others feel that they can justify why it's here.Enzedbrit 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been an amendment that Galicia is a Celtic country because of Celtic place names and Celtic personal names (the latter is irrelevant). The article then goes on to say that England is in the same position, having many Celtic place names, but is NOT a Celtic nation. There are six Celtic nations that that is accepted because of one fact alone - the existence of a Celtic language. Galicia doesn't speak a Celtic language and hasn't done for over a millennium. I'll come back and edit this part of the article later if nobody else has anything to add. Enzedbrit 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the point isn't what we believe to be a sensible definition but what others have published as being the 'Celtic nations'. I have edited it to 7 nations and given 2 citations ... I could find no links to cite for 6 nations. Abtract 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a fair and reasonable distinction is made in the Modern uses section between areas that are Celtic by virtue of existing (if revived) Celtic languages and those that are Celtic by virtue of other traditions. I've edited the article so that it no longer appears that language is the only reason to consider a region/nation Celtic. I'm confused by Abtract's failure to find citations. The Celtic nations article points out that the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress recognise 6 modern Celtic nations. garik 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

"Celtic Religious Patterns" at least needs serious cleanup, wikification and referencing. "Druids are any members of a Celtic society who had what we would view today as a college education [...] organizing the calendar; a daunting task as the Celtic calendar is incredibly accurate, but required manual correction about every 40 years, meaning lengthy mathematic discourse." no commentary necessary, I hope. dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

There are a number of claims in the article that strike me as needing support from sources. Especially the remarks regarding: Simon James, Romanisation, Religion. Angus McLellan 17:54, 10 March 2000

Bits on the Germanic invasion of Britain

This topic is currently dealt with under two seperate headings - Celts in Ireland and Britain' and 'Celts pushed west by Germanic migration' - leading to a considerable amount of repetition and potential inconsistency. Should the last paragraph of 'Celts in Ireland and Britain' (dealing with the Anglo-Saxon invasions) be moved to 'Celts pushed west by Germanic migration', or should the parts of the latter section dealing with the end of Celtic culture in Britain/Ireland be moved into the paragraph on Celts in Ireland and Britain? I'm not sure which would be best. --Danward 16:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article

But Wikipedia's Celtiberian articles are actually full of confusion about the Celtic languages that once were spoken by old Pre-Roman Hispanic people; they must not be merged one group with another. Comment was added by 193.147.142.6 (talk • contribs) .

Cumbric

Garik, what you've done is remove all mention of Cumbric from the article. Now there is just a link to it in the footnote without any explanation in the body. Enzedbrit 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. garik 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Enzedbrit 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags of modern Celtic nations

I really think the little flags spoilt the aesthetic balance of the opening section. I've therefore moved them down to the section that actually discusses the modern Celtic nations (oh, and I've alphabetised them). All the same, I remain less than convinced that they contribute much at all to the article. garik 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, they look quite nice there:) garik 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Galicia

why is Galicia not in the article? they perhaps are more celtic than the British islands, they speak galician there (gallic) their customs are celtic, they wear the kilts and play bagpipes, their dress is celtic (they even wear clogs) the spanish gov has recognized galician to be an official language of the region... why is there no mention of this?

Galicia does get a mention. It does not appear in the main list because Galician is a Romance language, not a celtic language. The article is a bit too biased towards Britain and Ireland though, so you probably have a point. Rhion 07:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would of thought that Gaego was celtic language but doesnt matter. i know that the galicians along with the britons in France - Brittany are the only regions on continental Europe that carry on their celtic traditions to this day. Galicia is not an exception. They certainly have celtic traditions. The history of the Galicians has distinctively got Celtic roots and has remained a homogenous society. Another question that should be raised is how did the celts get to the british islands?

I don't think that's really a difficult question! Assuming they arrived after Britain split from the continent, then my educated guess would be boats. garik 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

i mean from which country did they arrive from

Ah! That is an interesting question, although I suspect there's barely any evidence to answer it with - although the Channel does seem the easiest way, bearing in mind that there were certainly Celts in Gaul. I think the best way and most interesting way to frame the question is 'what route did the Celts take through Europe towards Britain?' 'Country' is rather an anachronism here. There may well be something of an answer if anyone cares to look for it? garik 09:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of place

According to Irish folklore, a Welshman travelled to Rome and became a Christian monk. He travelled 
back to the British Isles where he settled in Ireland and started converting the people. He kept the 
old Irish traditions, but replaced the worshipping of gods and other non-christian religious practices
with Christian elements. He started what was known as the Irish order of the Catholic Church.

This felt out of place where it was. In any case, isn't this St Patrick? garik 09:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What science has to say about the Celts.

In addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons (Celts) and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes into account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Now we have another Oxford study whose reference has been just published two days ago in which the origins of most Britons (Celts)seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought (really, who would have thought that they come from the Spanish!).

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.

See also this: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

It seems that here we have very interesting new information for the article.

Veritas et Severitas 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Gothic writer Jordanes mentions a similarity between the pre-Visigoth Spaniards and the Caledonians.

In Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British" a reanalysis has been made of publically available dna (from Weale and Capelli) as well as giving a potted history of Britain and Ireland. This suggests that, for the male line, Iberian derived haplotypes are dominant over Britain and Ireland, the percentage decining from west to east. Most of this is thought to occur before the arrival of Celtic language and culture, with little genetic input in the Iron Age (and what there is being mainly into England. There is genetic input on the east of England from Germany and Denmark, while there is input in the north of Scotland from Norway. The maternal side seems to have less input after the Mesolithic. This book seems to me to be more useful than Sykes, which I found dissappointing because of the lack of detail there being only anything useful in the last few pages. David horsey 11:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

it's not all that surprising that there would appear to be a genetic link between Iberia and the British Isles - see Celtiberians. Gabhala 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins and geographical distribution

The map showing the geographical distribution of Celts throughout history is inaccurate as it doesn't cover the Balkan peninsula. There are numerous archeological evidences proving that the Celts inhabitted most of the Balkans, Macedonian national instrument is the bag-pipe and, last but not least, one just have to look at the faces of (so called black) Irish and Welsh to make the connection with the current inhabitants of the Balkans. Momisan 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting and POV problems with Footnotes

OK, I think it's just a formatting problem, but the changesJakob37 made turned a whole section into a footnote. Jakob37, it also looks like the "reference" you were trying to put in is opinion, so isn't appropriate due to WP:NPOV. I'm sorry but unless you can source that I'm going to have to revert. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

move to Celts

It has long been common practice to make an exception to WP's 'singular rule' in articles on ethnic groups, thus Armenians, Germans, Greeks, Celtiberians, etc. etc. -- I therefore suggest that we move this article to Celts, too. The singular is just not as current, I keep thinking of gardening implements. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - you seem to be right and, if we were starting from scratch, I would agree but we are not. My only concern is the work involved in elimination all the redirects that would be created . What advantage is there in making the change? Abtract 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the redirects can by done by a bot, or with AWB. But there is proper way to open a requested move and this isn't it. The benefit is consistency of title and content: the article is about Celts, that's what it should be called. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I agree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The fixing of double-redirects is a bit of a pain, but part of the job. This comes of enforcing guidelines across the board, as if they were rules. --Wetman 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So, do people want a more formal request for a move, or shall we go with this small consensus and just do it? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

This section is mournfully weak and even misleading. The Celtic influence on the Christian faith is of immense importance because it saw the last great flourishing of Celtic culture and influence through the Irish church. The paragraph reads as though the Celtic christianity of non-Irish regions was of equivalent importance, when in fact it was not in the least. I would gladly rewrite this section to reflect both the crucial nature of christianity in the history of the Celts and their contribution to European history and learning. Opinions requested.Iamlondon 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to improve this article in any way, provided of course the edits are not just the personal ideas of an editor, can be verified and are written from a NPOV ... but of course you know all this. I look forward to reading your edits :) Abtract 11:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a modern Celtic nation

There are several threads above with a similar theme, mainly concerning whether or not Galatia ia a celtic nation. This has come to the fore again with a recent edit removing Galatia from the article. There are mentions above of a galatian language (celtic or not?). My point here is that we really ought to settle on a definition that we can use from now on and importantly this should be a definition that has been published elsewhere and/or the list of nations can be cited from elsewhere (this is why I include Galatia). This is a bit rambled but I'm sure you get my drift. Comments?Abtract 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A definition is defined. It has been long defined and is widely accepted: A Celtic nation is a nation that has a living Celtic language. Galicia (Galatia I believe is further east) does not have a living Celtic language. A Celtic language was spoken there - there seems to be plenty of proof for that, but it is no longer spoken. If Galicia makes it here as a Celtic nation, then several other nations, including England, are also modern Celtic nations. Galicia has bagpipes and tartan, but so has England. Galicia has placenames that may or may not be derived from a Celtic language; England has a larger proportion. There is scope for Galicia's Celtic identity to be mentioned, and it is mentioned on most Celtic-related Wikipedia sites. It is right to speak of the Celtic identity of Galicia, but the position in question is not appropriate. Enzedbrit 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ... but nowhere in your reply did you give a citation to support that definition (which may well be the common definition I am not arguing that it is wrong you undertstand). In the article as currently written are two citations to support the idea that Galatia is a Celtic nation; all I am suggesting is that, before it is removed, some effort ought to be made to find references to support that idea that there are only 6 such nations. An additional point would surely be to query Cornwall as a Celtic nation on the "living language" definition - surely a living language implies "mother tongue" speakers which is hardly the case in Cornwall. In all this we must be sure to include only what has been published elsewhere and not taint it with what we believe to be the truth :) Abtract 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article defines what being a Celtic nation must be, and there are several Celtic articles which mention it. You have added Galicia, but you're the first to do so when hundreds of others have not. Cornish is a living language and there are thousands of Cornish speakers. Nobody is denying that Galicia has a Celtic heritage, but to include it as a 7th Celtic nation is very arbitrary. Galicia is a Latin country in which a Celtic language was spoken and there are remains of a Celtic identity. I see too that someone had added Spain as a country identifiable with being Celtic. I think that this is really getting a bit out of hand. Enzedbrit 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I made a start by adding Celtic calendar to the "See also' section. A condensed version should be here in the Celtic culture section, with a "Main article, see Celtic calendar" header. --Wetman 06:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"The article defines ... " is sadly not enough; what is needed is citations to demonstrate that others in the real world are thinking this way. As to Cornish being a living language, IMHO this is not so in the sense of mother tongue speakers - the only people 'speaking' Cornish are those who have learned it from old writings and no recordings (I may be wrong on recordings but very limited if any). I love Cornwall and the Cornish but in no way is Cornish a living language. Abtract 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup on Religious Patterns

OK, there's some really bizarre stuff in that section, and while it was polite to ask for sources on it, none have been forthcoming and I'm pretty certain none will be. I'm going to be bold. My first few edits may remove far more than I replace, but I'll try to build it up more over the next few days. For now, at the very least the bizarre stuff needs to go. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

There's a solid discussion of the insular Celts, and a briefer mention of Iberian Celts in the article, but not much about other continental Celts, such as the Gauls. FilipeS 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that we could build up the Gaulish material in this article, and I'd like to see us commit to doing so in the near future, I'm not sure the entire article needs to be flagged as "unbalanced". ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article seems well written, I just felt it was incomplete. That's why I put the "unbalanced" flag... FilipeS 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced and "incomplete" in what way? What do you mean by "felt"? If you are unable to contribute to the article's balance yourself, could you direct us how to satisfy you? --Wetman 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. FilipeS 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rethought this, and replaced the template with a more appropriate one. Regards. FilipeS 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Galatia

Actualy the Celts were wide spread all over the world and had an empire of a sorts, yet be it a divided one into tribal groups, it never realy cemented because of internal troubles, they were also sea-going travelers who went far and wide, so in all respects everywhere was their homeland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kelt13 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that they were fairly widespread across Eurasia, but I'm not certain that anything I've ever read about them suggests we can call what they had an empire. Galatia was probably the one example of a settled Celtic state in the ancient world, but I don't think it had any of the defining features necessary to make it an empire either. garik 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Unionist Dogma

Why has no one called out the clear anti-Irish nationalist sentiment being posted here? The Unionists have wanted for decades to deny Irish/celtic identiy. This article is filled with fringe views that support their claim that the Irish are not really celtic. And yet the Irish are clearly celtic in that they spoke a celtic language and there are countless artifacts and other evidence of their celtic culture. The same is true for the pre-Germanic peoples of Britain. How did Germanic culture displace the celtic culture of Britain? Germans came there. Yet this article would have us believe that celtic culture arrived. . .without people. Please. I'm not going to delete anything but people who read this should know that this article is wildly inaccurate and puts forward a very narrow, partisan, even racist, point of view. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.37.61.2 (talk • contribs) .

It's usual to add new comments to the end btw. Erm, it's really not clear to me what parts of the article imply that the Irish are not really Celtic. I also don't see how the article implies that Celtic culture arrived without people either. I mean, the term 'Celtic' is a somewhat dodgy one inasmuch as it's very hard to know in what sense former peoples now known as Celtic had anything in common - apart from related languages. This is not to say that they didn't have anything in common, just that the evidence is sparse. I think the article makes a reasonably good job of showing this. Maybe that's what you take issue with? garik 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not racist this article, it is widespread thinking amongst the scientific community that the majority of Irish people and Britons descend from paleolithic and mesolithic hunter gatheres who arrived mainly from spain but also the ukraine and scandinavia.

The celtic language like english and all languages require very little population movement or replacement but merly a ruling elite to spread, most think the celtic languages arrived with the sread of farming from spain via the atlantic coast of france.

This may agree with one political partys claims to a certain extent but this is merely a coincidence however iriating it may be for u it is the truth . --Globe01 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Celts > Basques ?

Recent DNA studies in the UK by UCL have shown that most of the UK is Anglo Norse. The male Y Chromosome is invariably Germanic as per the Saxon people.

I find this perturbing as it confronts alot of interpretations. There is also now much talk that Celts looked and were very much like Basques from Southern France and Spain. Some are saying that the Basques are in fact the only true decendants of Iberian Celts. If one travels to the very very North part of Wales one can see this in some people, in fact a friend of mine from that part of Wales is very slightly dark skinned as says this of himself. He is adamant that his lineage is Celt and he is what a Celt should look like.

Does this demonstrate that the Saxons and Vikings were as ferocious as suspected? And that the whole of the UK was eventually affected by their legacy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WPCobbett (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a reference to the study? Most of these studies are pretty dodgy anyway, and often make somewhat unfounded assumptions. garik 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf

Very interesting and does look comprehensive. Does appear that the Anglo-Saxons were as ferocious as suspected.

Anyway I am just starting to look at maritime routes around Europe. Fascinating stuff in terms of the actual movement between places.

WPCobbett - 26 Jan 07 12.55

'"Celts" in Britain and Ireland' section has serious POV problems

The section referred to is basically a (principally single-author) personal socio-political rant, and relies upon a non-notable pundit as its principal source. I think the entire thing should be excised unless reliabilty can be better established. See also "POV Unionist Dogma" above for related concerns. This is an encyclopedia not an encyclical; WP editors need to leave their personal dogmatic bugbears in their closets. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And who would this "non-notable pundit" be? I see four separate authors cited. Many more could be: Oppenheimer for example. Nor do I see any "socio-political rant" at all. I can make neither head nor tail of your argument. Paul B 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Far from being single author this section cites Simon James, Miranda Green, Barry Cunliffe and Michael Morse ... which is four more than most sections in WP. It seems IMHO to be a reasonably well written summary of one academic school of thought, other sections contain other not necessarily identical thoughts, but that's what WP is all about. Provided the whole article has a NPOV, it is surely good that some sections show differing referenced POV to give a complete picture - that's what this section does. . Naturally I agree it would be better if all editors left "their personal dogmatic bugbears in their closets". I am going to remove the tags which I feel are unjustified. Abtract 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The non-notable pundit, obviously, is the redlink at the beginning of the section. This author is relied upon to establish the theme of the section, and the other authors are cited (in my belief, out of context; I know Green's work pretty well overall, and doubt strongly that she would agree with this section as a whole at all) very selectively to only support that viewpoint. Even accepting for the sake of argument that this "one academic school of thought" is accurately and wholly represented, we are still left with the problem that the other side of the argument isn't given the same treatment. If a NPOV tag won't be accepted (which is debatable; just because two editors disagree with me and one reverts the tag shortly after I add it does not mean consensus has been reached on the issue by any means), then a lack-of-balance tag is called for. The rant aspect is clear just from reading the section, which goes on at length in almost conspiracy theory tones about nationalist desire to forge a made-up common identity against the English, yadda yadda yadda. I am not the first to raise this concern (and for the record, I am not an Irish [or whatever] nationalist at all, being a Anglo-Scottish-Dutch-German-Moravian-Jewish-Cherokee-American of the umpteenth generation, so I have no particular axe to grind here. You may want to disagree with me, reasonedly, reflexively or somewhere between, but please listen to me, with "me" as a reader rather than editor. I came into this article as any other reader with no editorial intent and was just about bowled over by the barely-disguised vitriolic non-neutral point of view of that section! I shudder to think what truly random, outsider encyclopedia readers feel when they read that part. Revert all you like, but that doesn't make the problems go away. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

You know very well that Simon James is not non-notable in Wikipedia's sense. He's a Reader in archaeology at Leicester University, and his book has been widely reviewed and discussed. Calling him a "pundit" is very misleading, as it implies he's an unqualified journalist or political commentator rather than a scholar. The fact that no-one has created a Wikipedia page on him is irrelevant. That's true of many notable academics. They aren't all so vain that they create pages on themselves. Anyway, the relevant paragraph in the section gives his views, while others that partly concur, partly differ, are given below. I can't see anything "vitriolic" at all. The view that "Celtic" identity is, in part at least, a cultural construct dating from the eighteenth century is commonplace among historians. There's much to be said in favour of it, but good arguments can also be made for a degree of commonality in ancient Celtic-language cultures. It is difficult to see how such views can have any relevance to "Unionism" as the poster above claims. Paul B 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I'll concede on some of that <blush>. I retract the label of James as non-notable (it was a cheap shot, and you were right to call me on it; mea culpa) and a pundit (I'm not irritated at him, but at the text of this section which is the work or one or more Wikipedia editors, not James — presumptively; who's to say he's not a Wikipedian, after all?) Re: vanity: Thank goodness they don't create articles on themselves! Anyway, I'm not saying the section should not exist — in fact I think it's important that it do so — just that the current wording comes across (to some readers, anyway) as non-neutral, even excessively so (or I probably would not have bothered). If this were a minor article, like Rack (billiards), I'd just go fix it myself; but on a major article like this I prefer to hash things out on the talk page before wading in, to avoid strife. Again, I'm not the first to have my hackles raised by this section. Maybe you personally don't see the "Unionist" slant, but "oh well". You're hearing from at least two of us that we see it. Either we're loco, or there is such a slant, or the text is ambiguous enough that such a slant can be incidentally inferred (vs. intentionally implied) by multiple readers despite the intentions of the section. I think this should be taken as an indication that even if you personally can't find fault with the section some other people do, and absent any evidence that they are on drugs or delusional, a moderating edit that wouldn't substantively weaken the passage from your perspective would be a Good Thing. Different people see things from different perspectives. Again, I'm not an Irish (or Northumbrian, Gallician or whatever) Nationalist, but I was immediately struck by the Unionist tone of this section, and I not only had not read the Unionist-complaining talk post yet, I didn't even think of the word "Unionist" (I recognize it upon seeing it again, but it's not part of my general vocabulary; I frankly don't find any interest at all in "The Troubles", which are nothing but an ugly mess to me). Even so, my strong reaction was "wow, what a blatantly pro-UK point of view!" I'm not here to push a political perspective; as I said, I'm (for once) reacting almost purely as an encyclopedia reader/user. PS: I still stand by some other issues I raised, including the out-of-context targeted selectivity of the quotations to support the (possibly also o.o.c. and selective) summary of James's viewpoint. I have almost all of Green's books, and don't recall ever reading her suggest that the Brythonic and Goidelic Celts were not in fact Celtic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ever helpful, I've rephrased the title and the intro to avoid the pov impression of what in my opinion is an important and reasonable section. You could add to the list Lloyd and Laing, who make the point in their introduction that "There is not, and never has been, such a thing as a Celtic 'race', a Celtic 'nation' or a Celtic 'empire'. The nearest to group identity that Celts ever came was probably belonging to a particular tribe, clan or (in post-Roman centuries) kingdom." It's historically odd to be defining the peoples using a sixteenth century term based on a name for their neighbours who had a similar language, but it's embedded in modern language. As you observe, it has developed with all sorts of political and nationalist overtones. Which is why several authors have tried to clarify the original context. .. dave souza, talk 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that neither the Romans nor Brythons ever refered to a people called 'Celt'..?--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WPCobbett (talk • contribs) .

I think, with respect, that SMcCandlish may be missing the point. What I think this section of the article stresses is not that 'the Brythonic and Goidelic Celts were not in fact Celtic', but that the application of this term to them is modern. It certainly seems, as WPCobbett notes, that they didn't use the term of themselves. It's also very unclear that they even saw themselves as belonging to the same people. I mean, the only reason we call them Celts is because they spoke (and may speak) languages of a family we call Celtic. This in no way means that they weren't Celts — if you define Celt as 'speaker of a Celtic language' then most Brythons and Goidels were; but the modern concept of a Celtic people — encompassing speakers of many mutually unintelligible languages — most likely meant very little to them. It would also appear to go against contemporary Greek and Roman usage. I repeat, this doesn't mean we can't talk about the ancient Celts, provided we're clear what we mean by Celt. garik 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version looks good to me. I did understand the point of the section; my point was simply that its older wording made it easy to misinterpret it as having a sotto voce political slant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am interested only in what is known. Not what people try and overlay. What is known is that there were a mixture of tribes. I think that parts of Europe - especially around the Alps area where you have many dialects and languages in a comparatively small area is like what Europe was like. Post Roman Briton would have been the same. Why I am afraid it was so vulnerable to the types of genocide that Gildas talks of. It may irritate alot of us to think this happened, but we must confront it or lose any credibility, as I say because of what is known through writing. I believe that with short life spans and relatively slow mobility what we are talking about is a type of writing / art / language that even the Norse used to a degree. It was Europe of that time. When peoples of the East started to move in things changed. These people knew war on a scale and style most would not have encountered unless you had served on the Roman frontier. Even their slashing / hacking style hand weapons and small hand shields gives this away. WPCobbett 11.28 01 Feb 07

Romanization of Celts

According to the book A History of Europe by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, Roman effects on Celtic culture included the decline of Druids, appearence of images in worship (specifically those made of stone, as there is evidence that wooden images may have been used pre-Romanization), and assimilation between Roman and Celtic religions. For example hybrid gods such as Mars Loucetius begin to appear. Another example is the appearence of Jupiter columns. Which depict a god that is similar to the Germanic sky God Oden, but is given the name Jupiter.

I added something which had this information in the article, but it was deleted and I was wander if it was deleted because the book is inacurate, or for some other reason. If this information is correct then I would like for it to be added to the article. --75.18.12.164 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case please tell us the name and author of the book when you add the info. We can't tell whether it's accurate or not when we don't know which book it is. Now that you've told us, we can check for ourselves. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the cultural aspect, Lloyd and Laing's Art of the Celts states that there are three "traditions" in Celtic art: La Tène 5th century BC till Caesar conquered Gaul in the first century BC which drew on native, classical and oriental sources; a related regional tradition in Britain and Ireland from 5th or 4th century BC to Roman conquest around AD 43 or so; then in Ireland and to a lesser extent Britain between 5th and 12th centuries AD – "This art borrows heavily from Roman motifs and it is a debated point as to what extent it owes a debt to La Tène art at all." Apparently there was considerable Etruscan and later Roman influence, absorbed and modified. .. dave souza, talk 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So is the book right or not?--75.18.12.188 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Resolved

Noticing the American spelling of "Romanization", I wonder if this article shouldn't use British spelling since this article is about a European group of people. No big deal either way but it makes sense to me. Abtract 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, since the article has historically been written in UK English it should be done that way consistently according to the MoS. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved"; conforming edits already made. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another spelling issue: According to Greek mythology, Celtus was the son of Heracles and Keltine, the daughter of Bretannus.[1] Celtus became the primogenitor of Celts.[2] If this is according to Greek mythology, Heracles is Herakles (Heracles is a horrible transliteration) and Celtus is surely Keltus? Greek is delightfully unambiguous in its use of K and S for the two sounds commonly represented by C in English.82.46.44.139 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sense of self"

During and after the fall of the Roman Empire many parts of France threw out their Roman administrators and reverted to a Celtic sense of self.

Is there any source for this rather amusing statement, or is it just New Wave wishful thinking? FilipeS 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The rapid formation of "Leon" two kingdoms of the same name in France and Spain, the appearence of Dumnonee Kernev and Austurias. the whole Amorican peninsula, the slew of 7th century Amorican related French kings. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berengar_of_Rennes) the fact that gauls military tradition continued the worship of horsemen unadulterated far into the future. The Gallic Empire which splintered off from the Roman empire temporarily in need for self protection in 200 AD is a good example. Anyways feel free to ride the wave some time, its great being at the top, getting a downward view of things from a superior vantage point is a real benefit.

None of that sounds like very convincing evidence of a revival of some "Celtic sense of self", I'm afraid. FilipeS 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the indisputable fact that after the Romans withdrew from northwestern Spain, France and England many kingdoms of Brythonic and Gaelic speaking communities flourished in the aforementioned areas for many hundreds of years (Austurias, Gaelicia, Brittany) immediately, disproves any statement that you can make on this subject, of course you have yet to make any statement relevant to this subject or even disprove my statement. So far you seem quit content to bask in your own insolent vagueness most probably to fulfill a psychological inner need completely unrelated to Celtic history. If you would like to prove that Austurians, Gaelicians and the Brietch did not speak Celtic languages or revere similar mythological figures after the withdrawal of Rome and do not continue to do so to this day I’m very eager to hear of it. In a final note this post is not in any way a correction of my second post which still stands uncontested. Bloody Sacha, March 01 2007.

That's not even worth replying to. Clearly, you're short on facts. That's why you're resorting to insult. The Asturians, the Galicians, and other peoples who lived under the Roman Empire, with the exception of the Brythons, never went back to using Celtic languages after the Empire fell. Any return to some "Celtic sense of self" after that is just a romantic fantasy. Prove me wrong if you can... FilipeS 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that’s not quite how debate works, If someone makes a claim and you ask for evidence and remain unsatisfied when it is provided (in quite abundance I might add) it is not within your rights to continue demanding new evidence until you finally come to the correct conclusion. If you would like to prove that The Breitch don’t speak Breitch, that the Gaelic language did not influence Gaelego (Gaelic Gaelego disappeared around 1500) and that the Austurians didn’t speak a language native to Austuria during and after the fall of Rome then it now falls on you to provide evidence to your claims. Your post wasn’t worth replying too, clearly your short on facts, You need to resort to insult. ext. I believe were done here until you find it in your heart to find evidence for your claims which probably amounts to little more then unionist dogma. Prove me wrong if you can.... In a final note this post is not in any way a correction of my second or third posts, which still stand uncontested. Bloody Sacha, March 25 2007.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.156.140 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 March 2007

This page is not for debate, it's for improving the article. If the evidence provided "in quite abundance" is the link above, please read WP:A and WP:RS and note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You might also note that Berengar_of_Rennes appears to have been Breton, hence a descendant of the Brythonic emigration from Britain to the continent c. the late Roman era. See Snyder, Christopher A. (2003). The Britons. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22260-X. He also points out the lack of evidence of anything more than a tribal identity in pre-Roman times. So, consider your assertions contested. .. dave souza, talk 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

-The Gallic Empire would be the best example of a persisting Celtic culture that had thrown out roman officials.

-Vercingetorix’s ability to rally well over 100,000 Celts is also a great show of cultural unity that points to the natives having a far more elaborate social and cultural structure then that of simple tribes

-The Fact that Gaul was conquered with extensive use of Gaulic soldiers would speak against a snuffing out of the Celtic culture.

-the fact that the Romans had to design Gauls provinces in accordance to the local tribes that inhabit them, allowing many of them special status such as self government and even tax exemption and the equally undisputable fact that those provinces are relatively reflective of the modern states of France. (See galatia in turkey for similar celto-roman relations)

-The fact that Celtic Christianity took root and flourished in Gaul and the comparable failure of Latin installments in territory that was allegedly “Romanized” with inhabitants that only spoke “Vulgar Latin”

-The fact that Gauls are recognized as the ancestors of Franks as apposed to their supposed Germanic heritage (see Viollet-le-Duc or any French history text book, right on the inside of the cover)

Ill agree that my initial statement didn’t make use of direct references which may have caused confusion but there is more then enough evidence to state clearly that Celtic culture did not vanish into the night in Europe only to be rekindled on the corners of the continent by invaders. In the end attempts to associate new hypothesis regarding cultural influences that aren’t poisoned by 19th and 20th century psuedo sciences regarding “Germanic” or “Anglo Saxon” supremacy as just being “New Wave” is petty.

For the record arguments and debates are social phenomena that are achieved while working towards other goals such as reaching a conclusion that is mutually acceptable to all parties or improving the article. Unfortunately I don’t have a source for this statement so I assume it is immediately invalidated.

That aside I thank you for the time you’ve dedicated to this. Bloody Sacha, March 25 2007.

You do realise that Vercingetorix lived before the Roman conquest of Gaul... FilipeS 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that comment about vercingaterix was aimed at an individual who interjected with the remark "celtic culture was never anything more than a tribal identity in pre-Roman times." rather then anything to do about the fall of rome. reread this discussion from the beginning to get the context you've missed. With much love - Bloody Sacha 5/13/2007.

Interesting, then that he led the second major uprising against Caesar, while Caesar and his armies were busy in Britain. Could you clarify what you mean by before?

Vercingetorix did not live "during and after the fall of the Roman Empire". Not by a long shot. FilipeS 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, that's not quite the same as living before the conquest of Gaul (in 58-57 BC). He was executed by Caesar in 51 BC, almost eight years after the conquest of Gaul began. Second, unless I have missed something, I don't see anybody claiming that Vercingetorix lived "during and after the fall of the Roman Empire" - the only mention here of Vercingetorix is in relation to the size of the army he could raise from all the various tribes of Gaul. I believe the point was to illustrate that the Gauls, at least, were capable of putting aside minor feuds in the interest of the common good.(In fact, according to Barry Cunliffe in "The Celtic World" (ISBN 0-90-471640-4) pp 150-153, his reserve force at Alesia numbered almost 250,000 warriors). Gabhala 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To get back on topic, does Cunliffe have anything to say about the ideas in "During and after the fall of the Roman Empire many parts of France threw out their Roman administrators and reverted to a Celtic sense of self"? .. dave souza, talk 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still reading - the structure of that particular book is not chronological (or even geographical). If I find a reference to support the "Sense of Self" idea, I'll be sure to share. I think it is obvious, however that there never was a "Celtic Nation" - even the concept would have been alien to the Celtic social structure, and as such to try and "force" the concept as it stems from the Greek and Roman city-states onto a very different culture may be a fool's errand. According to the Lebor Gabála Érenn, though, common descent from a single ancestor seemed to be significant. Gabhala 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In the section of the book entitled "The Roman Footprint" (pp. 156-158), Cunliffe discusses briefly how deep the Roman influence went in Britain and Gaul. Obviously, I'm not going to quote the entire section here, but the suggestion is that while the tribal leaders generally embraced Romanisation, and that the Romans carefully preserved the existing Celtic social and economic structures and absorbed them into the administrative machine. He suggests that Latin was adopted for administrative purposes, and that Romanisation only occured to any significant extent in the urban and administrative centres. The Celtic language remained so widely spoken that in the third century it was officially recognised as a legally acceptable language for wills. Celtic words were borrowed into Latin (e.g. bracae = trousers). So, in this light, it would seem that rather than reverting to a sense of self, the Roman administrative layer became obsolete in Celtic society, and the Celtic identity was no longer covered with a Roman veneer. Gabhala 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gabhala, reread this discussion from the beginning to get the context you've missed. FilipeS 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Zosimus “advocate” of Byzantines treasury, the most contemporary historian in this period of time who was unaffiliated with any native churches records clearly in his Historia Nova that in the late 300s-410, the roman army or at least the roman army pertaining to Britain/northern Gaul rebelled twice and attempted to install an emperor and that during this time no new roman administrator of the army was appointed. He also states that in 408-409 bc the native Britons both repulsed a Saxon incursion AND threw out a roman trying to reestablish control in Britain and ALSO that after Britons actions Gaul and Amorica fallowed suit. While this may not be a "Celtic" rebellion in the style of Vercingatorix this is clearly the native ousting of Roman officials in Celtic territory that I alluded to in my first statement many months ago. As far as I’m concerned this case is closed and my statement is reasonable yet unprovable, more so then the conventional ideas (mythologies) reported by fanatical monks centuries later, (Gildas, Bede and a handful of other monks who’s occupation was to “copy existing work" and fill the gaps with improvisation.) Despite the unnecessary hostility in my earlier posts I do respect the amount of time people have spent into arguing against this point and if a historian of greater credentials/reliability then Zosimus has said something contradictory to the what he (Zosimus) recorded Id like to hear it. With much love - Bloody Sacha 5/13/2007.

When the empire was crumbling, and even before that, there were rebellions like those all across it. There was nothing specifically Celtic about them. See for instance Zenobia, Siege of Jerusalem (70). No one likes to live under a tyranny. You don't need a specific culture -- or even a common culture -- to rise up against an oppressor. Furthermore, army rebellions and temporary, transient territorial divisions were commonplace in the Roman Empire even in its heyday. That's how most emperors got to power. FilipeS 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So its your contention that the native Britons decided that no culture was better then Roman or Saxon culture, repulsed both parties and decided that all their friends and neighbors where just "we and "us" a non labeled collective of people who despite speaking the same Gallo-Latin suffered from acute cases of stand alone complex and then disappeared into the mists of time? I don’t think so. Really I keep uttering the magic words of failed rebellions in the Middle East that took place centuries earlier but it just doesn’t lend your theory any hard credence. Strange too that no ones recorded the obvious similarities between the forced departure of Briton and Gaul from the Roman Empire initiated by locals with the actions of a despotic queen in Syria or the roman conquest of Jerusalem. Perhaps you should consider penning such an article yourself! If you can find a contemporary of Zosimus who had such beliefs id very much like to learn about him - Bloody Sacha 5/13/2007.

You're not making much sense. FilipeS 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gabhala also cited a significant source stating clearly that the average Romano-Briton never actually lost their native Celtic language and thus by extension culture, this in turn supports my statement that Celtic culture thus buoyed back to the surface. (obvious when combined with how quickly the natives of Briton/Amorica/Gaul ejected Roman administrators and in Britons case a saxon incursion all of which recorded by Zosimus) Naturally you told him to "go away" rather then actually address his (Cunliffe’s) research cited in "The Roman Footprint." (pp. 156-158) You’ve essentially done the same to me. It’s become more then apparent that you have no intention of arguing your point revising your point or even making a point for that matter. So far the closest thing you’ve gotten to an actual statement against the topic sentence is in saying that it is “new wave,” “amusing” a “romantic fantasy” or compared it to impossibly unrelated events that occurred in a completely different time and place.

”1: The Victor When your opponent is no longer capable of making any progress in the argument without breaking the rules of engagement, ai: “a: Appealing to Ignorance” “b: Popularity Fallacies” “c: Fallacy of Self-proclaimed Expertise” “d: False Facts (aka Lies)” it is time to stand victoriously, and tell them that they have lost the debate. Don’t rub their faces in it like a bully on a playground, but just nudge them off to consider the logical beating that they have just experienced. They may want to try and continue the argument, like the broken, beaten, and sickly chess club member, waving his fist at the disinterested linebacker and yelling “Is that all you’ve got???” Pay them no mind.”

You have lost the debate. Goodbye. –Bloody Sacha 5/15/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.156.140 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Let's return to the main point, and let's please discuss this like adults. I think the real issue is that the expression "Celtic sense of self" is rather a nebulous one, and needs to be defined quite precisely. Now, it may well be that there was a return to a Celtic sense of self (whatever is meant by that), and that the worship of horsemen is evidence of that (though a reliable source would have to be provided). However, there's another issue: even if the evidence suggests a "return to a Celtic sense of self", to say so without providing a citation for that very inference is still original research. An analogy: I could provide a source stating that about 20% of the population of Wales speak Welsh. However, to state without a further source that at least 20% of the Welsh population would like to see Welsh more widely spoken would be original research. The inference is almost certainly correct, but it remains an unsupported inference until a citation can be found for it. garik 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

British or Brython?

Argument rages in the academic world as to whether the population of Celts in England were largely displaced or merely absorbed by invading Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) in the 4th - 6th centuries. Many historians now argue that the Germanic migration was smaller than previously believed or may have consisted merely of a social elite, with the genocide more cultural rather than physical due to such relatively few numbers of Anglo-Saxons mixing with the larger native population. A recent DNA study on Y-chromosome inheritance has suggested that the population of England maintains a predominantly ancient British element. The general indigenous population of Yorkshire, East Anglia and the Orkney and Shetland Islands are those populations with the very least traces of ancient British paternal continuation. Ironically, it may be Viking genetic influence and not Anglo-Saxon which has had a more profound impact on paternal British bloodlines, or it could very well have been a combination of both groups.

Shouldn't this paragraph be rewritten with Brython instead of British? FilipeS 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The term Brython was coined as an alternative to "ancient Briton" to avoid confusion: I've tried to make the paragraph clearer, and to fit the Brythonic kingdoms in SE Scotland who were conquered by Angles, as well as allowing for the Cumbric kingdoms who retained their language until 11th century absorption into Scotland, with part of the territory later becoming NW England. ... dave souza, talk 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! :-) FilipeS 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

I have come up we this - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (1008 members).

http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?uid=&letter=&lastname=Belgae&viewuid=AX6GA&p=0

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

Investigating the contribution that archaeology has made to accounts of human evolution

Accounts of human evolution usually revolve around well-publicised discoveries of the bony remains of our ancestors. These do allow us to piece together our family tree and to paint - at least in broad outline - a picture of the ancestors who appear on that tree. But it is the archaeological record that preserves actual traces of our ancestors' activities and intuition suggests that these ought to be fundamental to our accounts of human evolution. However, this is far from being the case and this project is designed to explore why this is so.

Masters Thesis

I would like to enroll into the Masters Thesis Research Degree

This is a link to my Research:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

I could also research to what degree of social assimilation occurred between native European groups of people throughout the history of Australia - through dna?

The focus of the project is to gather a representation of evidence and interest in Native Scandinavians and Native Celtic-Iberians found in ‘all’ parts of Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.247.252 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

For all the will in the world I am trying to understand why you would want to do such a project? What has it got to do with Celtic studies that pre date Roman times? Studies which are difficult enough in the clouds of history?

Athenaeus on Celtic pederasty

Why is this pedophiliac agenda being brought in here?

This constant repetition of the claim that the Celts practiced ritual pederasty is disingenous. One or two claims by Greeks are a long way from being proof. Many Greek and Roman observers have been proven wrong about many assertions made about the Celts, in several cases it's quite apparent that they were attempting to slander them. There is no proof of ritual pederasty, the persistant inclusion here seems to be part of an agenda, and very POV.

Drifter bob 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is disingenuous is your evident desire to suppress this information, presumably because it offends you in some way. It's not a "slander", since ancient Mediterranean cultures were known to practice pederasty. It's just a note to a source concerning sexual mores, about which we have little information, but if you have more add it. Paul B 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of historical evidence that it could be literally a slander. Regardless of the fact thast pederasty was practiced it was often criticised, Julius Caesar was mocked by political enemies for example early in his career for his alleged "age differentiated" homosexual relationship with Nicomedes IV of Bithynia. Tiberius was widely reviled for his extreme practices of pederasty at his retreat on Capri, rumors of these activities seriously undermined his popularity. I also don't have to point out that many greek writers were critical of the practice. So while an accepted practice, certainly, in Greek and particularly Roman culture, it was clearly still looked upon as a moral lapse by some, and there is documented proof of accusations of this activity being used to slander individuals and groups for political purposes. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that if the Romans told stories that the Celts flew to war on the backs of winged ponies, this would be worth adding, mainly because outsiders' views of the Celts are interesting in themselves. When Caesar was assassinated, stories were put about that the tombs of Rome opened and the dead walked the streets. I strongly believe this to be false, but that's no reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. garik 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To continue your analogy, I would not object to this quote of walking dead from a primary source, but if it was followed by a claim that zombies were commonplace in many parts of the world at this time, I would find that a bit odd. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with putting in the quote, what I have a problem with is the extensive interpretation of it, and the claim about so called "age structured homosexuality" being a common practice throughout Celtic cultures on the basis of this one piece of evidence. Drifter bob 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But is such a claim being made? The article notes that "age-structured homosexuality" was a common practice in pre-Christian European cultures. This is not the same as saying common throughout Celtic cultures — they could easily be an exception (although they also may not be). I agree that this claim does need a separate source. Is it based solely on evidence of Greek and Roman practice? In fact, the whole section needs to be far better sourced: including your point about attitudes towards women. Accurate or not, we can't include original research here. garik 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Garick where is the proof of this? Try and start discussions here that have something behind them.... WPCobbett 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you all the claims need to be sourced including mine, I anticipated that. Good sources (including primary sources) do exist for all these points, I encountered them during other research projects I have worked on, but it will take me a little while to dig them up. Please bear with me for a short period and I will document this fully. Drifter bob 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Celtic pederasty

One quote from one outsider from a culture hostile to the celts (Greek) does not qualify as proof of the alleged "historical" nature of Celtic pederasty. In all the volumes of celtic mythology which survive, there are no references to this practice, unlike the reams of evidence from Greece, Rome, or among the Samurai of Japan for example. You are entitled to your opinions, beliefs, and political agendas, but please don't put your beliefs into an historical article as if they were facts. It is a fact that Athenaeus made the comment that he made, it is not by any means a fact that this means his comment was accurate or that this was the reality among the Celts. Until you have proof quit putting this on the page.

Drifter bob 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the new reorganization of this topic under it's own header and the addition of a balancing point of view will not be objected to. It's fine to include the Atheneaus quote but what is stated after it is no more than a point of view, one which should be balanced. And it has very little to do with Celtic family life.

Drifter bob 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Role of women in celtic culture and the implication on Pederasty

Most cultures with a documented history of widespread socially sanctioned pederasty are the same cultures in which women are made second class citizens and whose sexuality is tightly controlled.

There are NUMEROUS anecdotes of the sexual freedom of Celtic women and we know from Brehon law and other sources that Celtic women were allowed to divorce their husbands for among other things, bad sex. The same rules existed in Norse society during the Viking era, and play a role in some of the Icelandic sagas.

Cultures with documented histories of widespread socially santioned pederasty include references to the practice in their literature and art. Nothing of this sort actually exists in surviving Celtic songs, stories, art, or law.

Drifter bob 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether he was correct or not — it would be reasonable to mention Alfred the Great burning the cakes in Wikipedia, even though that's no more than a legend. This is an interesting quotation, which reflects contemporary claims by outsiders. It should be kept in the article, albeit with a caveat that this is an outsider's claim. On the other hand, I think more could almost certainly be said on Celtic family structure. If you have good sources for other information, please add it. garik 09:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not the quote that is the problem, it is the way it is interpreted. Herodotus claimed that ants the size of dogs could be found digging gold in India. Following this quote with a claim that this was how the Greeks or Persians mined their gold would be a bit of a stretch. Drifter bob 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a stretch, but I'm not convinced that the article did go on to state that Celts were therefore into pederasty. All it did was give the quote and then try to put it in context: 1) It's just an outsider's view 2) If it is true, the Celts weren't all that unusual in this regard 3)there is some very faint evidence of homosexual-like relationships in Celtic literature. They all need better sources, that's for sure, and I have nothing against your most recent edit — the move to a new section seems quite right. But having read that paragraph before your edit, all I took away from it was that some Roman guy had claimed that pederastic behaviour was common among the Celts, and that whether or not this was true, such behaviour was not uncommon in Pre-Christian Europe generally. That's all.

Oh, and let's keep this discussion here at the bottom of the page from now on. This will make the discussion rather more straightforward, I feel. garik 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As the passage was originally phrased, I think undue weight and original research went into the extrapolations reached. Looking back through the article history it was relatively more neutral in tone, but I think that the conclusions in the last version were cherry-picked and given disproportionate coverage. The same disproportionate coverage could be given to archaeological sources which state male-homosexuals were killed in bogs by the ancient Celts, or modern moral concepts could be emphasized concerning the ancient Celtic concept of chattel property and slavery to skew the facts in an equally undue manner. - WeniWidiWiki 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was all that much skewing, but there's certainly more than a hint of original research. We really need a few citations for claims for and against Athanaeus's point. Anyway, I've reorganised the paragraph and reworded some bits. Drifter Bob (or anyone else), if you have sources to hand on the freedom of Celtic women — and, most importantly, the issue of pederasty being correlated with poor treatment of women — that would be great. garik 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was intentionally skewed, just that through the process of editing "age-structured homosexuality" seemed to have been given undue weight, and zero information about family compounds it. - WeniWidiWiki 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I feel. Give me a little time and i will document the points I added to the article. I agree they need to be sourced. Drifter bob 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And if anyone has any sources for close warrior relationships being interpreted as homosexual, that would also be good. And yes, WeniWidiWiki, I'd forgotten about the "Little is known about family structure" sentence. If this is all we say about family structure, then there clearly is a balance problem, you're quite right. garik 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated from my talk page: I agree that the paragraph as it stood yesterday definitely placed undue weight on theories of homosexuality among the Celts. While I don't want the theories deleted, the section must be expanded to be fair. While there are other tales about homosexuality among the Celts (a Middle Irish story about a lesbian relationship, for instance, which is treated as neither unusual or shameful in the text; I'll dig it up if we want it), I think then, just as now, that those who identified as exclusively homosexual were definitely in the minority and this should be reflected in the article.

I am a bit confused about what time frame we're covering with this article. If we're just focusing on the Gauls, which some editors seem to have done, the statement that we have limited knowledge of Celtic family life is sort of true. But if we're including a later time period, there's a very significant amount known about early Irish family life. We can look to the Brehon laws, for instance. It is true that, in comparison to other patriarchal cultures of the time, women had a better lot in Ireland than in most other places; but life wasn't great for them. It's a brutal book, and I don't agree with everything in it, by any means, but Lisa Bitel's Land of Women is a pretty intense examination of Irish women's situation historically. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, am I the only one who thinks an entire section with the header "Celtic Pederasty" is a bit much? A brief mention of one quote, and the context that it was common in European cultures is one thing. But a whole section? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Celtic sexual practices

I agree with Kathryn, and since the section mentions more than pederasty, have boldly changed the title as above. The classical writers gave many dubious anecdotes about the subject: Cuncliffe's Voyage of Pytheas p 106 - 107 mentions Strabo describing the Irish as "more savage than the Britons, since they are man-eaters, and since they count it an honourable thing when their fathers die to devour them, and openly to have intercourse not only with other women, but with their mothers and sisters as well. I say this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it.", and Julius Caesar saying that "Wives, are shared between groups of ten or twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons." Cuncliffe notes that none of this can be taken on face value, and points to the dangers of constructing social systems from such potentially biased anecdotes, but suggests it seems that the rules of sexual bonding may have been more complex in Britain than in Mediterranean societies. See Pytheas for the book reference if you want to refer to these quotes. ... dave souza, talk 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed those parts of the section which are nor relevant (about other cultures), uncited (much of it) and OR ... leaving just the two relevant quotes. We should build on this foundation with properly referenced additions. Abtract 10:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's well worth including the Strabo and Caesar quotes: we can start the section with what other people said (and here, a quotation by Cuncliffe, pointing out the danger of all this, would be excellent) and go on to what we can gleam from the Celts' own literature and law. For the first, it would be great, Kathryn, if you could dig out that lesbian story. With regard to law, we should mention Hywel Dda's law: the treatment of women was similarly less unenlightened in our eyes than, say, Saxon law. garik 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We should also be careful of talking about 'the Celts' as some homogeneous mass and, apart from when we cite Classical authors (who distinguish between Celts and Britons, but not within these two masses), we should be careful that we don't assume what's true of the Irish to be true of the Galatians. garik 10:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Current status of this section

I am not satisfied with the current status of this section. The Athaneus quote stands alone unchallenged as if it were the consensus of the general Celtic approach toward sexuality. I don't understand why the counter-argument was removed, I was in the process of sourcing every point I made in there and had in fact sourced two of the three already (including the quote by the Celtic woman about sexuality which has been included).

If the rule here is apparently that the only thing which will be allowed in this section are direct quotes I'll go and find some quotes to balance this point of view, some exist displaying an anti-homosexuality bias among the Celts. I didn't particularly want to "go there" but I think this issue about Pederasty is still a distortion and has to be balanced. I agree the lesbian story should also be included. If we are going to have this Athaneus quote about 'boys' (is that a direct quote by the way, or an interpretation?) then we should present a balanced view of the evidence as to Celtic sexual practices. I also agree that it is quite a stretch to assume a monolithic norm from say, Bronze Age Bohemia to late Iron age Spain. Any known regional variations here should also be discussed.

Meanwhile the paragraph on Celtic Family life remains empty. I think per Kathryn that something about Brehon law should be included in the section on family at the very least.

I would also like to include the famous quote about the Celtic woman who was raped by a Roman centurian and had the man killed and remarked on the incident to her husband as they contemplated the mans severed head (I'll have to go find the quote); as this is illustrative of the different attitude toward women between the Romans (and other contemporary Mediterranian cultures) and the Celts.

Drifter bob 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. If you have sourced items to add, please put them in. I think Abtract was probably right to remove the original research and uncited claims, but I don't think anybody should be happy with the section as it stands — we need lots more stuff, just not original research. I think if anyone has something good to add — with sources — they should just go ahead and add it. garik 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything I wrote could be construed as 'original research'.

Before I changed it the section was blatantly part of an agenda; at the very least it had almost nothing to do with "celtic family life."

However, some interpretation or summary of the facts is needed and that does not mean it's 'original research', indeed this is always part of any Wikipedia entry, otherwise the entire page would be nothing but quotes with no context or explanation, and I don't think that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. A very contraversial assertion was made, which was never questioned or removed, and I added a balancing interpretation with facts. I asked for a day or two to get the sources in there, and I had already entered two out of three requested source references when everything I had written was summarily removed (with no explanation in this Talk section). For example it is a well known and oft discussed fact that no Celtic (Irish, Breton, Welsh, Scottish etc.) sources ever mention Pederasty or even homosexuality. Why should that be removed? Funny how the original highly subjective analysis insinuating that Pederasty was commonplace was allowed to stand as unchallenged until this point. Apparently this is a very important issue to some people, this sub-seciton will remain continuously under an immense amount of pressure and no consensus will be possible on anything even remotely subject to interpretation. So the only thing which can stand are quotes from primary sources which are by nature unquestionable if only in the sense they do in fact exist (and one would assume, hard archeological data for the same reason). I will accomodate this since it is necessary to prevent a gross distortion for a specific political / social agenda. Drifter bob 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, when I say 'original research and uncited claims' I'm not making much of a distinction: it can be distressingly easy to find a source that says precisely what you thought was original. You may well not have included any original research; either way, claims need backup. Now, I know a lot of articles get away with a lot of uncited stuff, which isn't at all good. But it is especially important when an issue is controversial, like this one. And I also agree that original research was allowed to stand for a long time before you made edits. That's not good either, and it should have been removed sooner. But I'm afraid that 'well known and oft discussed' is not a good enough criterion for inclusion. I had a discussion with someone else on Wikipedia about whether Sean Connery being Scottish would require a citation. I was being naive in thinking it wouldn't. It certainly would. I agree that interpretation is a good thing too — we could probably have kept the point "This represents an outsider's view". Maybe Abtract was a little over-zealous in removing that line, but I'm sure you can see his point in general. Some interpretation can overstep the mark. With regard to the point about pederasty being commonplace: I honestly think this was only ever intended to refer to Roman and Greek Europe — and no doubt whoever put it in considered Classical pederasty in Rome and Athens to be well known and oft discussed. But it certainly needed backing up with a citation too. And besides, "no original research" does not mean you can only include direct quotes — it just means you need sources to back up what you do say. Just because stuff's been removed doesn't mean it can't be put back in when sources have been found. If we had good enough references, we could probably put back every line that Abtract removed. Ideally, of course, we'd do something even better. garik 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) modified by garik 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More on DNA

Those interested in the DNA aspects might be interested in this:

http://www.ingenious.org.uk/Read/Identity/Ancestorsanddescendents/Tofindanancestor/ --Pandaplodder 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont understand this - so she has the DNA of a human being - so what?

move to Celts (again)

I suggested a move to Celts in December (see above; most of our ethnic group articles are at the plural form), and there was some agreement. Then I forgot about it. If nobody objects, I'll do the move now. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proto-celtic males take proto-germanic females as wives?

I was wanting to ask if any geneticist, archeologists, or historians has ever thought that the reason why the mtDNA of basque people and the mtDNA of celtic people are so different is because proto-celtic males took proto-germanic women as wives? I was also wondering if any linguists have ever hypothesized that the reason why the basque speak a non-indoeuropean language and the celtic people do is because the proto-germanic women who coupled with proto-celtic males taught their kids the proto-germanic language and therefore the celtic languages are offshoots of the proto-germanic language? In Brian Sykes book "The Blood of the Isles" it is said that a few males on the British Isles have a very ancient germanic Y-chromosome that was probably on the british isles before the celts arrived. Also basque people look way more dark complected than most of the people of ireland do, so it might be that proto-celtic males who took proto-germanic women as wives and had lighter complected kids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.200.113 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Tired of liars and manipulators

User The Ogre is erasing Spain and adding Portugal as an area of 90% R1b. He is a liar and manipulator, because he knows that 90% is only seen in the Basque country in Spain, nowhere in Portugal. Look at the values for Spain and Portugal and other places in this article [1]. I urge him to provide a single study that says 90% or even close to it in Portugal. In fact Portugal has the lowest values in the Iberian Peninsula as you can see. But this is my last word here. I am tired of liars and manipulators. Wiki stinks with all these people around. 65.11.114.84 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you will not be able to escape liars and manipulators by leaving the Wikipedia. Real life is full of them too. It's just easier to miss them because they don't leave a permanent record of their every move in real life as they are forced to do on the Wiki. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, 65.11.114.84, and as a follow up to our "discussions" regarding the map of the Spanish Empire... Let me tell you again that it is quite annoying, to say the least, to have to discuss these or any other subjects with someone who prefers to stay anonymous and uses several different IP adresses. If you have something to contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis why don't you register as a permanent user? Secondely, you are not assuming my good faith. If you check my contributions and profile you may be able to see the serious and open minded attitude I have regarding any subject, you may also note that I am a member of WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Spain. I have no nationalistic agenda of any sort, and am, in fact, quite opposed to such agendas. Contrary to you, I do not wish to attack you personally, by calling you a liar, manipulator or a nationalistic something (even if your insistance, contrary to well known and established facts, in saying that the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire between 1580-1640 is quite suspicious to me...) - Please! No personal attacks! If you want to discuss something, let us do it in a civilised and calm manner. Regarding the present issue of the percentages of R1B, I am, by no means, an expert or even someone with more than a superficial knowledge on these subjects. I reverted your edits because I am generally suspicious of anonymous unregistered users who seem to be forcing an agenda on several articles and basically delete information that has been in those articles for some time, without anyone disputing it. Now, regarding the statemente that "Haplotype R1b exceeds 90% of Y-chromosomes in parts of Wales, Ireland and Spain. [2] [3] [4]", I believe that the links presented do not prove any such things for those countries (and in wich "parts" of those countries?). Futhermore, the samples are quite small and non-representative of overall populations (and believe me, if you will, I do know population sampling and statistics!). What I do know is that R1b is of Iberian origin and represents the majority of Iberian populations' Y lineages, in any part of Iberia, with a concentration in the areas of the Basque country. My edit did not intend to erase Spain from that polemic statement of the 90% - I must admit I reversed because you had deleted Portugal, I did not notice that Spain disapeared from the version I saved... I admit my fault! So, my friend, calm down. And do not treat others as villains until they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are so. Thank you. The Ogre 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

65.11.114.84, you even called me a liar in my talk page! Is that a proper way to behave? The Ogre 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

The green area suggests a possible extent of (proto-)Celtic influence around 1000 BC. The yellow area shows the region of birth of the La Tène style. The orange area indicates an idea of the possible region of Celtic influence around 400 BC. Is it not pink orange and green.

Ethnic Confusion

Few "races" of people have been as confused or unspecific as that of the Celts. If look at the descriptions of the Celts from the Greek or Roman accounts (people who, by the way, have fought the "historical" Celts and therefore should know), we see very Indo - European features. They typically ascribe the Celts as being a blond race, tall and pale; probably not so different than the Germanic or Norse peoples. This interpretation of the Celtic peoples differs greatly from recent (by comparison) English ascription; who describe the Celts as being shorter darker and decidedly Iberian. Interestingly, these authors describe the Irish, Welsh and Scottish as being Celtic, and many of these aforementioned peoples don't fit the description they claimed for the Celts. What's more, the Irish, Welsh and Scottish are on average, fairly different in appearance from the Spanish/Iberians. This may be a result of the sort of Anglo Saxon mystique that had a hold on England for so long, and many English writers may have made these assumptions to differentiate themselves from the other British peoples. This would make their claim of Anglo Saxon descent all the more believable. Belorix 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Celts in Britain

Many people have claimed that the Celts were never in Britain due to the fact that Julius Caesar never called the Britons Celts. This argument is severely flawed though as Caesar clearly calls the Britons relatives to the Gauls in many cases in his "Gallic Wars". For instance Caesar attributes his reason for invading Britain to "punishing" them for aiding their Gallic relatives. It should also be noted that the very word "Celt" was only often used to denote the Celtae tribe in Gaul, and many Romans rarely referred to any other "Barbarians" as "Celts". Nonetheless, most Roman and Greek writers agreed that the tribes of Gaul and Britain were all interrelated. Belorix 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Only in your natiolistic fanatasies. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks ever thought people in the British isles were "Celts". All europeans, nay all huamsn, are "interrelated", so that's a non-starter.

First off, you might wanna sign your name. Second off, I am not British. Third off, I can't even read your statement about "huamsn", learn how to type. Forth off, I gave you the very source - or have you even read Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars? The archaeology and historical remains support my claim. Furthermore, any more personal attacks will result in your expellation from this page; which would do us all a blessing. --Belorix 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Haplogroup Controversy

Ever since the "Celtic" peoples of western Europe were scanned for the Haplogroup "R1b", there has been raging debate as to who exactly the Celts were. First off, I must stress that it is dangerous to claim the haplogroup evidence as definitive, as haplogroups only account for one part of the human genome. What's more, it should be stressed that the people being scanned are, in fact, part of or descendant from the Celts. For instance, many of the British who exhibit this gene aren't alone, the Basque people of Spain and France have this gene in excess. So if this gene is a definitive marker, the Basques and the British should be almost identical in appearance; and they aren't. Perhaps a better and safer bet should be invested in the occurrence of a dysfunctional MC1R receptor, which is deeply associated with pale skin and red hair; both of which have historically been attributed to the Celts by the Romans and Greeks themselves. An alternative could be the concept that the true Celts of history were people with the haplogroup R1b gene and a dysfunctional MC1R receptor. --Belorix 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported statements

There are many completely unsupported statements begging for citations which greatly diminish the value of this article; I have removed a few of them under German migration (and I changed the title) to spark some sort of response ... Let's remove them or support them. Abtract 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd support just mercilessly removing the vast majority of these unsupported statements – sadly, this subject, in particular, attracts a depressing amount of rubbish. garik 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Mercilessly removing most of the garbage on this page that is neither nonhistorical, or based on opinion would simply be beneficial. Belorix 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence

The content of this section has little to do with archaeology. It would be better entitled "Introduction" or somesuch. A separate section on the relation between the celtic language areas and the Halstadd and La Tene (etc) culture areas should be included, with reasons for associating them.

Another laughing stock of wikipdia thanks to British Editors

This entire wiki is trash. There was no Celtic migration to the British isles, only a few artifacts that found their way by just being near the celts. It's unbelievable this 19th century bigoted nationalistic bullcrap is an article at wikipedia, but nothing surprises me in this hellhole. -- someone anonymous who forgot to sign the comment with ~~~~

I've not seen ANY British nationalism on this page whatsoever. For the record; British nationalism emphasizes the Anglo Saxon, NOT the Celt. In fact, as far as British nationalism goes; the Celts were subserviant losers to first the Roman and then the Saxon. As far as your idea of NO Celtic migration to the Isles goes, then tell me why there are both Halstatt and La Tene burials in Britain - many of which directly correspond with those in known Celtic areas. Also, tell me why the Romans (who were there - and therefore should know- not you) record many of the tribes in Britain with the EXACT same names as those in Gaul. This Wiki is a bad page, but people like you make it far worse.--Belorix 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

my stuff (May 23)

I have made quite a few changes to try and make this article easier to follow and added a new section on "other regions" (mostly from "The Celtic Empire" by Peter Beresford Ellis) as it seemed to me that it needed a wider view of the pan-European Celtic story.

I have also reorganised a bit so please view my edits together. Jameswilson 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Celtic Astronomy Section

Sorry, I got logged off when I did this.

I removed the Celtic Astronomy section, because the content is outdated. The Celts are no longer thought to have existed as a people from the Stone Age to the Roman period, but to be a specific group of people existing not much further back than their first literary mention as the "Keltoi" around 500 BC, therefore the idea of Stonehenge being built by the druids has been dismissed. I've copied the section below for anyone to check, or possibly to move to another page?: (Note the date of when the book was written, 1877.)

"Celtic astronomy Over 4,000 years ago, large monuments were erected worldwide, most notably the Great Pyramid of Giza, Rujm el-Hiri and Stonehenge. The latter was built by one or more Celtic societies at least 5,500 years ago. Its dual role, as a calendar and as a site of religious ceremonies, reflects how the Celts comingled astronomy and religion. Their knowledge of astronomy was relatively advanced since they had adopted a Copernican view of the Solar System 3,000 years before Christ. Although (at first) the Celts were not centered on farming, thus requiring little astronomical observation, they projected their firm belief in the after-life into space. The Moon was considered holy because souls wondered there; the Milky Way was a town filled with free souls; Cassiopeia was the domain of fairies. "

Dragonhelmuk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)